CHE849

Hydrocyclone as a Classifier
Mr.
Nattapol
Ukkarachaneeyakorn B.Eng. ( Chemical Engineering )
A Special Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Master of Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi
1998
Special Research Project Committee
. &i . .@i . . . . . . .
. . . . . k. .&hpi
( Asst. Prof. Dr. Apichai
Chairman
Therdthianwong)
&&
.
. . . !f+@./. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .y7?7&./
Co-Chairman
( Asst. Prof. Dr. Supaporn Therdthianwong )
.M
. . . . . . . . . &L . . . . . .
( Assoc. Prof. Dr. Chaiyot Tansathikulchai)
ISBN 974-624-47>2
Copyright Reserved
Member
ii
Special Research Project Title
Hydrocyclone as a Classifier
Special Research Project Credits
Candidate
Mr. Nattapol Ukkarachaneeyakorn
Supervisor
Asst. Prof. Dr. Apichai Therdthainwong
Degree of Study
Master of Engineering
Department
Chemical
Academic Year
1998
Engineering
Abstract
The objectives of this thesis consist of studying the effect of both design
and operating parameters; apex diameter, vortex finder diameter and length of
hydrocyclone and pressure drop, to the classification performance. The empirical
models for cut size diameter and sharpness index were also developed, consequently
the appropriate geometries that give the best classification performance was
obtained. In this work, the hydrocyclones with 10 cm diameter (calculated from
Rietimas model) were tested. The experimental plan based on 24 full factorial
design with 2 levels of factor for each parameter. Multiple linear regression
technique was used to obtain the empirical models. All coefficients included in the
models were tested for the significance by applying t-test method. Finally, the
appropriate geometry of hydrocyclone for the best classification performance was
determined by the optimization tool.
...
111
From the results, increasing the pressure drop and the apex diameter
whereas reducing the vortex finder diameter cause the decreasing of the cut size
diameter (dsO). The most influenced parameter on the cut size diameter is the apex
diameter. The model for the cut size diameter is
dsO = 17.583 - 4.049X1 + 1.287X2 - 0.802X4 + 0. 149X1X2

- 0.424X1X3 + 0.386X,X4
-0.761X2X3 + 1.469X2X/,
+ 0.276X3X4 + 1 .469X,X2X4
+ 0.523XiXsX~
-0.276X2X3X4.
For the result of sharpness index, reducing the apex diameter and
increasing the vortex finder diameter can increase the sharpness index. The most
important parameter to the sharpness index is still the apex diameter. The model for
the sharpness index is
I = 0.538 - 0.034X, + 0.056X2.
From the optimization results, the appropriate geometries, the apex

diameter, the vortex finder diameter and the hydrocyclone length, of the classifying
hydrocyclone, are O.O4D,, 0.2D, and 3Dc, respectively.
Keywords :
Classification / Sharpness Index / Factorial Design / Hydrocyclone

/ Cut Size Diameter
iv
dso = 17.583 -4.049X1 + 1.287X2-0.802X4 + 0.149X,X2

- 0.424X,X3
+ 0.386X,X4
- 0.761X2X3 + 1 .469X2X4
+ 0.276X3X4 + 1 .469X,X2Xll
I = 0.538 - 0.034X1 + 0.056X2.
+ 0.523X,X3X4
-0.276X2X3X4.
vi
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Assistant Professor Dr. Apichai

Therdthianwong, who is the project advisor, for his valuable advices and assistants
on experimental planning and design, for numerous suggestions during the
development of this work. Special thanks are given to Assistant Professor Dr.
Tipaporn
Yoovidhaya, Head of Food Engineering Department, Dr. Sailom
Samphanvejsobha and Khun Tis Ayetang. Without help from these individuals at the
Food Engineering Department in providing materials, supplement apparatus and
suggestions, the author would have gone through a much more difficulty. Great
thanks are given to Ajarn Laead Pengsopa who helped the author in analyzing for
many samples of particle size and allowed the author to use her laboratory room.
Unforgettable thanks to Khun Suthida Numsuwat who helped the author in collecting
the experimental data.
The author truly appreciates the suggestions from Dr. Supaporn

Therdthainwong, and the ChEPS committee, Dr. Sakarindr Bhumiratana, Dr. Anan
Tongta and Dr. Hong Ming Ku.
vii
Contents
Pages
English Abstract
ii
Thai Abstract
iv
Acknowledgements
vi
vii
Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
xv
Nomenclature
xx
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Introduction
1.1
Introduction
1.2
Objectives
1.3 Scope of Work
1.4 Literature review
Theory
2.1 Classification
2.2 Principle of classification
2.3 Type of classifiers
2.4
Hydrocyclone
2.5
Mechanism of classification inside the hydrocyclone
10
...
Vlll
25.1 Flow pattern
10
2.5.2 Velocity distribution
12
2.5.2.1 Axial velocity
12
2.5.2.2 Radial velocity
13
2.5.2.3 Tangential velocity
14
2.5.3
Behavior of particles in hydrocyclone
16
2.5.4
Performance of classifying hydrocyclone
19
2.5.4.1
Cut size or separation size
21
2.5.4.2
Sharpness of separation
22
Factors affect to efficiency of classifying
22
2.5.5
Hydrocyclone
2.5.5.1 Pressure drop
2.5.5.2
Concentration of feed
23
24
2.5.5.3 Vortex finder diameter
25
2.5.5.4 Apex diameter
26
2.5.5.5
Area of inlet
Chapter 3 Methodology
26
28
3.1
Apparatus
28
3.2
Independent variables and level of factor
29
3.3 Dependent variables
29
ix
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
3.4
Experimental design
29
3.5
Model pattern
30
3.6
Statistical hypothesis testing
30
3.7
Criteria of significant testing
31
3.8
Procedure of experiment
31
Results and Discussions
34
4.1 Experimental results
34
4.2 Empirical model results
44
4.3 Optimization result
51
Conclusions
53
5.1
53
Conclusions
55
References
Appendix
A.
Experimental data
58
B.
Performance curve calculation
83
C.
Model prediction and hypothesis testing
104
D.
Optimization of the model
124
List of Tables
Tables
3.1
Pages
Overview of experimental plan for 4 parameters with each 2 levels
31
of factor
4.1
Cut size diameter and sharpness index results
43
A.1
Experimental data for Run #l : D,=0.4 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=30 cm
59
and AP=O.2 kg/cm2

A.2
Experimental data for Run #2: D,=0.4 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=30 cm
59
and AP=l .O kg/cm2

A.3
Experimental data for Run #3: D,=0.4 cm, Do=l.4cm, L=30 cm
60
and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

A.4
Experimental data for Run #4: DU=0.4 cm, Do=l.4 cm, L=30 cm
60
and AP=l .O kg/cm

A.5
Experimental data for Run #5: DU=0.7 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=30 cm
61
and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

A.6
61
and AP= 1.0 kg/cm

A.7
Experimental data for Run #7: DU=0.7 cm, Do=l.4 cm, L=30 cm
62
and AP=O.2 kg/cm2

A.8
Experimental data for Run #8: DU=0.7 cm, Dc~l.4 cm, L=30 cm
and AP=l .O kg/cm2
62
xi
A.9
63
and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

A. 10
Experimental data for Run #lo: DU=0.4 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=20 cm
63
and AP= 1 .O kg/cm*

A.11
Experimental data for Run #l 1: DU=0.4 cm, Do=1 .4 cm, L=20 cm
64
and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

A. 12
Experimental data for Run #12: DU=0.4 cm, Do=1 .4 cm, L=20 cm
64
and AP= 1.0 kg/cm*

A.13
Experimental data for Run # 13 : DU=O. 7 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=20 cm
65
and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

A. 14
Experimental data for Run #14: DU=0.7 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=20 cm
65
and AP= 1.0 kg/cm*

A.15
Experimental data for Run #15: D,=O.7cm,
Do=l.4 cm, L=20 cm
66
and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

A. 16
Experimental data for Run #16: D,,=0.7 cm, Do=l.4 cm, L=20 cm
66
and AP= 1.0 kg/cm*

A. 17
Particle size distribution of Run #l: D,,=0.4 cm, D0=2.0 cm, L=30
67
cm and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

A.18
Partic!e size distribution of Run #2: D,=O.4 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=30
68
cm and AP= 1.0 kg/cm2

A.19
Particle size distribution of Run #3: DU=0.4 cm, Do=l.4cm, L=30

69
xii
A.20
Particle size distribution of Run #4: DU=0.4 cm, Do=l.4 cm, L=30
70
cm and AP= 1.0 kg/cm*

A.21
Particle size distribution of Run #5: DU=0.7 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=30
71

A.22
Particle size distribution of Run #6: D,,=0.7 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=30
72
cm and AP= 1.0 kg/cm*

A.23
73

A.24
74
cm and AP=l .O kg/cm2

A.25
75
cm and AP=0.2 kg/cm2

A.26
Particle size distribution of Run #lo: DU=0.4 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=20
76
cm and AP=l .O kg/cm*

A.27
Particle size distribution of Run #l 1: DU=0.4 cm, Do=1 .4 cm, L=20
77
cm and AP=O.2 kg/cm2

A.28
78

A.29
79
...
x111
A.30
Particle size distribution of Run #14: D,=0.7 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=20
80

A.31
Particle size distribution of Run #15: D,=0.7cm, Do=l.4 cm, L=20
81

A.32
82
cm and AP=l .O kg/cm2

B.l
Mass flow rate of solid in underflow and overflow
87
B.2
Performance calculation of Run #1 .
88
B.3
Performance calculation of Run #2.
89
B.4
90
B.5
91
B.6
92
B.7
93
B.8
94
B.9
95
B.10
96
B.ll
Performance calculation of Run #lO.
97
B.12
98
B.13
99
B.14
Performance calculation of Run # 13.
100
B.15
101
B.16
102
B.17
103
xiv
c.1
Input data for fitting models by STATISTICA Program
106
c.2
The coeffkients of the cut size diameter and sharpness index
107
models
c.3
The t-value table at various level of significant
110
c.4
Significance testing of the coeffkients in the cut size diameter
110
model
C.5
Significance testing of the coefficients in the sharpness model
111
xv
List of figures
Pages
Figures
1.1
The appropriate geometry of separating hydrocyclone
2.1
Classifier sorting column
2.2
Hydrocyclone
2.3
Short circuit flow and eddy flow in hydrocyclone
11
2.4
The locus of zero vertical velocity in hydrocyclone
11
2.5
The three velocity components in the hydrocyclone
12
2.6
Tangential velocity distributions corresponding to various
15
relationship
2.7
Forces acting on an orbiting particle in the hydrocyclone
16
2.8
Regions of similar size distribution in the hydrocyclone
18
Characteristic from of a sedimentation classifier performance
20
2.9 a
curve
2.9 b
Relationship of the performance curve to particle classification
20
2.9 c
The corrected performance curve
20
2.9 d
The reduced performance curve
20
2.10
Effect of pressure on capacity and cut-point of hydrocyclone
23
2.11
Effect of solids concentration on cut-point of hydrocyclone
24
2.12
Effect of spigot size on hydrocyclone underflow
27
2.13
Involuted and tangential feed entries
27
3.1
Location of hydrocyclone
32
3.2
Feed and bypassing valves of the experiment
33
xvi
4.1
Particle size distribution of suspension material
34
4.2
Performance curve of Run # 1
35
4.3
36
4.4
36
4.5
37
4.6
37
4.7
38
4.8
38
4.9
39
4.10
39
4.11
40
4.12
40
4.13
41
4.14
41
4.15
42
4.16
42
4.17
43
4.18
Experimental points for the reduce grade efficiency
44
4.19
Comparing between experimental and predicted reduce grade
45
efficiency
4.20
Comparison of observed and predicted cut size diameter
48
4.21
Comparison of observed and predicted sharpness index
48
xvii
4.22
Effect of apex and vortex finder diameter on cut size diameter at
49
pressure drop is 1.0 kg/cm2 and hydrocyclone length is 20 cm.

4.23
Effect of pressure drop and hydrocyclone length on cut size
50
diameter at apex diameter is 0.7 cm. and vortex finder diameter is

1.7 cm.
4.24
Effect of apex and vortex finder diameter on sharpness index at
51

c.1
The situation of accepting the null hypothesis
108
c.2
The situation of rejecting the null hypothesis
108
c.3
The distribution curve of t-test
109
c.4
112

C.5
112

C.6
113

c.7
113

C.8
Effect of apex and vortex tinder diameter on cut size diameter at

pressure drop is 0.6kg/cm2
c.9
114
and hydrocyclone length is 25 cm.

114
...
xv111
c.10
115
pressure drop is 1 .O kg/cm2 and hydrocyclone length is 25 cm.

c.11
115

C. 12
116
diameter at apex diameter is 0.4 cm. and vortex finder diameter

is 1.4 cm.
C. 13
116

is 1.4 cm.
C. 14
117

is 1.4 cm.
c.15
117
diameter at apex diameter is 0.4 cm. and vortex tinder diameter

is 1.7 cm
C. 16
118

is 1.7 cm.
C. 17

is 2.0 cm.
118
xix
C.18
119

is 2.0 cm.
c.19
119

is 2.0 cm.
c.20
120
pressure drop is 0.2 kg/cm* and hydrocyclone length is 20 cm.

c.21
120

c.22
121

C.23
Effect of apex and vortex tinder diameter on sharpness index at
121

C.24
122

c.25
122

C.26
123
pressure drop is 1 .O kg/cm* and hydrocyclone length is 25 cm.

C.27

123
xx
Nomenclature
a0
Interception of model
a2 - aI4
Coefficients of the models
Constant
d5o
Cut size diameter
Particle diameter
DC
Hydrocyclone diameter
DO
Vortex finder diameter
Apex diameter
FC
Centrifugal force
Fd
Drag force
Grade efficiency
Ho
Null hypothesis
HI
Alternative hypothesis
Hydrocyclone length
Constant
Volumetric flow rate
Radius of rotation
V,
Axial velocity of fluid
V,
Radial velocity of fluid
Vt
Tangential velocity of fluid
Yl
Fraction of slimes in the underflow
xxi
Y2
Fraction of feed material bypassing to the overflow
Greek Letters
Constant
AP
Pressure drop
Viscosity of fluid
Conical angle of the hydrocyclone
Density of liquid
PP
Density of particle
CHAPTER I
Introduction
1.1
Introduction
The hydrocyclone is a process device that utilizes high centrifugal forces to

separate solids from liquid. Usually the hydrocyclone consists of an upper cylindrical
section filled with a tangential feed connection and a lower conical section having a
bottom concentric apex opening for solids discharge. The closed top of the upper
cylindrical section has a downward protruding vortex finder pipe, ending below the
tangential feed location, through which the liquid fraction discharge from the device.
The hydrocyclone is employed widely in variety areas of industry. Their main
applications may be divided into two categories: hydrocyclone thickener, which is a
straightforward separation of solid from liquid and hydrocyclone classzfzer,
which is
used for material classification purpose. The classification is a method of separating

mixtures of solids into two or more products on the basis of velocity with the grains
fall through a fluid medium.
Many theoretical models have been developed to design hydrocyclone used
for solid-liquid separation. But the design concept of hydrocyclone for classification
work has not been clearly well defined. There are just only the recommendations of
the classifying hydrocyclone from many researchers. The hydrocyclone constructed
according to the design of Rietema can successfully separate solid from liquid. He
purposed the equations for designing the separating hydrocyclone, these are
[OF:
- 2AP
QP
P
P
(1.2)
The appropriate geometry of the hydrocyclone for separation purpose that

recommended by Rietema is shown in Figure 1.1. For the classification purpose, this
hydrocyclone can not provide the sharpness of cut size of particle. The effect of main
operating parameters and relative geometrical proportions of hydrocyclone on
classification performance have to be further studied to obtain a new design for solidsolid separation purpose.
Figure 1.1 The appropriate geometry of separating hydrocyclone
1 . 2 Obiectives
1.2.1
To study the effect of design and operating parameters on the
efficiency of the classifying hydrocyclone.

1.2.2
To obtain the empirical models for the classifying hydrocyclone
by using multiple linear regression technique and find appropriate geometry of the
hydrocyclone that gives the highest classification performance.
1.3
Scone of work
The scope of this thesis was started with designing and constructing six
hydrocyclones with different dimensions. There are many functions of hydrocyclone,
however, only classification work of hydrocyclone was focused in this thesis. The
geometrical parameters considered in this work were hydrocyclone length, diameter
of vortex finder and diameter of apex and pressure drop was also considered as one
of the operating parameters. These hydrocyclones were tested with the suspended
Feldspars type 71 OK and sand in water. The important parameters that determined
hydrocyclone performance were cut size and sharpness of classification or
imperfection. The 24 factorial design was used to plan the experiments in this thesis.
Level of factor for each parameter was two. Then multiple linear regression was
applied to find the empirical models for cut size and sharpness of classification.
Statistical hypothesis testing was employed to test for the significance of all
coefficients included in the models. The optimization was performed to obtain the
appropriate geometry of the classifying hydrocyclone which gave the best

performance.
1.4 Literature review
Ratanakawin [6] studied the effect of pressure drop, feed concentration,

apex and vortex-finder opening size to the classification efficiency of 2 inches
diameter hydrocyclone. The clay was used as a feed material. He found that, the cut
size is decrease with increasing the pressure drop and apex size but with decreasing
feed concentration and vortex-finder diameter. For the effect of these parameters to
the sharpness of separation, higher the pressure drop and vortex finder size but lower
feed concentration and apex size,provides a better sharpness of separation but these
effects are quite small.
Cilliers et al [9] reviewed and compared various experimental design

techniques for hydrocyclone modeling. Three experimental design techniques are
commonly used for process analysis and modeling, namely, the full factorial, partial
factorial and centrally composite rotatable (CCRD) designs were compared. They
concluded that the use of CCRD technique can lead to significant savings in
experimental effort. The method is simple to use and yields results in a form that is
directly implementable as a quadratic model. Three hydrocyclone parameters,
namely,
apex diameter, vortex finder diameter and operating pressure were
considered.
Antunes and Medronho [8] used three Bradley hydrocyclones with 15, 30
and 60 mm diameters. Aqueous suspensions of calcium carbonate, with volumetric
concentration ranging from 0% to 10% were tested. Based on the experimental
results, they obtained correlations for the product between Stokes number and Euler
number, StkSOEu, for the Euler number, Eu, and for the fraction of feed liquid
reporting to underflow, RW. Based on all experimental results, they also obtained the
reduced grade efficiency curve.
CHAPTER 2
Theory
2.1 Classification
Classification is the separation of particles into two or more products

according to their settling rate in a fluid. Since the velocity of particles in a fluid
medium is dependent not only on the size, but also on the specific gravity and shape
of the particles, so this separation is not the direct classification by size, but is sorting
the particles by terminal velocity. Classifiers typically produce two products. The
stream contains the faster settling particles is called the sand, underflow, or oversize.
The another stream is called the overflow or slimes. It contains the slower settling
particles.
2.2
Principle of classification
When a solid particle falls freely in a vacuum, it is subject to constant

acceleration and its velocity increases indefinitely, being independent of size and
density. In a viscous medium, such as air or water, there is resistance to this
movement and the value increases with velocity. When equilibrium is attained
between the gravitational and fluid resistance forces, the body reaches its terminal
velocity and thereafter falls at a uniform rate [4].
Classifiers consist essentially of a sorting column in which a fluid is rising

at a uniform rate (Figure 2.1). Particles introduced into the sorting column either sink
or rise according to whether their terminal velocities are greater or less than the
upward velocity of the fluid.
wrlh lcrm~nni vclocatres
c v !
Flurd
vcloc~ly,
Y
Figure 2.1
2.3
Classifier sorting column.
Type of classifiers
Classifications may be applied in a number of these situations [6]:

2.3.1
Separation into relatively coarse and relatively fine size fractions,
2.3.2
For separations too fine to be economically screened.
2.3.3
To effect a concentration of smaller heavier particles from larger
typically
lighter particles.
2.3.4
To split a long-range size distribution into fractions.
2.3.5 To restrict the property distribution of particles entering a

concentration process.
2.3.6
To control closed circuit grinding.
Classifiers have been designed and built for using in different purposes.
They are classified into 4 types based on the method of discharging the sand product,
and the reference point for relative water/particle motion.
1.
Mechanical cZasszj?ers use some mechanical means for removing the
sand products from the device: generally this mechanism operates against gravity.
2.
Nonmechanical classzjiers
rely for sands discharge on the flow
properties of the sands stream, aided by gravitational or centrifugal forces.

3.
Sedimentation classifiers the faster settling particles settle through a
pool of water that is formed out of the feed stream.

4.
Hydraulic or Fluidized bed classifiers require the particle to settle
against an upward flowing stream of supplementary hydraulic water.

Hydrocyclone is a type of sedimentation classifiers.
2.4 Hvdrocvclone
The hydrocyclone is a continuously operating classifying device that

utilizes centrifugal force to accelerate the settling rate of particles [l]. A typical
hydrocyclone (Figure 2.2) consists of a conically shaped vessel, open at its apex, or
underflow, joined to a cylindrical section, which has a tangential feed inlet. The top
of the cylindrical section is closed with a plate through which passes an axially
mounted overflow pipe. The pipe is extended into the body of the cyclone by a short,
removable section known as the vortex finder, which prevents short-circuit of feed
directly into the overflow.
Cyclonr
Replncasbls
Spiral
Dirmsler
;i-A .
Linings -
Within a Spiral
Figure 2.2 Hydrocyclone
10
2.5
Mechanism of classification inside the hvdrocvclone
The basic knowledge of classification mechanism of the hydrocyclone is

used to design the hydrocyclone. For more clearly understand its mechanism, flow
pattern of fluid, velocity distribution of fluid and behavior of particles in the
hydrocyclone will be described in this section [ 1, 51.
2.5.1 Flow pattern
The most significant flow pattern in a hydrocyclone is spiral within

a spiral, illustrated in Figure 2.2. These spirals are generated by the tangential feed
and revolve in the same direction; the reversal in velocity applies only to the vertical
component. This spiral pattern shows movement initially downward and then
upward. Between these two spiral paths, there must exist a region where there is no
vertical velocity either upward or downward. Figure 2.3 shows two addition flow
patterns. The short-circuit flow against the roof is due to obstruction of tangential
velocity, and the main purpose of the vortex finder is to minimize this flow. Because
the overflow opening cannot handle the natural upflowing vortex, eddy flows also
exist in the upper section of the hydrocyclone.
Two further features of hydrocyclone flow are illustrated in Figure 2.4.
The first is the locus of zero vertical velocity (LZVV). This locus is divided in to two
sections: cylindrical and conical part. The cylindrical section is called mantle, which
has been shown to have a diameter of about 0.43D,.
While another part is called
conical classification surface. This part is found when diameter equal to 0.7D,.
11
Figure 2.3
Short circuit flow and eddy flow in hydrocyclone
Mantle
(Has no inward
radial wlocity
across it)
(Has radial flow
Figure 2.4
The locus of zero vertical velocity in hydrocyclone
12
2.5.2 Velocity distribution

The velocity of liquid or solid at any point may be considered into
three components; the vertical or axial component, the radial component and the
tangential component. No completely satisfactory measure of these components has
been made. Kelsall used an optical method to determine these velocity components
by using a very dilute suspension of fine particles.
2.5.2.1 Axial velocity
As can be seen from Figure 2.5a, there is a strong
downward flow along the outer walls of both the cylindrical and conical portions.
This flow is essential for hydrocyclone operation since it removes the particles
that have been separated into the underflow orifice; it is for this reason that it is not
essential to build hydrocyclones with the apex pointing downwards and the cyclone
efficiency is only very little influenced by its position relative to the gravity field
Figure 2.5
The three velocity components in the hydrocyclone
13
The most noticeable feature of the axial component is the

locus or envelope of zero vertical velocity. Below the vortex finder, all liquid moves
upward inside the envelope, and downward outside. In each case the velocity
component increases with distance from the envelope, and the maximum upward
component is appreciably higher than the maximum downward component.
Another significant feature not readily apparent in Figure
2.5a is the existence of a second imaginary envelope between the first one and the
outer wall. This envelope represents the division of downward flowing liquid into
two parts: an outer layer that is able to leave through the underflow, and the excess,
which becomes the innermost layer that is the upward flowing liquid. This figure also
indicates that above the vortex finder a second locus of vertical velocity exists
because of the short circuit flow.
2.5.2.2 Radial velocity
The radial velocity components are normally much
smaller than the other two components and they are difficult to measure accurately.
The radial velocity component is the liquid current against which the particles must
settle because of centrifugal force if they are to be removed in the underflow. The
general form of these components is shown in Figure 2.5b and it must be noted that
this component is normally inward. It is the smallest of the three components and
increases to a maximum at the wall,
The radial velocities in the region above the base of the
vortex finder are not fully shown in Figure 2.5b; in practice there may be strong
inward flows along the roof resulting from short-circuit flows, and below this, the
component may be outward because of the eddy flow.
14
Kelsall expressed the relative equation between radial

velocity and axial velocity at the conical wall of the hydrocyclone as follow:
v, =v, tan ;
0
(24
where
I, = Radial velocity of fluid

V, = Axial velocity of fluid
B = Conical angle of the hydrocyclone
2.5.2.3
Tangential
velocity
Below the vortex finder, envelopes of constant tangential

velocity are cylinders coaxial within the hydrocyclone. Kelsall found that the
tangential velocity is constant on the locus of constant tangential velocity (LCTV) as
seen in Figure 2.5~. This tangential velocity is highest at locus of maximum
tangential velocity (LMTV). This locus locates at the diameter about 0.17R from the
diameter of the hydrocyclone. This maximum velocity is not depending on diameter
of vortex finder and apex. The tangential velocity is inversely related to the radius
according to
VIP = constant
(2.2)
where y2 is less than 1.0. It appears that y1 is more strongly dependent on design
variables than the operating variables. Values of yt are typically 0.4-0.9. This should
15
be compared to the outer region of a free vortex where angular momentum is

conserved and the relationship is
V,r = constant
(2.3)
that is, the hydrocyclone tends to approximate a free vortex as y1 tends to unity. On
the other hand, in a centrifuge the liquid rotates as a solid body (i.e., with constant
angular velocity) and
V, r - = constant
(2.4)
These three relationships are shown in Figure 2.6. However, while

equations (2.2) and (2.3) indicate that V, tends to infinity at the center. Figure 2.6
shows that this does not occur in the hydrocyclone; rather there is an area around the
air core where the behavior changes toward constant angular velocity (i.e., solid body
rotation).
.:.::
:
I:,:.
::.
:,I,
_
: ::.
. ;,
l
:::
::::I
:..
.z -
:2:
:.y,
.x:
7:
...
::.
::_
::.
::.
:;.
._-I
::
.:..
.
.
.::_
2;
R..h,
Figure 2.6
Ll,.,.nc*
Tangential velocity distributions corresponding to various

Relationship
16
2.5.3
Behavior of particles in hydrocyclone
Radius of orbltnq pnrtlcte
Figure 2.7
Forces acting on an orbiting particle in the hydrocyclone
The classical theory of hydrocyclone actions is that particles within

the flow pattern are subjected to two opposmg forces-an outward centrifugal force
and an inwardly acting drag (Figure 2.7). The centrifugal force developed accelerates
the settling rate of the particles (there is evidence to show that stokes law applies
with reasonable accuracy to separations in cyclones of conventional design), thereby
separating particles according to size and specific gravity. Faster settling particles
move to the wall of the hydrocyclone, where the velocity is lowest, and migrate to the
apex opening. The centrifugal force is shown in this equation
17
where
F, = Centrifugal force
d, = Particle diameter
p, = Density of particle
Due to the action of the drag force, the slower settling particles move
toward the zone of low pressure along the axis and are carried upward through the
vortex finder to the overflow. The drag force is described by
Fd = 3~rd,pV,
(2.6)
In reality, it is difficult to fortune the classification behavior inside the

hydrocyclone. Because there are many factors affect to this behavior. Renner and
Cohen show that classification does not take place throughout the whole body of the
hydrocyclone as the classical model postulates. Using high-speed probe, samples
were taken from several selected positions within a 150-mm diameter hydrocyclone,
and were subjected to size analysis. The results showed that the interior of the
hydrocyclone may be divided into four regions that contain distinctively different
size distributions (Figure 2.8).
Region A: This narrow region, against the roof and the cylinder wall, contains
particles having the feed size distribution.
Region B: Most of the conical section is filled by this region, the region
where the particles have essentially the coarse product size distribution.
Region C: This region surrounds and extends below the vortex tinder, which
contains essentially the fine product size distribution.
18
Region D: This region is an elongated toroid lying between C and A-B. Here
the size distribution is higher in the intermediate sized particles than either the feed or
the contents as a whole. These intermediate sized particles tend to have above
average
residence times, implying that such particles tend to accumulate in this
region until displaced by lack of room. This indicates that this region is the locus of
active classification. Poor classification can be expected to result where region D
fails to form well, because of poor design or poor operation such as would be caused
by excessive slurry density overloading the region.
Figure 2.8
Regions of similar size distribution in the hydrocyclone
19
2.5.4
Performance of classifying hydrocyclone

Evaluating the performance of the hydrocyclone is performed by
finding the efficiency or performance curve of this hydrocyclone [ 11. Since a

separation is commonly described in terms of particle size, the performance curve is
presented on a plot of mass fraction of size d in the feed passing to the underflow
versus size d . A typical curve is illustrated in Figure 2.9a. It must be emphasized
that the imperfection of classification can naturally occur, some of these particles are
then unclassified, which indicated by y, and y, in Figure 2.9a. These are effectively
caused by part of the inlet stream passing out of the classifier without being classified
(Figure 2.9b). That denoted by y1 is more common, and is due to slimes in the
underflow. It can reliably be estimated by assuming that the finest particles behave
like water and therefore the fraction of these particles yr in the underflow will be the
same as the fraction of the feed water leaving through the underflow. The
imperfection yZ is due to feed material bypassing to the overflow. Generally it is
negligible, although it may appear to exist when the particles have a range of
densities.
A clearer representation of the actual classification can be obtained
from the corrected performance curve, shown in Figure 2.9~. it is obtained by
applying the following relationship to each size:
Corrected fraction of size d to underflow

= Actual fraction of size d to underflow - y,
1-Y, -Y,
(2.7)
20
d/d,,
Figure 9. (a) characteristic form of a sedimentation classifier performance curve.

(b) Relationship of the performance curve to particle classification.
(c) The corrected performance curve. (d) The reduced performance curve.
The corrected performance curve can be normalized (made

dimensionless) by dividing the size scale by d50. The resulting curve, illustrated in
Figure 2.9d, is referred to as the reduced performance curve. It is now widely
accepted that the shape of this curve is largely independent of the nature of the solid
particles and is characteristic of the type of classifier, within a reasonable range of
design. There are many equations of reduced performance curve developed by the
researchers. The well known equations are shown as follow
Lynch and Rao [lo] :
exp(a f ) - 1
G=
50
exp(a $) + exp(a) - 2
5n
(2.8)
21
Plitt [l I]:
(2.9)
The basic parameters used to evaluate the classification efficiency

and are considered in terms of design and operating parameters, such as cut size or
separation size and sharpness of classification or imperfection.
2.5.4.1
Cut size or separation size

This parameter is often defined as that point on the
partition curve for with 50% of particles in feed of that size report to the underflow,
i.e. particles of this size have an equal chance of going either with the overflow or
underflow. This point is usually referred to as the d,, size taken from the corrected
performance curve. There are four schemes to describe the relationship between cut
size and design and operating parameters: Equilibrium orbit hypothesis, Retention
time hypothesis, Crowding theory and Empirical equations. Bradley found that the
basic equation for finding the cut size equation of hydrocyclone is
[ 1
0.5
@CL
d,, = c
Q(P, -P,)
where
d,, = cut size [micron]
C
= constant
DC = hydrocyclone diameter[cm]
(2.10)
22
,u = liquid viscosity[cP]
e = feed flow rate[l/min]
p, = particle density[g/cm3]
pI = liquid density[g/cm3]
2.5.4.2
Sharpness of separation
The sharpness of the cut depends on the slope of the
central section of the partition curve; the closer to vertical is the slope, the higher is
the efficiency. The slope of the curve can be expressed by taking the points at which
75% and 25% of the feed particles report to the underflow. These are the d,, and
45
sizes, respectively. The efficiency of separation, or the so-called imperfection
(I) is then given by
d
d 75
1=-Z.
25.5
(2.11)
Factors affecting the efficiency of a classifying hydrocvclone

The effects of changing operating and design parameters in
cyclones are very complex in that all parameters are interrelated. It is almost
impossible to select a hydrocyclone to give the precise separation required and it is
nearly always necessary to adjust feed inlet, vortex finder, apex opening and pulp
pressure, and dilution. Designers, therefore, tend to specify the hydrocyclones
capable of handling the flow rates required, with provision for fitting suitable ranges
of feed, overflow, and underflow opening. These important parameters are
23
2.5.5.1 Pressure drop

The value of the pressure drop is required to permit design
of the pumping system for a given capacity or to determine the capacity for a given
installation. Usually the pressure drop is determined from a feed-pressure gauge
located on the inlet line some distance upstream from the hydrocyclone. Within
limits, an increase in feed flow-rate will improve efficiency by increasing the
centrifugal force on the particles. All other variables being constant, this can only be
achieved by an increase in pressure and a corresponding increase in power, since this
is directly related to the product of pressure drop and capacity. Since increase in feed
rate, or pressure drop, increase the centrifugal force effect, finer particles are carried
to the underflow, and d,, is decreased, but the change has to be large to have a
significant effect. Figure 2.10 shows the effect of pressure on the capacity and cutpoint of the hydrocyclone.
Figure 2.10. Effect of pressure on capacity and cut-point of hydrocyclone
24
The effect of pressure drop on the sharpness of separation

is quite low. Plitt showed that the sharpness of separation depend on (Df h) / Q , that
is at low pressure drop, classification time is long, chance of particles to misplace is
then lower, this makes the sharpness of separation is better but rather small.
2.5.5.2
Concentration of feed
The effect of increase in feed-pulp density is complex, as
the effective pulp viscosity and degree of hindered settling is increased within the
hydrocyclone. The sharpness of separation decreases with increasing pulp density
and the cut-point rises due to the greater resistance to the swirling motion within the
hydrocyclone, which reduces the effective pressure drop. Separation at finer sizes can
only be achieved with feeds of low solids content and large pressure drop. Normally,
the feed concentration is no greater than about 30% solids by weight, but for closedcircuit grinding operations, where relatively coarse separations are often required,
high feed concentration of up to 60% solids by weight are often used, combined with
low-pressure drops, often less than 10 psi. Figure 2.11 shows that feed concentration
has an important effect on the cut-size at high pulp densities.
% sollda
Figure 2.11
Dy ure,J,,
Effect of solids concentration on cut-point of hydrocyclones.
25
2.5.5.3 Vortex tinder diameter

In practice, the cut-point is mainly controlled by the
hydrocyclone design variables, such as inlet, vortex-finder, and apex opening, and
most hydrocyclone are designed such that these are easily changed.
For the effect of the vortex-tinder diameter, Bradley[2]
recommended that the vortex-finder opening should be larger than the radius of locus
of maximum tangential velocity for preventing the short circuit flow, because this
flow can lead the particles out of the hydrocyclone without classification.
Furthermore, this opening should be less than locus of zero vertical velocity, this
makes the fine particles can go out the hydrocyclone at the vortex-finder opening by
the effect of radial velocity. Therefore, the vortex-tinder diameter should be in range
DC/~ and Dc/2.3.
The effect of changing the vortex-finder diameter on the
cut size is that, at constant pressure drop, the cut size decreases with decreasing of the
vortex-finder diameter. Plitt[l l] purposed the relationship between cut size and the
vortex-finder diameter (D,), that is
40
cc D;.2
(2.12)
The sharpness of separation is better when the vortex

finder diameter is increased. Furthermore, better sharpness of separation is achieved
when ratio of apex to vortex-finder diameter (D,, / Do ) is decreased.
26
2.5.5.4 Apex diameter

The size of the apex (or spigot opening) determines the
underflow density, and must be large enough to discharge the coarse solids that are
being separated by the hydrocyclone. The orifice must also permit the entry of air
along the axis of the hydrocyclone in order to establish the air vortex. The
hydrocyclone should be operated at the highest possible underflow density, since
unclassified material leaves the underflow in proportion to the fraction of feed water
leaving via the underflow. Under correct opening conditions, the discharge should
form a hollow cone spray with 20-30
included angle (Figure 2.12). Air can then
enter the hydrocyclone, the classified coarse particles will discharge freely, and solids
concentrations greater than 50% by weight can achieved. Too small an apex opening
can lead to the condition known as roping, where an extremely thick pulp stream of
the same diameter as the apex is formed, and the air vortex may be lost, the
separation efficiency will fall, and oversize material will discharge through the
vortex-finder. Too large an apex orifice results in the larger hollow cone pattern seen
in Figure 2.12. The underflow will be excessively dilute and the additional water will
carry unclassified fine solids that would otherwise report to the overflow.
2.5.5.5
Area of inlet
The area of the inlet determines the entrance velocity and
an increase in area increase the flow-rate. Also important is the geometry of the feed
inlet, In most hydrocyclones the shape of the entry is developed from circular crosssection of the hydrocyclone. This helps to spread the flow along the wall of the
chamber. The inlet is normally tangential, but involuted feed entries are also common
(Figure 2.13). Involuted entries are said to minimize turbulence and reduce wear.
27
Figure 2.12 Effect of spigot size on hydrocyclone underflow: zone (a) correct
operation; zone (b) roping-spigot too small; zone (c) excessively
dilute-spigot too large.
.:-.- .-,1.L;. ,_-.-_,_.. .,Ar ,:..-I,:. L: .,

_ --r i;J:., .\?.
.
0
:. 0
-__-
(y$tij)
Tongenr
Figure 2.13
feed
Involuted and tangential feed entries
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
3.1 Apparatus
3.1.1
Hydrocyclones with 10 cm in diameter and other dimensions are as
follows:
3.1.1.1 Diameter of apex
0.7 (0.07DJ and 0.4 (0.04DJ cm.
3.1.1.2 Diameter of vortex finder 1.4 (0.14DJ and 2.0 (0.2DJ cm.
3.1.1.3 Length of hydrocyclone 20 (2DJ and 30 (3D,) cm.
3.1.2
Agitated mixing tank with pump
3.1.3
Feldspar type 710K and sand
3.1.4
Stop watch
3.1.5
1 and 2 liter Cylinder
3.1.6
Balance
3.1.7
Sample bottles
3.1.8
Oven
3.1.10
Particle size analyzer, MICROTRAC II@ model 7997-20.
29
3.2
Independent variables and level of factor
The independent variables considered in this thesis are

3.2.1
Diameter of apex,
DU, with 2 different values: 0.4 and 0.7 cm
3.2.2
Diameter of vortex finder, D,,, with 2 different values: 1.4 and 2.0
cm
3.2.3
Length of hydrocyclone, L, with 2 different values: 20 and 30 c m
3.2.4
Pressure drop, AP, with 2 different values: 0.2 and 1 .O kg/cm2
3.3 Dependent variables
3.3.1
3.3.2
Cut size diameter, d50 (see the definition in section 2.5.4.1)

Sharpness index or sharpness of separation (I) which is calculated
from equation (2.11)
3.4 Experimental design
In this study, full factorial experimental design was used for planning the
experimental set. Because there are 4 parameters studied in this work, so 24 full
factorial experimental design was applied. The experimental plan for this work is
shown in Table 3.1,
30
3.5 Model pattern
The model patterns of both cut size diameter and sharpness index include
linear and interaction terms. The general form of the model is
Y = ao + alDu + a2D, + a3L + *AP + aSDuD, + %D,L + aTD,AP

+ asD,L + agD,AP + aIDLAP + al lD,D,L + al2D,D,AP
+ aljD,LAP + aldD,LAP
where Y = cut size diameter, d50, or sharpness index, I

ao = Interception of model
al to a14 = Coefficients of the model
3.6
Statistical hypothesis testing
1) Ho: ai = 0
2) Hl:ai z 0
where Ho = Null hypothesis

HI = Alternative hypothesis
a = Coefficient of model
i
= 1 - 14
(3-l)
31
Table 3.1
Overview of experimental plan for 4 parameters with each 2 levels of

factor.
3.7
Criteria of significant testing
The criteria for testing the above hypothesizes is t-test with level of
significant to reject the null hypothesis equal to 0.05. The formula of t value and
procedure to test the hypothesizes are shown in Appendix C.
3.8
Procedure of experiment
3.8.1
Prepare the solid-liquid suspension by adding feldspar 40 kg and
sand 10 kg into 700 m3 of water in the agitated mixing tank.
32
3.8.2
Install the hydrocyclone for each experiment corresponding to the
plan shown in Table 3.1. Figure 3.1 shows the position of the hydrocyclone above the
agitat .ed mixing tank.
Figure 3.1 Location of hydrocyclone.
3.8.3
Turn on the propeller switch and wait until solids completely
suspend in a whole liquid and then turn on the pump switch.

3.8.4
Adjust the pressure drop by using feed valve and bypassing valve
as shown in Figure 3.2.

3.8.5
Let the system reach the steady state for a while.
3.8.6
Collect the sample at underflow and overflow and then record
weight, sampling time and total volume of the samples.

3.8.7
Keep these samples in the sample bottles. Let solid settle down
until clear liquid appears. Remove the liquid by using syphon technique.
3.8.8
overnight.
Dry wet solid by putting in the oven at 105 C for 24 hour or
33
Figure 3.2
3.8.9
Feed and bypassing valves of the experiment.
Determine particle size distribution of the samples by using the
particle size analyzer ,MICROTRAC II@ model 7997-20.

3.8.10
Calculate and plot the performance curve. After that determine cut
size diameter and sharpness index from the performance curve. The detail of the
calculation is shown in Appendix B.
3.8.11
Estimate the coefficient of the model by utilizing STATISTICA@
3.8.12
Test the significant of the coefficient in the model by following
program.
the procedure in Appendix C.

3.8.13
Find the appropriate geometry of the hydrocyclone by optimizing
the sharpness index model. The well known optimization software, namely,
LINGO@ was used.
CHAPTER 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 Experimental results
Figure 4.1 shows particle size distribution of suspension used in this study.
From this curve, it is noticed that shape of the curve is normal distribution. Sieve
particle size of the suspension was rather small, the particle size analyzer was used to
find the particle size distribution. Before testing by the analyser the solid sample was
sieved to separate the big particle size (> 120 micron) before.
16
14
12
2
0
30
60
90
120
RMS particle size (micron)
Figure 4.1
Particle size distribution of suspension material
35
After all of sixteen experiments were completely tested the particle size
distribution of both underflow and overflow samples for all experiments were
measured. Then the grade efficiency curves (performance curve) for all experiments
were plotted. The calculation steps of grade efficiency curve are included in
Appendix B. The grade efficiency curves for all sixteen experiments are shown in
Figure 4.2 - 4.17.
It was found that the shape of all grade efficiency curve is s-shape. The
value of cut size diameter (d50) and sharpness index (I) were calculated from these
curves. For cut size diameter, straight line was drawn from Y-axis where the
efficiency is 50% until the line cut the efficiency curve. Then the particle diameter
corresponding to this point is called cut size diameter. For the sharpness index, the
similar procedure was performed to find the values of dT5 and d25. The value of
sharpness index is simply the ratio between d25 and d75. Table 4.1 shows the values of
cut size diameter and sharpness index for all sixteen experiments.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.2 Performance curve of Run # 1.
80
90
100
36
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.3
Performance curve of Run # 2.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.4
80
90
100
37
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
--
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.5
80
90
100
100
90
80
70
60
I
I
L----1-----------------------I
I
I
I
/
/
I
I
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.6 Performance curve of Run ## 5.
80
90
100
38
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.7
80
90
100
L----L----I----I----l----l----.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.8
80
90
100
39
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.9
80
90
100
----i----l---~~~~;~~~~~~~~~
----i----t-------l-_--i---I
I
----I----:--__
----;----j-------;----;-------;----+
----i----j----
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.10
80
90
100
40
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
Figure 4.11
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
80
90
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
Figure 4.12
30
40
50
60
70
41
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
Figure 4.13
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
80
90
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.14
42
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.15
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 4.16 Performance curve of Run # 15.
80
90
100
43
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
Figure 4.17
Table 4.1
60
70
30
40
50
80
Cut size diameter and sharpness index results
Run
D,
DO
(cm)
2.00
2.00
1.40
1.40
2.00
2.00
1.40
M-0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(cm)
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.70
0.70
1 0.70 1
I
12 1 0.40 1 1.40
13 1 0.70 1 2.00
14 1 0.70 1 2.00
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
AP
60
&we (micron)
0.20
24.08
1 .oo
20.57
0.20
22.74
20.51
1 .oo
0.20
10.64
16.82
1 .oo
0.20
14.65
1.00
10.00
0.20
23.82
1.00
22.61
0.20
20.64
1 .oo
18.09
14.27
0.20
1.00
18.15
16.24
0.20
1 .oo
10.44
I
0.55
0.71
0.48
0.54
0.61
0.54
0.45
0.39
0.56
0.62
0.56
0.56
0.53
0.63
0.50
0.38
90
100
44
Based on 16 experimental efficiency curves obtained in this work the

reduced grade efficiency curve, the relation between grade efficiency and d/dso, was
plotted as shown in Figure 4.18. Equation (2-9) was utilized to fit the reduced grade
efficiency curve and it was found that the fitted values of n is equal to 2.24. The
correspondence between experimental and predicted reduced grade efficiency is
shown in Figure 4.19. The importance of this reduced grade efficiency curve is to
estimate the cut size diameter required for specific work.
100
90
80
70
l
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
d/d50
Figure 4.18
Experimental points for the reduced grade efficiency
4.2 Empirical model results
Following the previous results, the empirical models for both cut size
diameter and sharpness index were predicted. Apart from the effect of each parameter
on the cut size diameter and the sharpness index, the influence among these
45
0.8
0.6
10
15
20
d/d50
Figure 4.19 Comparing between experimental and predicted reduced grade

efficiency
parameters was compared from these empirical models. To find the models, the
method of multiple linear regression was applied to predict all coefficients appear in
the equation 3.1. For this work, the computer software, STATISTICA@ Version 5.0,
was utilized to obtain the coefficients. After all coefficients were obtained, the test of
significant of these coefficients was then performed by using t-test technique. The
detail of the test of significant for the coefficients is illustrated in Appendix C. The
empirical models for cut size diameter and sharpness index are as follow:
dso = 17.583 - 4.049X1 + 1 .287X2 - 0.802& + 0.149X1X2 - 0.424X1&

+ 0.386X,& - 0.761X2X3 + 1 .469X2X4 + 0.276X3& + 1.469X1X&
+0.523X,X3&
- 0.276X2X3x4
(4.1)
46
I = 0.538 - 0.034X1 + 0.056X2
(4.2)
Where X1, X2, X3 and & refer to the experimental code for apex diameter,
the vortex tinder diameter, the hydrocyclone length and pressure drop, respectively.
The comparison between t value of each coefficient and t value for 14
degrees of freedom and 95% level of significance for the cut size diameter model are
summarized as follow:
t-value for 14 degrees of freedom and 95% level of significance from
TableC.3 t14,0.05 = 1.671
t(a)
77.124 > 1.671 Significant at 95%
tb2)
24.514 > 1.671 Significant at 95%
03)
1.562 > 1.671 Significant at 95%
w4)
15.276 > 1.671 Significant at 95%
t(a5)
ad
t(a7)
t(a8)
14.495 > 1.671 Significant at 95%
09)
27.901 > 1.671 Significant at 95%
@to)
t(all) =

27.871>
1.671 Significant at 95%
t(al2)
t(al3)
t(al4)
47
The comparison between the t-value of each coefficient of the sharpness

index model are included in Table C.5.
Among four parameters, the most influence parameter on cut size diameter
is the apex diameter, whereas the hydrocyclone length has the least influence. The
same result was also observed for the sharpness index. To improve the performance
of the hydrocyclone in the classification purpose the apex diameter should be
considered before the other parameters. After the models were developed, the
estimated values of cut size diameter and sharpness index from these two models
were compared with the experimental values. Figure 4.20 and 4.21 show the plot
between the observed and predicted values of the cut size diameter and the sharpness
index, respectively.
From both graph, R2 values for the cut size diameter and sharpness index
are 0.9796 and 0.616, respectively. To get higher value of R2 (more accuracy) other
model pattern is needed (such as second order model).
To see the effect of hydrocyclone geometries and operating parameter on
the cut size diameter and the sharpness index, the equations (4.1) and (4.2) were
employed. All parameters in these equations were substituted by varying the
interested parameters within the range of this study while fixing the other parameters.
At first, the effect of both apex diameter and vortex finder diameter were considered.
Figure 4.22 shows the effect of the apex and the vortex finder diameter where the
hydrocyclone length and the pressure drop were kept constant at 20 cm and 1.0
kg/cm2,
respectively. From this figure, the cut size diameter increases when the
vortex finder increases and the apex diameter decreases. If the vortex finder diameter
48
10
15
20
25
30
dfiO(Observed)
Figure 4.20 Comparison of observed and predicted cut size diameter.
0.8
I
/
0
0.6
49
0.2
l
JP.
0.4
*,w
/w
R = 0.616
0.6
0.8
I(Observed)
Figure 4.21
Comparison of observed and predicted sharpness index.
49
increases, the size of inner vortex will increase. Therefore, the possibility of bigger
particle collected by the inner vortex and then removed at overflow is also high. This
causes the increasing of the cut size diameter. For smaller apex diameter, the feed
flow rate (or feed velocity) has to be reduced to keep the pressure drop constant.
Then the big particle sizes have more chance to recover at overflow due to
insufficient centrifugal force to push the particles to the hydrocyclone wall and a
consequential increase in the cut size diameter. In addition, the calculation was
performed at different value of hydrocyclone length and pressure drop, the same
trend was also observed as displayed in Figure C.4 - C. 11,
24 -I
22
z
20
.m; 18
+Du=0.4
cn
+Du=0.5
cn
-l+Du=0.6 cu
g 16
8
* 14
*DLl=o.7 cn
1.4
1.6
1.8
Vortex finder diameter (cm)
Figure 4.22 Effect of apex and vortex tinder diameter on cut size diameter at
The effect of the pressure drop and the hydrocyclone length on cut size
diameter is shown in Figure 4.23.Unlike
apex diameter, hydrocyclone length has
little effect on cut size diameter. Furthermore, the effect of pressure drop on cut size
50
diameter was consistent with that of apex diameter. Since the pressure drop is varied
with feed flow rate or feed velocity, cut size diameter is increase as pressure drop is
reduced. The effect of the pressure drop and the hydrocyclone length at another
conditions of apex and vortex finder diameter are shown in Figure C. 12-C. 19.
12 -
4 Pressure drop=0.7
10 I
20
kg/cm2
+ Pressure drop= 1 .O kg/cm2

,
22
24
,
26
28
30
Hydrocyclone length (cm)
Figure 4.23
Effect of pressure drop and hydrocyclone length on cut size diameter

at apex dimeter is 0.7 cm and vortex tinder diameter is 1.7 cm.
Next, the effect of these parameters on the sharpness index were

considered. Figure 4.24 shows the effect of the apex and the vortex finder diameter
on the sharpness index. Decreasing of apex diameter and increasing of vortex finder
diameter provide the better classification performance. When the vortex finder
diameter is increased the inner vortex, which carrying fine particles, can be easily
removed at overflow. This reduces the performance loss due to the eddy flow. As the
apex diameter reduced, the amount of removed water containing unclassified
51
particles at underflow was reduced. As a result, the sharpness index is increased.

Additional Figure (Figure C.20 - C.27) also confirmed the effect of apex diameter
and vortex finder diameter. For the effect of the pressure drop and the hydrocyclone
length on the sharpness index, it appeared that these two parameters have less impact
on classification performance than apex and vortex finder diameters by considering
the sharpness model as shown in Equation 4.2.
$
-;
g
2
4
0.6
0.58
0.56
0.54
0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
+ Du=O.4 cm
-M-Du=O.5 cm
41- Du=0.6 cm
I+Du=0.7 cm //
1.6
1.4
1.8
Figure 4.22

4.3 Optimization results
Main objective of hydrocyclone classifier is to get the highest sharpness of

classification between coarse and fine particles. Then the objective function is the
sharpness index. This non-linear equation was optimized by using the LINGO
52
program. At the optimum, the apex diameter was 0.4 cm (O.O4D,), the vortex finder
diameter was 2.0 cm (0.2Dc) and length of hydrocyclone was arbitary value in range
of 20-30 cm (2D,-3D,). The value of sharpness index at this optimum point is 0.628.
These dimensions were suggested to design and test further by varying the feed flow
rate (or pressure drop) for obtaining the design equation as same as the equation (1.1)
and (1.2).
CHARTER 5
Conclusions
5.1
The empirical models for cut size diameter and sharpness index as a
function of apex diameter, vortex finder diameter, length of hydrocyclone

and pressure drop are
dSo = 17.583 - 4.049X1 + 1 .287X2 - 0.802x4 + 0.149X,X2

- 0.424X,X3
+ 0.386X1& - 0.761X2X3 + 1 .469X2X4
+ 0.276X3X4 + 1 .469X1X2&
+ 0.523X1X3X4
-0.276X2X3x4
I = 0.538 - 0.034X1 + 0.056X2
5.2
Cut size diameter increases when the apex diameter and pressure drop
are decrease while the vortex finder diameter increases. Apex diameter is
the most influence parameter to cut size diameter while length of hydrocyclone has
the lowest effect.
5.3 The classification performance of the hydrocyclone can be improved
by decreasing the apex diameter and by increasing the vortex finder diameter. The
sharpness index is srtongly dependent on the vortex finder diameter and much less
influenced by hydrocyclone length and pressure drop.
54
5.4 The appropriate dimension of apex diameter and vortex finder

diameter are O.O4D, and 0.2D,, respectively. These geometries were suggested to
test further by varying the feed flow rate. Following this approach the design
equations for classifying hydrocyclone should be obtained.
REFERENCES
1.
Kelly, E.G. and Spottiswood, D.J., 1982, Introduction to Mineral Processing,

A-Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York, John-Wiley & Sons, 486 p.
2.
Bradley, D., 1984 , The Hydrocyclone, Melta, Interprint Limited, 512 p.
3.
Svarovsky, L., 1990, Solid-Liquid separation, 3rd ed., London, Butterworths,

pp. 202-249.
4.
Wills, B.A., 1985, Mineral Processing Technology, 3rd ed., London, Pergamon
Press, pp. 259-300.
5.
Larry, R., 1980, Separation techniques 2: gaskquid/solid systems, New York,

McGraw-Hill, pp. 223-256.
6. Rattanakawin, C., 1990, Effects of Operating Variables on Kaolin

Classification Performance of 2 inch Hydrocyclone, Master of Engineering
Thesis, Mineral Engineering Program, Chulalongkorn University, 212 p.
7.
Terdthianwong, A., 1997, Hydrocyclone for Separation and Classification,

KKU Engineering Journal, Vol. 2, No. 25, pp. 79-95.
56
8.
Antunes, M. and Medronnho, R.A., 1988, Bradley Hydrocyclones: Design and

performance analysis, Rio de Janeiro, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, pp
75-86.
9. Cilliers, J.J. Austin, R.C. and Tucker, J.P., 1988, An evaluation of formal
experimental design procedures for hydrocyclone modeling, Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, pp. 112-124.
10. Lynch, A.J. and Rao, T.C., 1975 Modeling and scale-up of hydrocyclone
classifiers, Cagliari, Mineral Processing Congress, pp. 1-25.
11. Plitt, P.A., 1976, A mathematical model of the hydrocyclone, CIM Bulletin,
Dez, pp. 26-37.
12. Schweitzer, P.A., 1988, Handbook of Separation Techniques for Chemical

Engineers, 2nd ed., New York, McGraw-Hill, pp. 153-158.
57
APPENDIX A.
Experimental data
L .7*
Underflow
Overflow
Total mixture volume Sampling time Total mixture weight Total mixture volume lSampling time 1 Total mixture weight
(second)
(kg)
(second)
(kg)
(cm)
(cm)
1.27
0.61
1220.00
1.70
27.11
1
3 10.00
2
260.00
22.57
0.43
1150.00
1.34
1.21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.50
1340.00
1.40
23.09
1.83
3
265.00
1.62
1.29
278.33
24.26
0.51
1236.67
Average
Test No.
Table A.2 Experimental data for Run #2: D, =0.4 cm, D, =2.0 cm, L = 30 cm and AP = 1.0 kg/cm2
d.d
Underflow
Overflow
Total mixture volume Sampling time Total mixture weight Total mixture volume Sampling time Total mixture weight
(second)
(kg)
(second)
(kg)
@m3)
(cm31
0.40
1440.00
230.00
32.49
3.80
1.50
0.41
1400.00
240.00
32.71
3.54
1.46
0.39
1350.00
2 cn
1 A3
230.00
32.05
0.40
1396.67
233.33
32.42
3.61
1.46
I
Test No.
1
2
3
Average
Experimental data for Run #l: D, =0.4 cm, D, =2.0 cm, L = 30 cm and AR = 0.2 kg/cm2
Table A. 1
Experimental data for Run #3: D, =0.4 cm, D, = 1.4cm,L=30cmandAP=0.2kg/cm2
1
2
3
Average
Test No.
Table A.4
Underflow
Overflow
(second)
(kg)
(second)
(kg)
(cm3>
(cm3>
250.00
17.71
0.43
1170.00
1.95
1.20
17.71
0.43
1170.00
1.95
1.20
250.00
17.71
0.43
1170.00
1.95
1.20
250.00
1.20
17.71
0.43
1170.00
1.95
250.00
Experimental data for Run #4: D, =0.4 cm, D, =1.4 cm, L = 30 cm and AP = 1.0 kg/cm2
Underflow
Overflow
(second)
(kg)
(kg)
(second)
(cm31
(cm31
1.38
215.00
27.06
0.35
1340.00
4.47
1
4.47
1.38
27.06
0.35
1340.00
215.00
2
27.06
0.35
1340.00
4.47
1.38
3
215.00
1.38
27.06
0.35
1340.00
4.47
Average
215.00
Test No.
Table A.3
341.67
2
3
Average
24.13
0.58
0.52
0.48
0.53
1400.00
1530.00
1450.00
1460.00
15.99
14.00
13.91
14.63
301.67
2
3
Average
1
0.51
0.55
0.50
0.49
1436.67
1350.00
1480.00
1480.00
3.57
4.05
3.74
3.79
1.46
1.59
1.52
1.52
1.41
1.51
1.51
1.48
1.67
1.66
1.83
1.72
Underflow
Overflow
(second)
(kg)
(kg)
(second)
(cm31
(cm31
325.00
295.00
285.00
Test No.
27.13
23.78
21.48
Underflow
Overflow
(second)
(kg)
(second)
(kg)
(cm3)
(cm31
Test No.
380.00
340.00
305.00
Experimental data for Run #5: D, =0.7 cm, D, =2.Ocm, L = 30 cm and AP = 0.2 kg/cm2
Table A.5
Average
350.00
400.00
400.00
383.33
6.36
6.23
5.85
0.49
0.44
0.52
0.50
1500.00
1270.00
1550.00.
1440.00
6.49
2.78
2.31
2.53
2.54
5.39
5.39
5.46
1.55
1.32
1.49
1.53
1.48
1.59
1.49
Overflow
Total mixture volume Sampling time Total mixture weight
(second)
(kg)
(cm31
2
3
1480.00
1410.00
1436.67
Underflow
(second)
(cm3)
(kg)
0.40
0.33
0.37
Test No.
7.10
5.96
7.76
Experimental data for Run #8: D, =0.7 cm, D, =1.4 cm, L = 30 cm and hp = 1.0 kg/cm2
345.00
275.00
316.67
Underflow
Overflow
(cm3)
(second)
(second)
(kg)
&3)
(cm31
330.00
7.58
0.39
1420.00
5.32
1.47
Table A.8
Average
2
3
Test No.
Average
2
3
Test No.
Table A.10
Average
1
2
3
Test No.
36.09
35.90
36.88
0.41
0.40
0.42
1320.00
1260.00
1331.67
280.00
250.00
250.00
260.00
25.74
22.63
22.89
23.75
0.51
0.46
0.46
0.48
Underflow
(second)
(kg)
(cm31
2.52
1.65
2.04
2.07
3.65
3.72
3.76
1.60
0.97
1.25
1.27
1.37
1.31
1.38
1540.00
930.00
1190.00
1220.00
Overflow
(second)
(kg)
(cm31
Experimental data for Run #lo: D, =0.4 cm, D, =2.0 cm, L = 20 cm and AP = 1.0 kg/cm*
240.00
230.00
243.33
Underflow
Overflow
(kg)
(second)
(second)
(kg)
(cm31
(cm>
1.47
0.44
1415.00
3.91
38.64
260.00
Table A.9 Experimental data for Run #9: D, =0.4 cm, D, =2.0 cm, L = 20 cm and AP = 0.2 kg/cm*
280.00
230.00
220.00
243.33
37.74
30.73
30.31
32.93
0.44
0.36
0.36
0.39
Underflow
(second)
(kg)
(cm3)
1240.00
1230.00
1360.00
1276.67
230.00
240.00
230.00
233.33
18.65
18.84
18.57
18.69
0.39
0.40
0.39
1.28
1250.00
1200.00
1220.00
2.37
2.33
2.46
2.39
1223.33
1.25
1.26
1.32
1.27
1.42
1.26
1.27
Underflow
Overflow
(second)
(kg)
(second)
(kg)
(cm31
(cm3)
Avera g0.39
e
2
3
Test No.
4.75
4.70
5.41
4.95
Overflow
(second)
(kg)
(cm3>
Experimental data for Run #l 1: D, =0.4 cm, D, =1.4 cm, L = 20 cm and AP = 0.2 kg/cm*
Table A. 12 Experimental data for Run #12: D, =0.4 cm, D, =1.4 cm, L = 20 cm and AP = 1 .O kg/cm*
Average
2
3
Test No.
Table A. 11
1
2
3
Average
Test No.
Table A.14
Test No.
Overflow
Underflow
(kg)
(second)
(kg)
(second)
(cm>
(cm>
275.00
18.19
0.46
1160.00
1.87
1.19
230.00
15.03
0.39
1310.00
1.96
1.35
215.00
14.03
0.36
1050.00
1.56
1.18
240.00
15.75
0.40
1173.33
1.80
1.24
Overflow
Underflow
(second)
(kg)
(kg)
(second)
(cm31
(cm31
1
190.00
20.79
0.31
1420.00
4.13
1.46
2
200.00
20.34
0.31
1200.00
3.50
1.25
3
195.00
20.12
0.30
1450.00
4.59
1.51
Aveiage
195.00
20.42
0.31
1356.67
4.07
1.41
~
Table A. 13
1
2
3
Average
Test No.
Table A. 16
1
2
3
Average
Test No.
Table A. 15
Underflow
(kg)
(second)
(cm31
240.00
8.13
0.33
335.00
12.00
0.66
260.00
9.38
0.36
278.33
9.84
0.45
Overflow
(kg)
(second)
(cm3)
1315.00
3.43
1.37
1340.00
3.44
1.40
1510.00
4.03
1.56
1388.33
3.63
1.44
Experimental data for Run #16: D, =0.7 cm, D, =1.4 cm, L = 20 cm and AP = 1.0 kg/cm*
Underflow
Overtlow
(second)
(kg)
(second)
(kg)
(cm31
@m3)
260.00
10.85
0.33
1350.00
5.59
1.40
235.00
10.09
0.31
1300.00
5.43
1.35
260.00
10.81
0.34
1320.00
5.59
1.38
251.67
10.58
0.33
1323.33
5.54
1.38
Experimental data for Run #15: D, =0.7 cm, D, =1.4 cm, L = 20 cm and AP = 0.2 kg/cm*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.70
3.30
7.20
11.30
9.90
9.90
6.20
14.40
18.80
8.40
5.60
2.30
100.00
Particle size distribution of Run # 1: D, =0.4 cm, D, =2.0 cm, L = 30 cm and AP = 0.2 kg/cm2
RMS particle size T

% Wt. Underflow
T
%
(micron)
rest No. 1 rest No.2 rkst No.3 rest No.4 Average Test NO. 1 rest No.2
209.8
0.00
0:oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
148.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
104.9
4.50
5.20
5.10
4.93
0.00
0.00
73.9
15.20
15.00
15.10
15.10
0.00
0.00
25.00
24.20
24.47
0.00
0.00
52.2
24.20
27.00
27.33
4.50
4.50
36.9
27.60
27.40
26.1
14.90
15.40
15.60
15.30
6.70
6.90
18.8
5.00
5.30
5.40
5.23
10.30
10.40
13.3
3.60
3.30
3.20
3.37
12.70
13.40
9.3
1.70
1.40
1.50
1.53
10.50
10.80
6.5
0.70
0.90
0.80
0.80
10.30
10.30
4.6
0.20
0.60
0.60
0.47
8.30
8.30
3.3
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.43
12.60
13.00
2.3
0.90
0.70
0.70
0.77
13.70
13.60
0.30
0.30
0.27
1.6
0.20
5.70
5.00
0.00
1.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.50
2.90
0.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.90
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Table A. 17
v
rest No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.90
5.63
9.30
12.47
10.40
10.17
7.60
13.33
15.37
6.37
4.00
1.47
100.00
Tt, Underf W
% Wt. Overflc N
Test No. 1 Test No.2 Test No.3 Test No.4 Average Test No. 1 Test No.2 Test No.3 Test
AEge
No.4 i
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
2.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.80
10.60
0.00
0.00
10.70
10.50
0.00
0.00
22.50
0.00
22.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.80
30.40
0.00
29.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.80
19.30
18.60
0.00
18.95
0.00
1.30
0.00
7.30
7.60
0.00
7.45
5.60
7.50
6.40
4.10
0.00
4.15
10.10
11.00
4.20
11.50
1.80
1.90
0.00
1.85
9.70
10.30
10.40
0.90
1.00
0.00
0.95
10.70
10.10
10.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.50
6.10
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.80
16.50
17.10
0.00
1.10
0.00
0.55
22.80
20.60
21.60
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.75
9.80
8.50
8.90
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.10
6.40
5.50
5.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.60
2.10
2.20
100.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
%
Particle size distribution of Run I# 2: D, =0.4 cm, D, =2.0 cm, L = 30 cm and AP = 1 .O kg/cm2
RMS particle size

(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
Table A. 18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.43
6.50
10.87
10.13
10.47
5.87
16.80
21.67
9.07
5.90
69
I
I 1
I I4
I Id- i
-r
Jt, Underdo W
rest No. 1 Test No.2 Test No.3 Test No.4 Average
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.20
3.00
2.30
2.90
2.60
10.20
9.70
10.50
13.60
11.00
19.30
18.30
18.30
26.80
20.70
27.70
27.40
27.40
40.20
30.68
15.20
19.63
20.80
21.20
21.30
0.00
7.70
10.10
10.30
10.40
5.00
5.00
5.40
0.00
3.85
0.00
1.08
1.60
1.70
1.00
0.85
1.10
1.30
1.00
0.00
0.30
0.40
1.00
0.00
0.43
0.30
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.00
1.10
1.10
0.70
0.00
0.73
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
%
1
% Wt, Ovehll V
Test No. 1 rest No.2 1Test No.3 rest No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.55
3.60
3.50
7.20
8.50
7.85
10.10
12.80
11.45
15.35
14.00
16.70
13.90
15.00
14.45
12.20
12.30
12.40
7.80
8.40
9.00
11.40
9.50
10.45
9.30
10.35
11.40
4.10
3.00
3.55
2.30
1.50
1.90
0.60
0.20
0.40
100.00
100.00
100.00
Particle size distribution of Run # 4: D, =0.4 cm, D, =1.4 cm, L = 30 cm and AP = 1 .O kg/cm2
RMS particle size

(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
, 52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
Table A.20
(0.000
2.900
11.400
20.900
26.900
18.300
8.600
4.900
2.000
1.200
0.400
1.000
1.300
0.200
0.000
0.000
100.000
SW
l-
1
Vt, Overfl Y
Test No.4 Average rest No. 1 rest No.2 rest No.3 rest No.4 Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.500
0.000
0.250
2.600
0.000
0.650
11.633
1.300
1.100
0.000
0.550
20.833
4.400
0.000
2.200
28.000
18.767
6.900
0.000
3.450
8.267
2.800
0.000
1.400
2.300
0.000
1.150
5.067
1.900
4.000
1.600
2.800
1.200
6.000
4.400
5.200
0.233
7.700
4.400
6.050
0.433
21.500
25.100
23.300
0.933
23.400
33.200
28.300
0.133
9.600
15.700
12.650
8.450
0.000
6.100
10.800
0.000
2.400
4.800
3.600
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
Particle size distribution of Run # 5: D, =0.7 cm, D, =2.0cm, L = 30 cm and AP = 0.2 kg/cm2
RMS particle size T

micron)
rest No. 1 rest No.2
209.8
0.000
0.000
148.3
0.000
0.000
104.9
1.800
3.100
73.9
12.100
11.400
52.2
21.300
20.300
36.9
29.300
27.800
26.1
18.800
19.200
18.8
8.100
8.100
13.3
5.800
4.500
2.000
1.700
9.3
1.600
6.5
0.800
4.6
0.000
0.300
0.000
0.300
3.3
1.500
2.3
0.000
1.6
0.000
0.200
0.000
0.000
1.1
0.8
0.000
0.000
Total
100.000
100.000
Table A.21
-r
0.00
1.40
1.80
7.90
13.10
12.20
11.60
8.50
15.40
16.70
6.30
3.80
1.30
100.00
0.40
0.80
1.30
7.80
12.40
11.80
11.10
8.00
16.00
17.70
6.90
4.30
1.50
100.00
0.30
0.50
0.60
6.80
11.80
11.40
10.80
7.40
16.30
19.10
8.00
5.10
1.90
100.00
0.23
0.90
1.23
7.50
12.43
11.80
11.17
7.97
15.90
17.83
7.07
4.40
1.57
100.00
1
Overflc N
Test No. 1 rest No.2 I Test No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
% Wt,
Particle size distribution of Run # 6: D, =0.7 cm, D, =2.0cm, L = 30 cm and AP = 1 .O kg/cm2
RMS particle size T

% Tt, Under-f NW
micron)
Test
No.
1
rest
No.2
Test No.3 Test No.4 Average
(
209.8
0.00
0:oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
148.3
0.00
0.00
104.9
2.30
2.30
2.10
2.23
73.9
9.60
9.60
9.60
9.60
52.2
18.10
18.30
18.50
18.30
36.9
26.90
26.60
27.00
26.83
26.1
21.10
20.70
20.90
20.90
10.90
18.8
10.90
11.00
10.80
5.80
13.3
5.70
5.90
5.80
1.90
1.97
9.3
1.90
2.10
1.33
6.5
1.40
1.30
1.30
4.6
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.43
0.43
3.3
0.30
0.60
0.40
1.07
2.3
1.10
1.10
1.00
0.20
1.6
0.20
0.20
0.20
1.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.8
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Total
Table A.22
% Wt. Underflow
rest No. 1 Iest No.2 Test No.3 rest No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.40
1.90
5.50
0.90
2.68
8.40
8.40
11.20
7.00
8.75
14.90
14.50
15.20
14.20
14.70
21.80
22.10
20.20
22.00
21.53
18.20
17.90
16.80
18.70
17.90
12.50
12.40
11.20
12.90
12.25
8.30
8.80
7.30
8.70
8.28
3.70
3.50
3.50
4.10
3.70
2.80
3.00
2.50
3.10
2.85
1.70
1.90
1.50
1.90
1.75
2.20
2.40
1.90
2.70
2.30
2.60
2.70
2.30
3.00
2.65
0.50
0.50
0.70
0.70
0.60
0.10
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
I-
1
% Wt. Overflow
,
Test No. 1 Test No.2 T&t No.3 rest No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.58
1.90
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.50
2.00
0.40
0.70
0.00
0.78
1.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.30
6.20
6.50
3.40
2.00
4.53
10.60
11.20
8.20
7.90
9.48
9.80
10.40
7.80
8.00
9.00
10.40
11.20
8.70
9.10
9.85
7.10
7.30
4.30
3.70
5.60
16.70
17.50
16.40
17.40
17.00
24.70
26.20
22.65
19.20
20.50
12.70
7.50
8.00
12.20
10.10
4.70
5.00
8.60
8.90
6.80
1.90
3.80
4.00
2.85
1.70
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
RMS particle size

(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
Table A.23
Wt, Overtlo w
Test No. 1 Test No.2 Test No.3 Test No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.80
0.00
0.10
0.43
5.70
5.60
5.00
5.20
5.38
7.70
7.80
5.90
5.70
6.78
8.80
8.70
7.60
7.10
8.05
2.30
2.40
0.20
1.50
1.60
18.90
18.80
17.30
17.10
18.03
28.40
28.30
30.60
29.60
29.23
13.60
13.70
16.10
16.10
14.88
9.50
9.60
11.80
11.90
10.70
4.30
4.30
5.50
5.70
4.95
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
RMS particle size l% Jt, Underl W

(micron)
rest No. 1 Test No.2 Test No.3 Test No.4 Average
209.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
148.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
104.9
2.60
0.80
2.20
0.80
1.60
73.9
8.20
5.70
8.60
5.70
7.05
52.2
13.00
11.80
13.70
11.90
12.60
36.9
19.30
20.00
18.60
19.30
19.30
26.1
17.90
18.80
16.70
18.00
17.85
18.8
14.30
15.30
13.90
15.00
14.63
13.3
10.20
11.40
10.60
11.50
10.93
9.3
4.70
5.30
5.10
5.60
5.18
6.5
2.90
3.20
3.00
3.40
3.13
4.6
1.50
1.50
1.20
1.40
1.40
3.3
2.00
2.40
2.30
2.60
2.33
2.3
2.50
2.80
2.90
3.40
2.90
1.6
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.85
1.1
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.28
0.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Table A.24
l-
Wt, Underf W
rest No. 1 rest No.2I rest No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5.80
5.20
5.43
16.60
16.90
16.00
16.50
25.90
26.10
25.40
25.80
26.50
26.50
26.80
26.60
13.37
13.20
13.10
13.80
4.63
4.60
4.40
4.90
3.70
3.30
3.70
3.57
1.50
1.50
1.60
1.40
0.80
0.60
0.90
0.90
0.23
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.50
0.70
0.40
0.40
0.87
0.90
0.80
0.90
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
%
1
% Wt. Overflow
rest No. 1 Test No.2 r&t No.3 rest No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.30
1.10
1.00
1.13
4.20
4.40
4.50
4.37
5.40
4.90
5.30
5.20
9.60
9.30
9.40
9.43
12.50
12.60
12.90
12.67
10.93
10.80
10.90
11.10
10.20
10.40
10.30
10.30
7.50
7.10
7.30
7.30
13.13
13.20
13.20
13.00
14.80
14.70
15.10
14.60
5.87
5.80
6.00
5.80
3.63
3.60
3.70
3.60
1.23
1.20
1.30
1.20
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
RMS particle size

(micron)
209.8
148.3
104;9
73.9
, 52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
Table A.25
% Vt, Overflow V
rest No. 1 Test No.2 rest No.3 rest No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.48
2.90
3.50
3.80
4.00
3.55
3.60
4.10
6.30
6.10
5.03
9.00
9.50
9.90
10.20
9.65
12.50
13.00
12.90
13.80
13.05
11.30
11.20
10.90
11.20
11.40
10.60
10.63
10.20
10.70
11.00
8.00
7.20
7.60
8.40
8.80
13.20
13.50
14.20
13.60
13.00
13.40
14.73
16.40
15.20
13.90
4.90
5.68
6.60
5.90
5.30
4.10
3.10
2.90
3.43
3.60
1.40
0.80
1.10
1.20
1.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
RMS particle size T

% ft, Underfl10W
micron)
rest
No.
1
Test
No.2
Test No.3 Test No.4 Average
(
209.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
148.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
104.9
4.00
4.50
4.07
3.70
14.00
73.9
14.00
13.80
14.20
52.2
24.30
24.30
24.20
24.00
36.9
28.33
28.40
28.70
27.90
26.1
16.30
16.50
16.20
16.33
18.8
5.70
5.80
5.73
5.70
13.3
3.50
3.50
3.53
3.60
9.3
1.50
1.60
1.40
1.50
6.5
0.80
0.90
0.80
0.83
4.6
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
3.3
0.40
0.20
0.50
0.37
2.3
0.90
0.70
0.80
0.80
1.6
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
1.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Table A.26
0000 I
L9'1
CS'P
OO'L
CL'91
LO'PI
06'9
EC01
CL.01
C6.11
19'8
EI'P
fL0.C
12'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
Ti3iizF
0000 I
091
OPP
089
OP.9 I
08'CI
06'9
O&.01
OS'01
OL'II
06'8
02'S
OS'E
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
0000 I
00'00 I
0000 I
00'0
021
OZZ
00'0
OL'C
OSS
00'9
OZ.8
oz.0
09'SI
OZ.81
051
02'91
OZ'PI
Lg.0
Lb.0
09'L
oz.9
OL'OI
00'0 I
LI'T
C8'1
09'1 I
01'01
OS'P
OO'EI
01'11
LI.8
OE'6
08'L
OL'E
OC'81
OS'E
08'2
E6'9Z
08'2
01'12
08'0
00'0
00'0
Lg.11
00'0
OE'C
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
Z-N W,L [ ON WL m
%
00'00 I
00001
00'0
000
00'0
000
01'0
oz.0
051
01'1
06'0
06'0
OS'0
OP.0
oz.1
00' I
06'7
08'1
06-P
09'P
OP.8
08'L
02'87
08'L.l
06'92
OZ'LZ
00'12
08'12
OL'I I
OE'ZI
06'Z
OZ'E
00'0
00'0
oci.0
00'0
&-ON W,T, 1 Z-ON WJ.
vvn ?M%
0000 I
000
000
OEO
OS1
08'0
OS'0
OC'I
08'7
OO'P
058
06'87
OL'9Z
OS'OZ
09'1 I
08-E
00'0
00'0
1 'ON WLT.
@JO&
8'0
I'1
9'1
E'Z
cc
9'P
5'9
E'6
E'EI
8'87
I '9Z
6'9C
Z'ZS
6'CL
6'VOl
C'8P1
1
% Vt, Ovedl N
rest No. 1 rest No.2 rest No.3 Test No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.20
0.00
0.30
1.50
0.97
0.00
1.40
2.50
1.60
0.00
2.30
6.30
9.10
9.10
8.17
13.60
13.13
12.10
13.70
12.30
11.83
10.90
12.30
11.30
10.97
10.40
11.20
7.90
7.30
6.10
7.90
14.60
15.00
15.70
14.70
16.00
17.57
20.60
16.10
6.00
7.10
9.20
6.10
6.20
3.70
3.70
4.53
2.50
1.20
1.20
1.63
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
RMS particle size T

% rt, Underf W
(micron)
rest No. 1 rest No.2 rest No.3 rest No.4 Average
209.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
148.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
104.9
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
73.9
9.60
9.70
9.60
9.50
52.2
18.80
19.10
18.90
18.80
36.9
27.10
27.20
27.30
27.20
26.1
20.60
20.60
20.60
20.60
18.8
10.50
10.50
10.30
10.43
13.3
5.70
5.60
5.50
5.60
9.3
1.90
2.00
1.90
1.93
6.5
1.10
1.20
1.10
1.13
4.6
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.43
3.3
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.87
2.3
1.30
1.30
1.10
1.23
1.6
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.17
1.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
100.00
100.00
Table A.28
RMS particle size

% Wt, Underflow
% Wt, Overflow
Test No. 1 Test No.2 Test No.3 Test No.4 Average Test No. 1 Test No.2 Test No.3 Test No.4 Average
(micron)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
209.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
148.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
104.9
4.40
1.70
1.00
8.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
73.9
10.90
7.40
6.40
16.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.2
18.20
16.40
15.70
24.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.9
24.60
25.10
24.80
19.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.1
18.70
19.80
19.80
10.90
0.00
0.00
5.30
2.60
1.98
18.8
9.90
11.20
11.60
5.50
6.60
7.20
6.43
3.40
1.20
9.40
9.10
5.78
13.3
2.40
3.10
3.40
2.97
4.30
3.30
9.50
9.40
6.63
9.3
1.50
2.10
2.30
1.97
4.30
3.80
9.70
9.50
6.83
6.5
0.40
0.80
0.80
0.67
0.00
0.00
5.30
4.90
2.55
4.6
1.90
13.70
14.30
16.30
17.50
15.45
3.3
1.30
2.00
2.40
2.60
31.40
32.50
22.90
24.40
27.80
2.3
1.90
2.70
3.20
0.30
0.80
1.00
0.70
19.60
20.50
10.90
11.40
15.60
1.6
0.00
0.30
0.40
0.23
15.40
16.10
7.50
7.80
11.70
1.1
0.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.90
8.30
3.20
3.40
5.70
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Total
Table A.29
% Wt, Overflow
% Wt, Underflow
Test No. 1 Test No.2 Test No.3 Test No.4 Average Test No. 1 Test No.2 Test No.3 Test No.4 Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.50
0.10
6.70
1.80
3.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.10
4.30
13.80
6.90
8.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
13.70
18.60
15.30
15.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.70
25.10
23.10
25.00
23.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.90
22.70
18.50
21.80
20.73
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
12.50
14.10
10.70
13.30
12.65
6.80
4.30
3.50
3.50
4.53
7.10
7.80
5.60
7.10
6.90
11.20
10.00
9.40
9.10
9.93
2.80
3.40
2.00
2.80
2.75
10.60
10.00
9.50
9.10
9.80
1.70
2.30
1.00
1.70
1.68
10.70
10.00
10.00
9.90
10.15
0.50
0.80
0.00
0.40
0.43
6.90
5.70
6.10
6.00
6.18
1.70
2.10
0.00
1.50
1.33
16.40
17.20
17.40
17.60
17.15
2.30
2.80
0.00
1.90
1.75
20.50
23.00
23.30
23.70
22.63
0.50
0.70
0.00
0.50
0.43
8.70
10.20
10.60
10.80
10.08
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.03
5.70
6.80
7.20
7.20
6.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.30
2.80
3.00
3.10
2.80
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Particle size distribution of Run # 14: D, =0.7 cm, D, =2.0 cm, L = 20 cm and AP = 1 .O kg/cm2
RMS particle size

(micron)
209.8
148.3
104:9
73.9
, 52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
Table A.30
00
0
81
1-i
L
II
00001
EEZ
06'S
02'6
01'22
L9'81
CO'8
LE'II.
E8.01
EC6
EZ'Z
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
p.0~ IsaL
0000 I
OPZ
00'9
OS.6
OZ'ZZ
OL'81
06'L
0E.I I
08'01
OE'6
OI'Z
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
0000 I
012
OP'S
09'8
OE'IZ
09'8 I
08'8
08'1 I
01'1 I
09'6
OL'Z
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
Z-ON )Sa,L
MOD=0 JM %
00001
OS2
OE'9
OL'6
08'22
OL'8I
0tr.L
00'1 I
09'01
07'6
06'1
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
00001
000
oz.0
EL'0
LS'Z
EO'Z
OP.1
E9'Z
08'P
LB.11
L1.91
LL.61
LO'OZ
LP'II
OL'S
08'0
00'0
00'0
0000 I
000
oz.0
OL'O
OS'Z
OI'Z
OC'I
OS'Z
08'P
09'1 I
oz.9 I
08'61
OZ'OZ
09'1 I
OL'S
08'0
00'0
00'0
0000 I
000
02-o
08'0
09'Z
06'1
OS'1
08'Z
08'P
09'1 I
01'91
08'67
OO'OZ
OE'I I
OL'S
06'0
00-o
00'0
0000 I
000
02'0
OL'O
09'Z
OI'Z
OP.1
09-z
08'P
08'1 I
oz.9 I
OL.61
OO'OZ
OS'1 I
OL'S
OL'O
00'0
00'0
PJOJ.
.80
1'1
9'1
E'Z
E'E
9'P
S'9
56
C'EI
8'81
I '9Z
6'91:
Z'ZS
6'CL
6'POI
E'8PI
8'602
U0.IDp.U
m
aqs apad sm
APPENDIX B.
84
B. 1
The data in Table A. 1-A. 16 were utilized to calculate mass flowrate of

solid in both underflow and overflow. The mass flowrate results are shown in Table
B. 1. The sample of calculation is described as follows
For Run # 1, from Table A. 1

cm3
Total mixture volume of underflow,V,
233.33
Sampling time of underflow, tu
32.42
Total mixture weight of underflow,W,
400.00
Total mixture volume of overflow,V,
1396.67
Sampling time of overflow,t,
3.61
Total mixture weight of overflow,W,
1460.00
cm31
The step by step calculation of solid flow rate in both underflow and
overflow are displayed below and the final results are summarized in Table B. 1 are
Density of water,pr
1.0
d cm3
Density of solid,p,
2.6
iid cm3
Total mass flow rate of underflowq,
WA
=
=
Underflow concentration,C,
400.00/32.42
12.34
g/s
= ((w,N,)-l)* lqps-pl)
= ((400/233.33)-1)*100/1.6
=
44.65
% wt
85
Mass flow rate of solid in underflow,m,
Total mass flow rate of overflow,m,
Overflow concentration,C,
(mu*c,)/loo
(12.34*44.65)/100
5.51
Wdto
1460.00/3.61
404.29
g/s
g/s
= (vdv,)-l)*loo~(ps-pl)
= ((1460/1396.67)-l)*
Mass flow rate of solid in overflow,m,,
100/l .6
2.84
(n&*c,)/loo
(404.29*2.84)/100
11.49
% wt
g/s
The performance of hydrocyclone was calculated in terms of percent

recovery of solid to underflow. See Table B.2 as a sample of calculation.
For example, 27.33 % of particle size 36.9 micron presented in underflow
and 3.90 % of this particle size was in overflow.
Solid flow rate OfUnderflOW,I&,,d=j~.~
Solid flow rate of ovefflow,m&=3&9
Total solid flOW rate,ms,d+j9
(m,*27.33)/100
(5.51*27.33)/100
1.50
(m,*3.90)/100
(11.49*3.90)/100
0.45
mu,d=36.9
g/s
g/s
+ mso,d=36.9
86
Percent recovery to underflow
Percent recovery to overflow
1 so + 0.45
1.95
@su,d=36.9/~d=36.9)
(1.50/1.95)*100
77.07
(%,d-36.9hs,d=36.9)
(0.45/l .95)* 100
22.92
g/s
For the other Runs, the calculation results are shown in Table B.3-B. 17.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Lun No
-r
Table B. 1
Underflow
Total mass flow Concentration
(ghec)
% wt
12.338
44.648
21.069
52.258
12.934
39.244
24.280
45.000
21.864
33.948
35.112
43.886
52.789
11.276
77.984
16.815
11.297
44.579
20.079
52.113
11.750
36.938
21.048
42.874
35.834
15.021
42.558
25.632
30.864
18.668
36.037
44.657
Overflow
Mass flow of solid Total mass flow Zoncentration

(gisec)
(g/set)
% wt
404.294
5.509
2.841
11.010
805.024
2.874
5.076
308.725
1.866
10.926
615.385
1.603
7.422
402.658
2.716
15.409
859.696
1.771
5.952
277.039
2.472
585.814
2.052
13.113
367.817
2.426
5.036
2.758
10.464
611.848
4.340
267.388
2.269
1.895
9.024
528.153
5.383
346.543
2.317
10.909
693.850
3.754
248.645
2.520
5.762
16.093
397.830
2.494
Mass flow rate of solid in underflow and overflow
Mass flow of solid

(g/set)
11.487
23.133
5.760
9.862
10.935
15.221
6.848
12.023
8.922
16.876
6.066
10.011
8.029
26.049
6.266
9.922
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
0.0000
0.0000
4.9333
15.1000
24.4667
27.3333
15.3000
5.2333
3.3667
1.5333
0.8000
0.4667
0.4333
0.7667
0.2667
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
Underflow
Overflow
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3.9000
5.6333
9.3000
12.4667
10.4000
10.1667
7.6000
13.3333
15.3667
6.3667
4.0000
1.4667
100.0000
% i7t
WIS particle size
Table B.2
Solid flow of
underflow
(gkec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.2718
0.8318
1.3478
1.5057
0.8428
0.2883
0.1855
0.0845
0.0441
0.0257
0.0239
0.0422
0.0147
0.0000
0.0000
5.5088
Solid flow of
overflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4480
0.6471
1.0683
1.4320
1.1946
1.1678
0.8730
1.5315
1.7651
0.7313
0.4595
0.1685
11.4866
Solid flow of
feed
(PJsec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.2718
0.8318
1.3478
1.9537
1.4899
1.3565
1.6175
1.2791
1.2119
0.8987
1.5554
1.8073
0.7460
0.4595
0.1685
16.9954
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
77.0703
56.5695
21.2519
11.4662
6.6038
3.6365
2.8606
1.5347
2.3368
1.9692
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
22.9297
43.4305
78.7481
88.5338
93.3962
96.3635
97.1394
98.4653
97.6632
98.0308
100.0000
100.0000
%I Recovery to z/o Recovery to

Underflow
Overflow
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
Overflow
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4333
6.5000
10.8667
10.1333
10.4667
5.8667
16.8000
21.6667
9.0667
5.9000
2.3000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.9000
10.6000
22.1500
29.6000
18.9500
7.4500
4.1500
1.8500
0.9500
0.0000
0.0000
0.5500
0.7500
0.1000
0.0000
100.0000
Underflow
UW3 particle size
Table B.3
Solid flow of
underflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.3 193
1.1671
2.4388
3.2590
2.0864
0.8203
0.4569
0.2037
0.1046
0.0000
0.0000
0.0606
0.0826
0.0110
0.0000
11.0103
Solid flow of
overflow
(glsec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1002
1.5037
2.5138
2.3442
2.4213
1.3572
3.8864
5.0122
2.0974
1.3649
0.5321
23.1333
Solid flow of
feed
(gkec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.3 193
1.1671
2.4388
3.2590
2.1867
2.3239
2.9707
2.5479
2.5259
1.3572
3.8864
5.0728
2.1800
1.3759
0.5321
34.1436
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
95.4157
35.2964
15.3808
7.9945
4.1410
0.0000
0.0000
1.1938
3.7879
0.8002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
4.5843
64.7036
84.6192
92.0055
95.8590
100.0000
100.0000
98.8062
96.2121
99.1998
100.0000
41 Recovery to XI Recovery to
Underflow
Overflow
Total
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
4.3500
13.7000
21.7500
25.0500
16.0750
7.3750
4.3000
2.1250
1.5500
0.6500
1.1500
1.6000
0.3000
0.0250
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Underflow
0.5000
0.6250
5.0000
8.9000
12.8250
15.3250
13.4250
11.4750
7.1250
9.0000
9.7500
3.5500
2.0250
0.4750
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
vt
Overflow
RMS particle size
Table B.4
0.2208
0.6954
1.1040
1.2715
0.8160
0.3743
0.2183
0.1079
0.0787
0.0330
0.0584
0.0812
0.0152
0.0013
0.0000
5.0759
Solid flow of
underflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0288
0.0360
0.2880
0.5126
0.7387
0.8827
0.7733
0.6609
0.4104
0.5184
0.5616
0.2045
0.1166
0.0274
5.7598
Solid flow of
overflow
(gisec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.1130
1.1010
0.8811
0.7396
0.4434
0.5768
0.6428
0.2197
0.1179
0.0274
10.8357
33.6330
19.8251
12.2417
10.6376
7.4414
10.1210
12.6347
6.93 12
1.0763
0.0000
66.3670
80.1749
87.7583
89.3624
92.5586
89.8790
87.3653
93.0688
98.9237
100.0000
Solid flow of l/o Recovery to %J Recovery to

Underflow
Overflow
feed
(ghec)
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.2208
96.0233
3.9767
0.7242
96.8423
3.1577
1.1400
81.5333
1.5595
18.4667
1.3286
61.4158
38.5842
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
, 73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
Overflow
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3.5500
7.8500
11.4500
15.3500
14.4500
12.3000
8.4000
10.4500
10.3500
3.5500
1.9000
0.4000
100.0000
Underflow
0.0000
0.0000
3.0000
11 .oooo
20.7000
30.6750
19.6250
7.7000
3.8500
1.0750
0.8500
0.4250
0.3000
0.7250
0.0750
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
XMS particle siie
Table B.5
Solid flow of
underflow
(g/set)
0.0000
0.0000
0.3278
1.2019
2.2617
3.3516
2.1442
0.8413
0.4207
0.1175
0.0929
0.0464
0.0328
0.0792
0.0082
0.0000
0.0000
10.9260
Solid flow of
overflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3501
0.7742
1.1292
1.5138
1.4250
1.2130
0.8284
1.0306
1.0207
0.3501
0.1874
0.0394
9.8619
Solid flow of
feed
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.3278
1.2019
2.2617
3.7017
2.9184
1.9705
1.9345
1.5425
1.3059
0.8748
1.0634
1.0999
0.3583
0.1874
0.0394
20.7880
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
90.5421
73.4730
42.695 1
21.7452
7.6146
7.1117
5.3079
3.0825
7.2017
2.2871
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
9.4579
26.5270
57.3049
78.2548
92.3854
92.8883
94.6921
96.9175
92.7983
97.7129
100.0000
100.0000
/o Recovery to I/o Recovery to

Overflow
Underflow
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
0.0000
0.0000
2.6000
11.6333
20.8333
28.0000
18.7667
8.2667
5.0667
1.9000
1.2000
0.2333
0.4333
0.9333
0.1333
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
Undetiow
0.0000
0.0000
0.2500
0.6500
0.5500
2.2000
3.4500
1.4000
1.1500
2.8000
5.2000
6.0500
23.3000
28.3000
12.6500
8.4500
3.6000
100.0000
Overflow
UK!3 particle size
Table B.6
Solid flow of
underflow
(gkc)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1930
0.8635
1.5463
2.0783
1.3929
0.6136
0.3761
0.1410
0.0891
0.0173
0.0322
0.0693
0.0099
0.0000
0.0000
7.4224
Solid flow of
overflow
(gkec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0273
0.0711
0.0601
0.2406
0.3772
0.1531
0.1257
0.3062
0.5686
0.6615
2.5478
3.0945
1.3832
0.9240
0.3936
10.9346
Solid flow of
feed
&kc)
0.0000
0.0000
0.2203
0.9345
1.6065
2.3188
1.7702
0.7667
0.5018
0.4472
0.6577
0.6789
2.5799
3.1638
1.3931
0.9240
0.3936
18.3569
100.0000 100.0000
87.5923
92.3947
96.2564
89.6258
78.6890
80.0325
74.9414
31.5356
13.5431
2.5512
1.2467
2.1897
0.7104
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
12.4077
7.6053
3.7436
10.3742
21.3110
19.9675
25.0586
68.4644
86.4569
97.4488
98.7533
97.8103
99.2896
100.0000
100.0000
/o Recovery to 5/o Recovery to

Underflow
Overflow
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
l-
0.0000
0.0000
2.2333
9.6000
18.3000
26.8333
20.9000
10.9000
5.8000
1.9667
1.3333
0.4333
0.4333
1.0667
0.2000
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
Underflow
?t
~0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.2333
0.9000
1.2333
7.5000
12.4333
11.8000
11.1667
7.9667
15.9000
17.8333
7.0667
4.4000
1.5667
100.0000
Overflow
MS particle size
Table B.7
Solid flow of
underflow
(g/set)
0.0000
0.0000
0.3441
1.4793
2.8199
4.1349
3.2206
1.6796
0.8937
0.303 1
0.2055
0.0668
0.0668
0.1644
0.0308
0.0000
0.0000
15.4094
Solid flow of
overflow
(gkec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0355
0.1370
0.1877
1.1416
1.8925
1.7961
1.6997
1.2126
2.4202
2.7144
1.0756
0.6697
0.2385
15.2211
Solid flow of
feed
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.3441
1.4793
2.8554
4.2718
3.4083
2.8212
2.7862
2.0991
1.9051
1.2794
2.4869
2.8788
1.1064
0.6697
0.2385
30.6305
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
98.7562
96.7932
94.4921
59.5357
32.0772
14.4369
10.7844
5.2192
2.6850
5.7096
2.7854
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.2438
3.2068
5.5078
40.4643
67.9228
85.563 1
89.2156
94.7808
97.3 150
94.2904
97.2 146
100.0000
100.0000
4~ Recovery to % Recovery to
Underflow
Overflow
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
0.0000
0.0000
2.6750
8.7500
14.7000
21.5250
17.9000
12.2500
8.2750
3.7000
2.8500
1.7500
2.3000
2.6500
0.6000
0.0750
0.0000
100.0000
Underflow
% wt
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.5750
0.5000
0.7750
0.3000
4.5250
9.4750
9.0000
9.8500
5.6000
17.0000
22.6500
10.1000
6.8000
2.8500
100.0000
Overflow
RMS particle size T-
rable B.8
Solid flow of
underflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1592
0.5208
0.8750
1.2812
1.0655
0.7292
0.4926
0.2202
0.1696
0.1042
0.1369
0.1577
0.0357
0.0045
0.0000
5.9524
Solid flow of
overflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0394
0.0342
0.053 1
0.0205
0.3099
0.6488
0.6163
0.6745
0.3835
1.1641
1.5510
0.6916
0.4656
0.1952
6.8475
Solid flow of
feed
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1592
0.5602
0.9092
1.3343
1.0860
1.0390
1.1414
0.8365
0.8441
0.4876
1.3010
1.7087
0.7273
0.4701
0.1952
12.7999
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
92.9717
96.2345
96.0228
98.1085
70.1785
43.1554
26.3280
20.0969
21.3619
10.5232
9.23 15
4.9104
0.9497
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.0283
3.7655
3.9772
1.8915
29.8215
56.8446
73.6720
79.903 1
78.6381
89.4768
90.7685
95.0896
99.0503
100.0000
GI Recovery to YO Recovery to
Underflow
Overflow
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
MS particle size
l-
0.0000
0.0000
1.6000
7.0500
12.6000
19.3000
17.8500
14.6250
10.9250
5.1750
3.1250
1.4000
2.3250
2.9000
0.8500
0.2750
0.0000
100.0000
Underflow
vt
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4250
5.3750
6.7750
8.0500
1.6000
18.0250
29.2250
14.8750
10.7000
4.9500
100.0000
Overflow
flow of
underflow
(g/set)
0.0000
0.0000
0.2098
0.9245
1.6523
2.5309
2.3408
1.9178
1.4326
0.6786
0.4098
0.1836
0.3049
0.3803
0.1115
0.0361
0.0000
13.1135
r Solid
Table B. 9 Performance calculation of Run # 8.

Solid flow of
overflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0511
0.6462
0.8145
0.9678
0.1924
2.1671
3.5136
1.7884
1.2864
0.595 1
12.0226
Solid flow of
feed
(PJsec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.2098
0.9245
1.6523
2.5309
2.3408
1.9689
2.0789
1.4932
1.3776
0.3759
2.4720
3.8939
1.8998
1.3225
0.5951
25.1360
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
97.4049
68.9150
45.4489
29.7468
48.8332
12.3339
9.7663
5.8671
2.7268
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5951
31.0850
54.5511
70.2532
51.1668
87.6661
90.2337
94.1329
97.2732
100.0000
M Recovery to %I Recovery to
Underflow
Overflow
Total
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
(micron)
5.4333
16.5000
25.8000
26.6000
13.3667
4.6333
3.5667
1.5000
0.8000
0.2333
0.5000
0.8667
0.2000
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Underflow
% wt
1.1333
4.3667
5.2000
9.4333
12.6667
10.9333
10.3000
7.3000
13.1333
14.8000
5.8667
3.6333
1.2333
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Overflow
5.0358
0.0101
0.0000
0.0000
0.2736
0.8309
1.2992
1.3395
0.673 1
0.2333
0.1796
0.0755
0.0403
0.0118
0.0252
0.0436
underflow
(g/set)
0.0000
0.0000
l- Solid flow of
RMS particle size
rable B. 10
0.3896
0.4639
0.8416
1.1301
0.9755
0.9190
0.65 13
1.1717
1.3204
0.5234
0.3242
0.1100
8.9219
Solid flow of
overflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1011
0.2736
0.8309
1.4004
1.7291
1.1371
1.0750
1.3097
1.0510
0.9592
0.663 1
1.1969
1.3641
0.5335
0.3242
0.1100
13.9578
Solid flow of
feed
(g/set)
0.0000
0.0000
92.7794
77.4690
59.1985
21.7057
13.7138
7.1872
4.1998
1.7722
2.1037
3.1995
1.8879
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
7.2206
22.53 10
40.8015
78.2943
86.2862
92.8128
95.8002
98.2278
97.8963
96.8005
98.1121
100.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
41 Recovery to %I Recovery to
Underflow
Overflow
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
0.0000
0.0000
4.0667
14.0000
24.2000
28.3333
16.3333
5.7333
3.5333
1.5000
0.8333
0.2000
0.3667
0.8000
0.1000
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
Underflow
tt
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4750
3.5500
5.0250
9.6500
13.0500
11.2000
10.6250
8.0000
13.5000
14.7250
5.6750
3.4250
1.1000
100.0000
Overflow
Solid flow of
underflow
(glsec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.4255
1.4649
2.5322
2.9647
1.7091
0.5999
0.3697
0.1570
0.0872
0.0209
0.0384
0.0837
0.0105
0.0000
0.0000
10.4637
UMS particle size
Table B. 11
Solid flow of
overflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0802
0.5991
0.8480
1.6285
2.2023
1.8901
1.7931
1.3501
2.2782
2.4850
0.9577
0.5780
0.1856
16.8758
Solid flow of
feed
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.4255
1.4649
2.6124
3.5638
2.5571
2.2284
2.5720
2.0470
1.8803
1.3710
2.3166
2.5687
0.9682
0.5780
0.1856
27.3395
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
96.93 15
83.1896
66.8369
26.9212
14.3747
7.6674
4.6376
1.5264
1.6562
3.2589
1.0808
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3.0685
16.8104
33.1631
73.0788
85.6253
92.3326
95.3624
98.4736
98.3438
96.7411
98.9192
100.0000
100.0000
6 Recovery to l/o Recovery to

Underflow
Overflow
Total
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
(micron)
3.3000
11.8667
21.1000
26.9333
18.3000
8.1667
4.5000
1.8333
1.1667
0.4667
0.8667
1.3000
0.2000
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Underflow
0.2667
3.0333
4.1333
8.6667
11.9333
10.7333
10.3333
6.9000
14.0667
16.7333
7.0000
4.5333
1.6667
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Overflow
vt
0.9158
1.1690
0.7943
0.3545
0.1953
0.0796
0.0506
0.0203
0.0376
0.0564
0.0087
0.0000
0.0000
4.3403
Solid flow of
underflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1432
0.5150
WS particle size
Table B. 12
0.2507
0.5257
0.7239
0.6511
0.6268
0.4186
0.8533
1.0151
0.4246
0.2750
0.1011
6.0661
Solid flow of
overflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0162
0.1840
1.0450
0.8802
0.9192
0.7307
0.6775
0.4388
0.8909
1.0715
0.4333
0.2750
0.1011
10.4064
76.0065
40.2706
2 1.2480
10.8903
7.4744
4.6157
4.2221
5.2659
2.0033
0.0000
0.0000
23.9935
59.7294
78.7520
89.1097
92.5256
95.3843
95.7779
94.7341
97.9967
100.0000
100.0000
Solid flow of ?4 Recovery to %I Recovery to

feed
Underflow
Overflow
(gkec)
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.1432
100.0000
0.0000
0.5150
1.7357
0.9320
98.2643
13.6000
1.3530
86.4000
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
0.0000
0.0000
1.9000
9.6000
18.9000
27.2000
20.6000
10.4333
5.6000
1.9333
1.1333
0.4333
0.8667
1.2333
0.1667
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
Underflow
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.2000
0.9667
1.6000
8.1667
13.1333
11.8333
10.9667
7.3000
15.0000
17.5667
7.1000
4.5333
1.6333
100.0000
it
Overflow
Solid flow of
underflow
(glsec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1715
0.8663
1.7056
2.4546
1.8590
0.9415
0.5054
0.1745
0.1023
0.0391
0.0782
0.1113
0.0150
0.0000
0.0000
9.0243
XMS particle size
Table B. 13
Solid flow of
overflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0200
0.0968
0.1602
0.8176
1.3148
1.1846
1.0979
0.7308
1.5017
1.7586
0.7108
0.4538
0.1635
10.0111
Solid flow of
feed
(g/set)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1715
0.8663
1.7256
2.5514
2.0192
1.7591
1.8202
1.3591
1.2002
0.7699
1.5799
1.8699
0.7258
0.4538
0.1635
19.0354
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
98.8397
96.2070
92.0672
53.5234
27.7647
12.8370
8.5218
5.0792
4.9504
5.9521
2.0722
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.1603
3.7930
7.9328
46.4766
72.2353
87.1630
91.4782
94.9208
95.0496
94.0479
97.9278
100.0000
%I Recovery to )/o Recovery to

Underflow
Overflow
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
(micron)
0.0000
0.0000
2.3667
8.2333
16.7667
24.8333
19.4333
10.9000
6.4333
2.9667
1.9667
0.6667
1.9000
2.6000
0.7000
0.2333
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.9750
5.7750
6.6250
6.8250
2.5500
15.4500
27.8000
15.6000
11.7000
5.7000
100.0000
% wt
Overflow
Underflow
0.0000
0.0000
0.1274
0.4432
0.9025
1.3367
1.0460
0.5867
0.3463
0.1597
0.1059
0.0359
0.1023
0.1399
0.0377
0.0126
0.0000
5.3826
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1586
0.4637
0.53 19
0.5480
0.2047
1.2405
2.2322
1.2526
0.9394
0.4577
8.0293
Solid flow of Solid flow of

underflow
overflow
(ghec)
(glsec)
Performance calculation of Run I# 13.
KMS particle size
Table B. 14
0.0000
0.0000
0.1274
0.4432
0.9025
1.3367
1.0460
0.7453
0.8100
0.6916
0.6539
0.2406
1.3428
2.3721
1.2903
0.9520
0.4577
13.4119
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
78.7222
42.7520
23.0881
16.1896
14.9124
7.6161
5.8997
2.9202
1.3193
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
21.2778
57.2480
76.9119
83.8104
85.0876
92.3839
94.1003
97.0798
98.6807
100.0000
Solid flow of % Recovery to % Recovery to

Overtlow
feed
Underflow
(gkec)
E;0
Total
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
(micron)
3.2750
8.5250
15.5750
23.9750
20.7250
12.6500
6.9000
2.7500
1.6750
0.4250
1.3250
1.7500
0.4250
0.0250
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Underflow
c7t
0.0500
4.5250
9.9250
9.8000
10.1500
6.1750
17.1500
22.6250
10.0750
6.7250
2.8000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Overflow
0.3573
0.9300
1.6990
2.6153
2.2608
1.3799
0.7527
0.3000
0.1827
0.0464
0.1445
0.1909
0.0464
0.0027
0.0000
10.9085
Solid flow of
underflow
(glsec)
0.0000
0.0000
KMS particle size
Table B. 15
0.0130
1.1787
2.5854
2.5528
2.6440
1.6085
4.4674
5.8936
2.6245
1.7518
0.7294
26.0491
Solid flow of
overflow
(g/set)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.2738
2.5587
3.3381
2.8528
2.8267
1.6549
4.6120
6.0845
2.6708
1.7545
0.7294
36.9577
99.4272
53.9319
22.5487
10.5155
6.4640
2.8015
3.1340
3.1375
1.7359
0.1554
0.0000
0.5728
46.0681
77.45 13
89.4845
93.5360
97.1985
96.8660
96.8625
98.2641
99.8446
100.0000
Solid flow of % Recovery to % Recovery to

feed
Underflow
Overflow
Cd 1
o.oEo
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.3573
100.0000
0.0000
0.9300
100.0000
0.0000
1.6990
100.0000
0.0000
2.6153
100.0000
0.0000
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
0.0000
0.0000
2.1000
7.2000
13.5250
22.0000
20.1750
13.3500
8.1000
3.6750
2.6500
1.4250
2.2000
2.6750
0.7250
0.2000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4000
0.8667
0.9667
7.5000
13.1000
13.0333
12.2333
9.8667
16.2000
15.9667
5.6333
3.2667
0.9667
100.0000
% vt
Underflow
Overflow
Solid flow of
underflow
(glsec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1210
0.4148
0.7793
1.2676
1.1624
0.7692
0.4667
0.2117
0.1527
0.0821
0.1268
0.1541
0.0418
0.0115
0.0000
5.7617
MS particle size
Table B. 16
Solid flow of
overflow
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0251
0.0543
0.0606
0.4699
0.8208
0.8166
0.7665
0.6182
1.0150
1.0004
0.3530
0.2047
0.0606
6.2655
Solid flow of
feed
(g/set)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1210
0.4148
0.8043
1.3219
1.2230
1.2391
1.2875
1.0283
0.9192
0.7003
1.1418
1.1545
0.3947
0.2162
0.0606
12.0272
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
96.8841
95.8921
95.0476
62.0761
36.2488
20.5905
16.6112
11.7241
11.1018
13.3497
10.5825
5.3300
0.0000
/o Recovery to
Underflow
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3.1159
4.1079
4.9524
37.9239
63.7512
79.4095
83.3888
88.2759
88.8982
86.6503
89.4175
94.6700
100.0000
5/o Recovery to
Overtlow
(micron)
209.8
148.3
104.9
73.9
52.2
36.9
26.1
18.8
13.3
9.3
6.5
4.6
3.3
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.8000
5.7000
11.4667
20.0667
19.7667
16.1667
11.6667
4.8000
2.6333
1.4000
2.0333
2.5667
0.7333
0.2000
0.0000
100.0000
Underflow
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.2333
9.3333
10.8333
11.3667
8.0333
18.6667
22.1000
9.2000
5.9000
2.3333
100.0000
vt
Overflow
Solid flow of
underflow .
(gisec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1287
0.9173
1.8453
3.2293
3.1810
2.6017
1.8775
0.7725
0.4238
0.2253
0.3272
0.4130
0.1180
0.0322
0.0000
16.0928
ZMS particle size
Table B. 17
Solid flow of
overflow
(g/set)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.2216
0.9261
1.0749
1.1278
0.7971
1.8521
2.1928
0.9128
0.5854
0.23 15
9.9220
Solid flow of
feed
(ghec)
0.0000
0.0000
0.1287
0.9173
1.8453
3.2293
3.1810
2.8233
2.8036
1.8473
1.5516
1.0224
2.1793
2.6058
1.0308
0.6176
0.2315
26.6148
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
92.1512
66.9684
41.8144
27.3 126
22.0370
15.0147
15.8510
11.4483
5.2115
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.8488
33.03 16
58.1856
72.6874
77.9630
84.9853
84.1490
88.5517
94.7885
100.0000
K Recovery to %I Recovery to
Underflow
Overflow
APPENDIX C.
Model Prediction and Hypothesis testing
105
C. 1
Model prediction
From the model pattern shown in equation (3. l), all coefficient included in
this model were predicted by using multiple linear regression method. In this work,
the statistical so&are was used for calculating these coefftcients.
The soRware is
STATISTICA@ Version 5.0. Before estimating the coefficients for both models the
experimental values were changed to be experimental codes (Xi), which have the
same magnitude. The formula of changing the experimental values to the
experimental codes is shown in Equation (C. 1) The required input data are shown in
Table C. 1. Independent terms are the terms at the right hand side of equation (3.1)
whereas dependent terms are cut size diameter and sharpness index that were
calculated from experimental data. The obtained results from the soRware are shown
in Table C.2.
x = Experimental value - Average value

i
Maximum value - Average value
C.2
(C.1)
Hvnothesis or Sipnificant testing
ARer the coefficients of the model were predicted, the next step was testing
the significant of these coefficients. The hypothesizes for the significant testing are
IiT.01
ai
(C.2)
Hi:
ai
(C.3)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Run
Table C. 1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
x2
-1
Xl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
x, x, E
-1 -1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
W3
-i-1
1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-1
1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
y,x
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-i-
K2&
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
Gl
Ind lend1 It ter
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
x,x
Input data for fitting models by STATISTICA program.
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
<,x,x,
1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-1
1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-1
KJ2X
1
-1
1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-1
1
-1
Yl&X
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
1
-1
y2x3x
d50
micronj
24.08
20.57
22.74
20.51
10.64
16.82
14.65
10.00
23.82
22.61
20.64
18.09
14.27
18.15
16.24
10.44
l-Depenc
0.55
0.71
0.48
0.54
0.61
0.54
0.45
0.39
0.56
0.62
0.56
0.56
0.53
0.63
0.50
0.38
nt term
I
107
where
Ho
Null hypothesis
Hi
Alternative hypothesis
ai
Coefficient of the model
lf the null hypothesis is accepted that means no linear correlation between

dependent (Y) and independent (X) variables as shown in Figure C. 1. In another way,
if the null hypothesis is refused that means X and Y may have the linear or non linear relation as shown in Figure C.2.
Table C.2
The coeffkients of the cut size diameter and sharpness index models
108
I
o---
Figure C. 1
,X
nI
- *---
-x
The situation of accepting the null hypothesis
,L
-.
.v__.-
J.-.--.-...-.--,X
Figure C.2 The situation of rejecting the null hypothesis.
The key parameter for the significant testing is t value. The equation for
calculating t value is
II
t=J&
where
A4SE = Mean square error
S, = Sum of square of X
(C.4)
109
Refer to t-test curve (Figure C.3), the critical area (reject null hypothesis) is
the shaded area whereas the left area is the area that accept the null hypothesis.
Position of critical area is fixed by tn-2,(r, where n is degree of freedom and RI is level
of significant. This t value can be found in Table C.3. Therefore the criteria for the
significant testing are
Accept the null hypothesis if
t,
>t
Reject the null hypothesis if
to
<
T-distribution curve
Figure C.3
The distribution curve of t-test.
110
Table C.3
The t-value table at various level of significant.

a
n-2
1
0.4
0.325
0.25
1.000
0.1
3.078
0.05
6.314
0.025
12.706
0.01
31.821
10
11
12
13
14
15
0.260
0.260
0.259
0.259
0.258
0.258
0.700
0.697
0.695
0.694
0.692
0.691
1.372
1.363
1.356
1.350
1.345
1.341
1.812
1.796
1.782
1.771
1.761
1.753
2.228
2.201
2.179
2.160
2.145
2.131
2.764
2.718
2.681
2.650
2.624
2.602
When the above concept was applied with the results of this work, the
significant testing results are concluded in Table C.4 and C.5.
Table C.4 Significance testing of the coefficients in the cut size diameter model
111
Table C.5 Significance testing of the coefficients in the sharpness index models
Independent term 1Coefficient
1 -0.034
1 0.056
1 -0.004
t 0.008
Xl&
0.018
x1x3
-0.002
Xl&
-0.027
x2x3
0.013
X2&
0.023
x3x4
0.003
x1x2x3
-0.009
C. 3
1
1
1
1
1
Sxx
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
to
T14,0.05
1.983
3.266
0.233
0.466
1.050
0.117
1.574
0.758
1.341
0.175
0.525
0.058
0.991
0.700
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
1.671
Null hypothesis
Rejected
Rejected
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Model interpretation
To see the effect of each parameter included in both models the

experimental values, in range of experiments, of each parameter was substituted into
the models by varying the interested parameters and fixed the another parameters.
Figure CT.4 to C.36 shows the effect of these parameters to the cut size diameter and
the sharpness index at various conditions that shown in the figures name.
112
-e DFO.4 al n
+ Du=o.s al n
+ DwO.6 cn n
nI
18b
16 jr
14
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Vortex fmder diameter (cm)
Figure C.4 Effect of apex and vortex finder diameter on cut size diameter at
pressure drop is 0.2 kg/cm2 and hydrocyclone length is 20 cm
I
281
+K- Du= 0.4 cm

-O-Du=O.5cm
-t- DvO.6 cm
- DvO.7 cm
a
1 8
16
14
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Figure C.5

113
26
cl
24
-Mr-l
DwO.4 cm
+ Du=O.5 cm
+ DwO.6 cm
- D~0.7 cm
16
14
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Figure C.6

28
26
24
*
Du=O.4 cm
+ Du=O.S cm
+ D~0.6 cm
- D~0.7 cm
18
16
14
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Figure C.7

114
26
-.-Du=o.5cm
+ Jhd.6 c m
16
14
12
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
26
24
22
z
e 20
.Y
B
-o- Du=o.s c m
+ DwO.6 cm
g 18
3
16
14
12
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
115
24)
T
e 18
.P
B
0 16
P
-.- DFo.5 cm
+ D~0.6 cm
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Figure C. 10

pressure drop is 1 .O kg/cm2 and hydrocyclone length is 25 cm
24
22
20
s
e 18
.Y
B
0 1 6
%
14
D1d.4 cm
-.- DFo.5 cm
I
- DwO.6 c m
- DwO.7 cm
12
10
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Figure C. 11

116
24
26
Figure C. 12
Effect of hydrocyclone length and pressure drop on cut size diameter

at apex diameter is 0.4 cm and vortex finder diameter is 1.4 cm
24
+ P=o.2 kg/cm2
22 -__ -a- P=O.45kgh2

+ P=o.7 k&n2
20 -~ - P=l.O k&m2
x
-0
.Ye 18
b
B
0 I6 9
14
12
10
/
20
22
24
26
28
30
Figure C. 13

117
22
+I+
20 -__ +
+
18 - - - - -
P=O.2 k&m2
P=o.45lcgkm2
P=o.7 kg/cm2
P=1.0k&m2
3
E:
16 x
.Y
8
sf 14
a
12
20
)C
-il
22
24
26
28
30
Figure C. 14

18
16
14
zzzz]
- P=l.O kg/cm2
20
22
24
26
28
30
Figure C. 15

118
*
26 -~ -e
+
2 4 -~ -
P=o.2 kg/cm2
P=O.45k&m2
P=o.7 kg/cm2
P=LO kg/cm;!
22
24
26
28
30
Figure C. 16

28
26
a
.Y2
B
g
%I
24
22
20
18
16
14
20
22
24
26
28
30
Figure C. 17

119
28
26
+ P=o.45k&m2
+ P=o.7kgh2
24
3
.Y:!
B
0
%
22
20
18
16
14
22
20
24
28
26
30
Figure C. 18

24
*
P=o.2kgh2
22 -~ -.- P=O.45k&m2
+ P=o.7kgh2
- P=l.Okgh2
20
Z
121
20
22
24
26
28
30
Figure C. 19

120
0.6
0.58
0.56
g 0.54
+Du=O.4cm
3 0.52
P
-m- DwO.5 cm
+Du=O.6 cm
*Du=O.7 cm
0.5
f 0.48
5: 0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure C.20

pressure drop is 0.2 kg/cm* and hydrocyclone length is 20 cm
0.6
0.58
0.56
+ DwO.5 cm
+Du=O.6 cm
-Du=O.7 cm
V.-t
/-
1.4
1.6
1.8
Vortex tinder diameter (cm)
Figure C.21

pressure drop is 0.2 kg/cm and hydrocyclone length is 25 cm
121
0.6
0.58
0.56
8 0.54
+Du=O.4 cm
; 0.52
s
f
5: 0.46
-O- Du=O.5 cm
0.5
+Lh=O.6 cm~
0.48
-Du=O.7
1.4
1.6
1.8
cm
Figure C.22 Effect of apex and vortex finder diameter on sharpness index at
0.6
0.58
0.56
3 0.54
; 0.52
3 0.5
6 0.48
5: 0.46
+Du=O.4 cm
-O- Du=O.5 cm
+Du=O.6 cm
0.44
0.42
0.4
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure C.23

122
0.6
0.56
0.54
0.52
-0- Du=O.5 c m
3 0.5
3
g 0.48
5
g 0.46
+ DwO.6 c m
0.44
0.42
1.6
1.8
0.6
0.58
0.56
g 0.54
1 0.52
s
-.- DlFo.5 cm
0.5
+ DwO.6 cm
f 0.48
5: 0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4 I
2
1.6
1.8
1.4
123
0.6
0.58
0.56
8 0.54 >t1 0.52

3 0.5
4 0.48
5: 0.46
*Du=O.4 cm
+ Lh=O.5 cm
+Du=O.6 cm
0.44
0.42
0.4 1
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.6
0.58
0.56
/
*Jh=O.4 cm
-t Du=O.5 cm
+Du=O.6 cm
-Du=O.7 cm
0.44
0.42
0.4
1.4
1.6
1.8
pressure drop is 1 .O kg/cm2 and hydrocyclone length is 30 cm
APPENDIX D.
--
125
D. 1
In order to find the appropriate geometry of the classifying hydrocyclone,

the sharpness index model was optimized to find the maximum value. Because the
sharpness index model is non-linear model then the optimization routine for nonlinear equation must be applied. In this work, the well known non-linear optimization
software, LINGO@, was used. The detail of the input program is shown below
Max = 0.538-0.034X1+0.056X
Xl >= 0.4;
Xl <= 0.7;
x2 >= 1.4;
x2 <= 2.0;
init:
Xl = 0.6;
X2 = 1.6;
endinit
end
where Xl is the apex diameter (cm) and X2 is the vortex finder diameter
(cm).
Afler the program was executed, the appropriate geometries of the
classifying hydrocyclone were obtained. The apex diameter and the vortex finder
O.O4D, and 0.2Dc, respectively

CHE849

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CHE849

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Hydrocyclone as a Classifier

Ukkarachaneeyakorn B.Eng. ( Chemical Engineering )

A Special Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

Special Research Project Committee

( Asst. Prof. Dr. Supaporn Therdthianwong )

Special Research Project Title

Special Research Project Credits

Mr. Nattapol Ukkarachaneeyakorn

Asst. Prof. Dr. Apichai Therdthainwong

dsO = 17.583 - 4.049X1 + 1.287X2 - 0.802X4 + 0. 149X1X2

I = 0.538 - 0.034X, + 0.056X2.

From the optimization results, the appropriate geometries, the apex

Classification / Sharpness Index / Factorial Design / Hydrocyclone

dso = 17.583 -4.049X1 + 1.287X2-0.802X4 + 0.149X,X2

I = 0.538 - 0.034X1 + 0.056X2.

The author would like to thank Assistant Professor Dr. Apichai

Yoovidhaya, Head of Food Engineering Department, Dr. Sailom

The author truly appreciates the suggestions from Dr. Supaporn

1.3 Scope of Work

1.4 Literature review

2.2 Principle of classification

2.3 Type of classifiers

Mechanism of classification inside the hydrocyclone

25.1 Flow pattern

2.5.2 Velocity distribution

2.5.2.1 Axial velocity

2.5.2.2 Radial velocity

2.5.2.3 Tangential velocity

Behavior of particles in hydrocyclone

Performance of classifying hydrocyclone

Cut size or separation size

Factors affect to efficiency of classifying

2.5.5.3 Vortex finder diameter

2.5.5.4 Apex diameter

Independent variables and level of factor

3.3 Dependent variables

Statistical hypothesis testing

Criteria of significant testing

Results and Discussions

4.1 Experimental results

4.2 Empirical model results

4.3 Optimization result

Performance curve calculation

Model prediction and hypothesis testing

Optimization of the model

Cut size diameter and sharpness index results

Experimental data for Run #l : D,=0.4 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=30 cm

and AP=O.2 kg/cm2

and AP=l .O kg/cm2

Experimental data for Run #3: D,=0.4 cm, Do=l.4cm, L=30 cm

and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

and AP=l .O kg/cm

and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

and AP= 1.0 kg/cm

and AP=O.2 kg/cm2

and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

and AP= 1 .O kg/cm*

Experimental data for Run #l 1: DU=0.4 cm, Do=1 .4 cm, L=20 cm

and AP=O.2 kg/cm*

and AP= 1.0 kg/cm*

Experimental data for Run # 13 : DU=O. 7 cm, Do=2.0 cm, L=20 cm

and AP=O.2 kg/cm*