Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
(3.1)
where u and w are the axial and tangential velocities of the continuous fluid, respectively,
r is the radial position,
c
is the continuous phase density and R is the radius. U
av
is the
bulk axial velocity and the subscript z is for a given axial position.
Several published data sets on cylindrical cyclones indicate that the swirl intensity
decays exponentially with the axial position (Mantilla, 1998). Mantilla also developed a
modification of Chang and Dhir (1994) correlation to account for fluid properties and
inlet effects. In the current study, based on analysis of experimental data sets, a modified
27
correlation of Mantillas model is developed. The modified correlation takes into account
the semi-angle, , of a tapered section, resulting in:
) ) tan( 2 . 1 1 ( I
M
M
48 . 1
15 . 0
93 . 0
2
T
t
+
,
_
( )
1
]
1
+
,
_
,
_
,
_
,
_
12 . 0
7 . 0
16 . 0
z
35 . 0
4
T
t
) tan( 2 1
Dc
z
Re
1
I
M
M
2
1
EXP (3.2)
This correlation was developed using experimental data for small semi-angles, ,
from 0 to 0.75. However, a good prediction has also been obtained for 3 case (see
section 4.5 Pressure Drop Prediction). Due to this limitation and lack of experimental
data for larger angles, this equation is mainly valid for the tapered and tail pipe sections
of Colman and Thews LHC Design (Figure 1.1).
In the above equation Dc, also shown in Figure 3.1, is the characteristic diameter
of the LHC, measured where the angle changes from the reducing section to the tapered
section in the Colman and Thews Design, and at the top diameter of the 3 tapered
section of the Youngs Design (see section 1.3 LHC Geometry); z is the axial position
starting from Dc.
T
t
M
M
is the ratio of the momentum flux at the inlet slot to the axial momentum flux
at the characteristic diameter position, calculated as follows:
is
c
c c
is c
avc
is
T
t
A
A
A / m
A / m
U m
V m
M
M
&
&
&
&
(3.3)
where V
is
is the velocity at the inlet, U
avc
is the average axial velocity at Dc, m& is the
mass flow rate, A
c
is the cross sectional area at Dc and A
is
is the inlet cross sectional area.
28
Figure 3.1 LHC Characteristic Diameter
The Reynolds number is defined in the same way as for pipe flow with the
caution that it refers to a given axial position, yielding:
c
z avz c
z
D U
Re
(3.4)
where
c
is the viscosity of the continuous fluid.
The inlet factor, I, which was modified from Mantilla (1998), is defined as:
( )
n EXP 1 I (3.5)
where n = 1.5 for twin inlets and n = 1 for involute single inlet.
29
The LHC Mechanistic Model considers only the separation occurring at the
tapered and the tail pipe sections. This is a good assumption for the following reasons:
1) Several researchers have reported that most of the separation is achieved in the low
angle tapered section. 2) It can be expected that the biggest droplets that may separate
close to the inlet section will be separated anyway in the consecutive sections of the LHC
and 3) the length of the inlet and reducing sections is usually less than 10% of the total
length of the LHC.
3.3 Velocity Field
The swirl intensity is related, by definition, to the local axial and tangential
velocities. Therefore, it is assumed that once the swirl intensity is predicted for a specific
axial location, it can be used to predict the velocity profiles (Mantilla, 1998). Both
tangential and axial velocities are calculated following a similar procedure as proposed
by Mantilla (1998). The radial velocity, which is the smallest in magnitude, is computed
considering the continuity equation and the wall effect.
3.3.1 Tangential Velocity
It has been experimentally confirmed that the tangential velocity is a combination
of forced vortex near the hydrocyclone axis and free-like vortex in the outer wall region,
neglecting the effect of the wall boundary layer (Figure 3.1). This type of behavior is
known as a Rankine Vortex.
30
Figure 3.1 Rankine Vortex
Algifri et al. (1988) proposed the following equation for the tangential velocity
profile:
'
1
]
1
,
_
,
_
2
c
c
m
avc
R
r
B EXP 1
R
r
T
U
w
(3.6)
where w is the local tangential velocity, which is normalized with the average axial
velocity, U
avc
, at the characteristic diameter; r is the radial location and R
c
is the radius at
the characteristic location.
T
m
represents the maximum momentum of the tangential velocity at the section
and B determines the radial location at which the maximum tangential velocity occurs.
The following expressions were obtained by curve-fitting several sets of the experimental
data.
31
m
T (3.7)
Involute Single Inlet:
7 . 1
7 . 55 B
(3.8)
Twin Inlets:
35 . 2
8 . 245 B
(3.9)
It can be seen that the above equations are only functions of the swirl intensity, .
Thus, for a given axial position, the tangential velocity is only function of the radial
location and the swirl intensity.
3.3.2 Axial Velocity
In swirling flow the tangential motion gives rise to centrifugal forces which in
turn tend to move the fluid toward the outer region (Algifri 1988). Such a radial shift of
the fluid will result in a reduction of the axial velocity near the axis, and when the swirl
intensity is sufficiently high, reverse flows can occur near the axis. This phenomenon
causes a characteristic reverse flow in the LHC axis, which allows the separation of the
different density fluids.
A typical axial velocity profile for LHC is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Here, the
positive values represent the downward flow near the wall, which is the main flow
direction, and the negatives values represent the upward reverse flow near the LHC axis.
The reverse radius, r
rev
, is the radial position where the axial velocity is equal to zero.
32
Figure 3.1 Axial Velocity Diagram
To predict the axial velocity profile, a third-order polynomial equation is used
with the proper boundary conditions. The general form is as follows:
4 3
2
2
3
1
a r a r a r a ) r ( u + + + (3.10)
where a
1
, a
2
, a
3
and a
4
are constants. The boundary conditions considered are:
1. 0
dr
) R r ( du
z
Mass Conservation.
Substituting the boundary conditions in Equation (3.10), yields the axial velocity
profile, which is a function of the swirl intensity, only:
33
1
C
7 . 0
R
r
C
3
R
r
C
2
U
u
2
z
3
z avz
+ +
,
_
,
_
(3.11)
7 . 0
R
r
2 3
R
r
C
z
rev
2
z
rev
,
_
,
_
,
_
(3.12)
358 . 0
z
rev
293 . 0
R
r
(3.13)
Several assumptions are implicit in these equations. First, an axisymetric
geometry is imposed. Then, the effects of the boundary layer are neglected, and finally
the mass conservation balance does not consider the split ratio. The last assumption can
be considered a good approximation for small values of split ratios used in the LHC,
usually less than 10%.
3.3.3 Radial Velocity
The radial velocity, v, of the continuous phase is very small, and has been
neglected in many studies. In our case, in order to track the position of the droplets in
cylindrical and conical sections, the continuity equation and wall conditions suggested by
Kelsall (1952) and Wolbert, (1995) are used for the radial velocity profile, yielding:
) tan( u
R
r
v
z
(3.14)
The radial velocity is a function of the axial velocity and geometrical parameters.
In the particular case of cylindrical sections, where tan( ) = 0, the radial velocity, v, is
equal to 0.
34
3.4 Droplet Trajectories
The droplet trajectory model is developed using a Lagrangian approach in which
single droplets are traced in a continuous liquid phase. The droplet trajectory model
utilizes the flow field presented in the previous section.
Figure 3.1 presents the physical model. A droplet is shown at two different time
instances, t and t + dt. The droplet moves radially with a velocity V
r
and axially with V
z
.
It is assumed that in the tangential direction the droplet velocity is the same as the
continuous fluid velocity, as no force acts on the droplet in this direction. Therefore, the
trajectory of the droplet is presented only in two dimensions, namely r and z.
Figure 3.1 Droplet Velocities
During a differential time dt, the droplet moves at velocity V
r
= dr/dt in the radial
direction and V
z
= dz/dt in the axial direction. Combining these two equations and
solving for the axial distance yields the governing equation for the droplet displacement:
dr
V
V
z
V
V
dt
dr
dt
dz
dr
dz
r
z
r
z
(3.15)
35
Neglecting the axial buoyancy force (no-slip condition), the droplet axial velocity,
V
z
becomes the axial velocity of the fluid, u. This simplification is reasonable when the
acceleration due to the centrifugal force in the radial direction is thousand times larger
than the aceleration of gravity. Due to this, the LHC is not sensitive to external
movements and it can be installed either horizontally or vertically.
The droplet velocity in the radial direction is equal to the fluid radial velocity, v,
plus the slip velocity, V
sr
. Rearranging Equation (3.15) yields the total trajectory of the
droplet, namely:
r
V v
u
z
2
1
r r
r r
sr
,
_
(3.16)
The only unknown parameter in Equation (3.16) is the slip velocity, which can be
solved from a force balance on the droplet in the radial direction, as shown Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 Forces Acting on a Droplet
Assuming a local equilibrium momentum yields:
4
d
V C
2
1
6
d
r
w
) (
2
2
sr c D
3 2
d c
(3.17)
where the left side of the equation is the centripetal force, and the right side is the drag
force. Solving for the radial slip velocity, results in:
36
2
1
D
2
c
d c
sr
C
d
r
w
3
4
V
,
_
,
_
(3.18)
where d is the droplet diameter;
d
is the density of the dispersed phase and C
D
is the
drag coefficient calculated using the following relationship (Morsi and Alexander, 1971
and Hargreaves, 1990):
2
d
3
d
2
1 D
Re
b
Re
b
b C + +
(3.19)
The coefficients b are dependent on the Reynolds Number of the droplets,
defined as:
c
sr c
D
V d
Re
(3.20)
The values for the b coefficients as function of the range of Re
D
are shown in
the Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Drag Coefficient Constants
Range b
1
b
2
b
3
Re
D
< 0.1 0 24 0
0.1 < Re
D
< 1 3.69 22.73 0.0903
1 < Re
D
< 10 1.222 29.1667 -3.8889
10 < Re
D
< 100 0.6167 46.5 -116.67
Finally, a numerical integration of Equation (3.16) determines the axial location
of the droplet as a function of the radial position. The trajectory of a droplet of a given
37
size is mainly a function of the LHC velocity field and the physical properties of the
dispersed and continuous phases.
3.5 Separation Efficiency
The separation efficiency of the LHC can be determined based on the droplet
trajectory analysis presented above. Starting from the cross sectional area corresponding
to the LHC characteristic diameter, it is possible to follow the trajectory of a specific
droplet, and determine if it is either able to reach the reverse flow region and be
separated, or if it reaches the LHC underflow outlet, dragged by the continuous fluid and
carried under.
As illustrated by Figure 3.1, the droplet that starts its trajectory from the wall
(r = Rc) is not separated, but rather carried under. However, if the starting location is at
r < Rc, the chance of this droplet to be separated increases. When the starting point of the
droplet trajectory is the critical radius, r
crit
, the droplet reaches the reverse radius, r
rev
, and
is carried up by the reverse flow and is separated.
Therefore, assuming homogeneous distribution of the droplets, the efficiency for a
droplet of a given diameter, (d), can be expressed by the ratio of the area for which the
droplet is separated, defined by r
crit
, over the total area for flow. This assumption has also
been applied by other researchers (Seyda and Petty, 1991; Wolbert et al., 1995 and
Moraes et al., 1996).
38
Figure 3.1 Droplet Trajectory and Migration Probability
As proposed by Moraes et al. (1996), the efficiency is given by:
'
< <
c crit
c crit rev 2
rev
2
c
2
rev
2
crit
rev crit
R r if , 1
R r r if ,
r R
r r
r r if , 0
) d (
(3.21)
Repeating this procedure for different droplet sizes, the migration probability
curve is obtained (Figure 3.2). This function has an S shape and represents the
separation efficiency, (d), vs. the droplet diameter, d. It can be seen that small droplets
39
have an efficiency very close to zero and as the droplet size is increased, (d) increases
sharply until it reaches d
100
, which is the smallest droplet size with a 100% probability to
be separated.
Figure 3.2 Migration Probability Curve
The migration probability curve is the characteristic curve of a particular LHC for
a given flow rate and fluid properties. This curve is independent of the feed droplet size
distribution and it is used in many cases to compare the separation of a given LHC
configuration.
Using the information derived from the migration probability curve and the feed
droplet size distribution, the underflow purity,
u
, can be determined as follows:
i i
i
i i
u
V
V ) d (
(3.22)
where
u
is expressed in %, and V
i
is the percentage volumetric fraction of the oil
droplets of diameter d
i
.
The underflow purity is the parameter that quantifies the LHC capacity to separate
the dispersed phase from the continuous one (see section 2.2.3 Experimental Studies).
40
3.6 Pressure Drop
The pressure drop from the inlet to the underflow outlet is calculated using a
modification of the Bernoullis Equation:
( ) L sin g h h U
2
1
P V
2
1
P
c f cf c
2
U c U
2
is c is
+ + + + + (3.23)
where
c
is the density of the continuous phase; P
is
and P
u
are the inlet and outlet
pressures respectively; V
is
is the average inlet velocity and U
u
is the underflow average
axial velocity; L is the hydrocyclone length, is the angle of the LHC axis with the
horizontal; h
cf
corresponds to the centrifugal force losses and h
f
is the frictional losses.
The frictional losses are calculated similar to pipe flow:
2
) z ( V
) z ( D
z
) z ( f ) z ( h
2
R
f
(3.24)
where f is the friction factor and V
R
is the resultant velocity.
In the case of conical sections, all parameters in Equation (3.24) change with the
axial position, z. The conical section is divided into m segments and assuming
cylindrical geometry in each segment, the frictional losses can be considered as the sum
of the losses in all the m segments, as follows.
)
2
z
) 1 n 2 (( at V
2
D D
z
2
) z ( f
h
2
R
m
1 n
n 1 n
) conical ( f
(3.25)
The resultant velocity, V
R
, is calculated as the vector sum of the average axial and
tangential velocities, The annular downward flow region is only considered, as presented
in the following set of equations:
41
2
Z
2
Z
2
R
W U ) z ( V + (3.26)
2
0
R
r
2
0
R
r
z z
rev
z
rev
rdrd
Wrdrd
W
(3.27)
For simplification purposes, the average axial velocity in Equation (3.26), Uz, is
calculated assuming plug flow, namely, Uz is equal to the total flow rate over the annular
area from the wall to the reverse radius, r
rev
. The Moody friction factor is calculated using
Halls Correlation (Hall, 1957).
'
1
]
1
,
_
+
3 / 1
6
4
) z Re(
10
) z ( D
10 x 2 1 0055 . 0 ) z ( f (3.28)
where is the pipe roughness and Re is the Reynolds Number, calculated based on the
resultant velocity computed in Equation (3.26).
The centrifugal losses are the most important one in Equation (3.23), and account
for most of the total pressure drop in the LHC. They are calculated using the following
expression:
( )
u
rev
R
r
2
u
cf
dr
r
) r ( nW
h (3.29)
where W
u
is calculated from Equation (3.27) at the underflow outlet and the centrifugal
force correction factor, n = 2 for twin inlets, and n = 3.2 for involute single inlet.
The centrifugal force correction factor compensates for the use of Bernoullis
Equation under a high rotational flow condition. Its meaning is similar to the kinetic
energy coefficient used to compensate for the non-uniformity of the velocity profile in
42
pipe flow (Munson et al., 1994). Rigorously, the Bernoullis Equation is valid for a
streamline and the summation of the pressure, the hydrostatic and the kinetic terms can
only be considered constant in all the flow field if the vorticity is equal to zero.
3.7 LHC Mechanistic Model Code
In order to validate and compare the model with published experimental data, a
computer code was built, which includes the equations shown in this chapter. The
program was developed in Visual Basic for Excel Application. Excel/VBA platform can
provide great advantages such as user-friendly interface forms and easiness to manipulate
the output data.
Figure 3.9 presents the multipage form used in the computer code where the user
can interact with the program. All the input such as geometry, operating conditions, fluid
properties and feed droplet size distribution are located in this form as separate folders.
Buttons to run the program, as well as save and open input cases are also included. All
the results of the program are presented in the worksheets of the Excel Application.
The code uses mainly two different numerical methods to obtain the results. The
tangential velocity, given by Equation (3.27), is solved using the Trapezoidal Rule, and
for the droplet trajectory, a fourth-order Runge-Kuttta method is used to solve Equation
(3.16). Also, a commercial program (Mathematica 4.0) was used to verify the resulting
numerical values given by the computer code.
43
Figure 3.9 LHC Mechanistic Model Code
44
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents a comparison between 35 published experimental data sets
and the prediction of the LHC mechanistic model developed in the present study. The
outline is similar to the previous chapter, starting from the swirl intensity prediction and
ending with the pressure drop prediction. In each section, the source of the experimental
data is described followed by the results and discussion. The only section that differs
from this structure is the droplet trajectory, where only the model predictions are shown.
4.1 Swirl Intensity Prediction
4.1.1 Experimental Data Sets
The swirl intensity, which is the ratio of the local tangential momentum flux to
the total momentum flux, can be obtained from the numerical integration of Equation
(3.1). The numerical method employed for this purpose was the trapezoidal rule. The
experimental data sets used to compare with the swirl intensity predicted by the model,
are described next:
45
Colmans (1981) work, where the flow field was measured using a
Laser Doppler Anemometer. In this study four different hydrocyclone
designs were used. However, only designs II, III and IV, as named in
the original work, are used here. The configurations of these
hydrocyclones are shown in Figure 4.1 and the geometrical and
operational conditions of each study case are detailed in Table 4-1 and
Table 4-2, respectively.
Figure 4.1 Colmans Designs (1981)
46
Table 4-1 Geometrical Parameters of Colmans Designs (1981)
Case Design Dc(mm) L As
1
2
D
2
L
2
Ds Ls Du
1 II 58 30Dc 0.125 - 90 0.5Dc 22Dc - - 0.14Dc
2 III 30 20Dc 0.0625 10 10 0.5Dc 21Dc 2Dc 3Dc 0.14Dc
3 IV 30 - 0.0625 10 0.67 0.5Dc 21Dc 2Dc 3Dc 0.14Dc
Table 4-2 Operational Conditions of Colmans Designs (1981)
Case Design Dc(mm) Flowrate (lpm) T (C) F (%)
1 II 58 175 25 10
2 III 30 60 25 10
3 IV 30 60 25 10
where F(%) is the split ratio.
Hargreaves data (1990) were taken with a LDA in a similar LHC
configuration as that of Colmans Design IV, but with a single involute
inlet instead of the twin inlets. The cross sectional area of the inlet is 644
mm
2
. Figure 4.1 is used as a reference for the rest of the geometrical
parameters expressed in Table 4-3. The flow rate used in these cases is
180 lpm and two different split ratios, F, were tested. Case 4 with F =
10%, which corresponds to Du = 0.117 Dc, and the Case 5 with F = 1%,
which corresponds to Du = 0.04 Dc.
47
Table 4-3 Geometrical Parameters of Hargreaves (1990)
Case Design Dc(mm)
1
2
D
2
L
2
Ds Ls
4 and 5 IV 60 10 0.6365 0.5Dc 15Dc 1.5Dc 1.67Dc
The amount of experimental data, presented for each case in the next section,
depends on the availability of axial and tangential velocity measurements at specific axial
locations published by the above mentioned authors.
4.1.2 Results
The experimental data shown in Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.4 correspond to cases 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 mentioned in the previous section. All the data used from design II and III
(Figure 4.1) correspond to the cylindrical sections with Dc diameter, while the data
shown for design IV correspond to the small angle tapered section.
The results display the swirl intensity versus the dimensionless axial position,
where z is the axial distance from the characteristic diameter (see Figure 3.1).
48
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
z / Dc
S
w
i
r
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.1 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Case 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 5 10 15 20 25
z / Dc
S
w
i
r
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.2 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Case 2
49
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
z / Dc
S
w
i
r
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.3 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Case 3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
z / Dc
S
w
i
r
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
2
D
2
L
2
Ds Ls Di
8 IV 20 10 0.75 0.5Dc 30Dc 2Dc 2Dc 0.35Dc
where Di is the inlet diameter of one of the twin inlets (mm)
Cases 9 to 23 are part of the set of experiments published by Colman et al. (1980)
and Case 24 by Colman et al. (1984). These experimental data sets are for the same
configuration as the one shown in the Table 4-1 and the characteristic diameter and
operational conditions are reported together with the results in Table 4-1.
4.4.2 Migration Probability and Underflow Purity Results
The results of Cases 7 and 8 can be seen in Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.4. Initially the
migration probability curve is illustrated, followed by a chart that contains the underflow
purity and the experimental feed droplet size distribution, and the underflow droplet size
distribution, as calculated by the model. Next, the feed droplet size distribution of Cases
71
9 to 24 are plotted for two different oils, from Kuwait and Forties, as shown in Figure 4.5
and Figure 4.6.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64
Droplet Diameter (microns)
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.1 Migration Probability Curve - Case 7
0
10
20
30
40
12.75 15.9 20 25 31.4 39.6 50 62.6 79.8 100 129
Droplet Diameter (microns)
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
Feed (Experimental) Underflow (LHC Mechanistic Model)
Experimental
u = 91%
LHC Mechanistic Model
u = 93%
Figure 4.2 Underflow Purity,
u
- Case 7
72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64
Droplet Diameter (microns)
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.3 Migration Probability Curve - Case 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
1.5 5 7 10 14 20 28 40 56
Droplet Diameter (microns)
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
Feed (Experimental) Underflow (LHC Mechanistic Model)
Experimental
u = 81%
LHC Mechanistic Model
u = 76%
Figure 4.4 Underflow Purity,
u
- Case 8
73
0
5
10
15
20
25
3.5 5 6.4 8.12 10 12.75 16.25 20 25.15 31.62 39.75 50 81.23 81.23
Droplet Size (microns)
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
Mean Drop Size =17 m
Oil Density = 0.84 g/cc
0
5
10
15
20
25
3.5 5 6.4 8.12 10 12.8 16.3 20 25.2 31.6 39.8 50 63.7 81.2 100 115
Droplet Size (microns)
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
Mean Drop Size =35 m
Oil Density = 0.84 g/cc
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
5 6 8 10 13 16 20 25 32 40 50 64 81 100 115 135
Droplet Size (microns)
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
Mean Drop Size =70 m
Oil Density = 0.84 g/cc
Figure 4.5 Droplet Size Distributions for Kuwait Oil (Colman et al., 1980)
74
0
5
10
15
20
25
6.4 8.12 10 12.75 16.25 20 25.15 31.62 39.75 50 63.73 81.23 100 115
Droplet Size (microns)
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
Mean Drop Size =41 m
Oil Density = 0.87 g/cc
Figure 4.6 Droplet Size Distribution for Forties Oil (Colman et al., 1980)
The experimental underflow purity results and the one computed by the LHC
model for cases 7 to 24 are described in Table 4-1. The migration probability curve for
the Cases 16, 18, 20, 23 and 24 are reported in Figure 4.7 to Figure 4.9 as examples.
75
Table 4-1 Underflow Purity Results Cases 7 to 24
Case Dc (mm)
Flowrate
(lpm)
Oil
Density
(g/cc)
Mean
Drop Size
( c)
Experimental
Underflow
Purity (%)
Model
Underflow
Purity (%)
7 30 60 0.89 91 93
8 20 32 0.902 81 76
9 30 60 0.87 41 88 86
10 30 40 0.84 35 78 73
11 30 50 0.84 35 82 79
12 30 60 0.84 35 84 83
13 30 70 0.84 35 88 86
14 58 160 0.84 35 72 65
15 58 190 0.84 35 74 69
16 58 220 0.84 35 78 74
17 58 250 0.84 35 81 79
18 58 220 0.84 17 43 42
19 58 250 0.84 17 47 47
20 58 220 0.84 70 96 92
21 58 250 0.84 70 97 93
22 58 220 0.87 41 80 76
23 58 250 0.87 - - -
24 51 150 0.84 - - -
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64
Droplet Diameter (microns)
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.7 Migration Probability Curve Cases 16, 18 and 20
76
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80
Droplet Diameter (microns)
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.8 Migration Probability Curve Case 23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72
Droplet Diameter (microns)
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.9 Migration Probability Curve Case 24
77
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Experimental Underflow Purity (%)
L
H
C
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
t
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
U
n
d
e
r
f
l
o
w
P
u
r
i
t
y
(
%
)
Average Relative Error (%) = -3.7
Average Relative Absolute Error (%)= 4
Figure 4.10 Comparison of Model Underflow Purity and Experimental Data Set
4.4.3 Discussion
Figure 4.10, incorporates all the data sets, showing how well the model predicts
the underflow purity for such broad range of conditions. The characteristic diameter of
the hydrocyclone varied from 20 to 58 mm, and the flowrate studied from 32 to 250 lpm.
The average relative absolute error is 4% and the average relative error is 3.7%, which
confirms what can be seen in the chart, that the model is consistently under predicting the
underflow purity. This difference stems from the discrepancy between the theoretical and
experimental values of the migration probability.
In most of the cases the model estimates lower separation efficiency for droplet
diameters less than 25 microns. On the other hand the biggest droplets that have
experimental efficiencies around 95%, are predicted by the model to be completely
separated. Both effects may compensate each other and give more realistic results.
78
It is interesting to note that the only case in which the model predicts higher
efficiency is Case 7, which is the case with a solid particle dispersion. This may suggest
that the under-prediction of the separation efficiency by the model may be due to the
effect of droplet coalescence.
From Table 4-1 it can be concluded that the model and the experimental data
follow the same trends:
Higher droplet diameters produced better underflow purities (Case 17,
d35,
u
=81% and Case 19, d17,
u
=43%).
The separation efficiency increases at higher flow rates (see Cases 10 to
13).
4.5 Pressure Drop Prediction
In this section the pressure drop from the inlet to the underflow outlet is
calculated by the model and compared with the experimental data described as follows.
4.5.1 Experimental Data Sets
Young et al. (1990) conducted experiments using Colman and Thews (1988)
design. The configuration that the authors used consisted of an involute inlet of area
equal to 197 mm
2
. Referring to design IV of Figure 4.1, the following table gives the
details of the geometrical parameters.
Table 4-1 Geometrical Parameters, Young et al. (1990)
Case Design Dc(mm)
1
2
D
2
L
2
Ds Ls
25 IV 35 10 0.75 0.73Dc 26Dc 2Dc 2Dc
79
The source of Case 26 is from the specification of a commercial 2 inch
hydrocyclone called MQ HYDRO-SWIRL manufactured by MPE/NATCO. This is the
only experimental data collected for a design different from Colman and Thews and is
the only case in which the model is evaluated against a LHC with a semi-angle greater
than 0.75. This 3 semi-angle LHC was designed by Young et al. (1993) and the
differences with Colman and Thews (1988) design is explained in section 1.3 LHC
Geometry.
The last experimental data set used for the pressure drop is from Colman and
Thew (1983). Cases 27 to 35 are defined with the geometry of Table 4-1 and the
experimental results are provided in Table 4-1. In this study the effect of the viscosity of
water on the pressure drop was studied by varying the temperature.
4.5.2 Results
The pressure drop comparison between the data and model predictions are given
in Figure 4.29, Figure 4.30 and Table 4-7.
0
40
80
120
160
0 40 80 120
Pressure Drop (psi)
F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
(
l
p
m
)
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.1 Pressure Drop Prediction Case 25
80
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pressure Drop (psi)
F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
(
l
p
m
)
Experimental Data
LHC Mechanistic Model
Figure 4.2 Pressure Drop Prediction Case 26
Table 4-1 Pressure Drop Cases 27 to 35
Case Dc (mm)
Flowrate
(lpm)
Water
Density
(g/cc)
Water
Viscosity
(cp)
T (C)
Experimental
Pressure Drop
(psi)
LHC Mechanistc Model
Pressure Drop (Psi)
27 58 250 1.00 1.23 12 32.63 31.37
28 58 250 1.00 1.27 11 32.49 31.08
29 58 250 0.99 0.55 50 36.98 38.87
30 58 220 1.05 1.32 14 35.24 24.40
31 58 220 1.00 1.14 15 27.56 23.93
32 30 60 1.00 1.10 16 19.14 20.86
33 30 40 1.00 1.10 16 7.83 8.17
34 30 60 0.99 0.55 50 26.83 25.42
35 30 50 0.99 0.55 50 17.55 16.72
The model is now evaluated with the results of Cases 25 to 35 in Figure 4.3.
81
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Experimental Pressure Drop (psi)
L
H
C
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
t
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
r
o
p
(
p
s
i
)
Average Relative Error (%) = -7.9
Average Relative Absolute Error (%)= 11.1
Figure 4.3 Comparison Between Pressure Drop Model and All Experimental Data
4.5.3 Discussion
Satisfactory results for pressure drop prediction were achieved by the model for
the Colman and Thews Design (Case 25) and in Youngs Design (Case 26).
Figure 4.3 shows the evaluation of the model for all the data gathered. The
average relative absolute error equal to 11.1% and average relative error equal to 7.9%
are evidences of good performance of the model.
The pressure drop model exhibits correct sensitivity to the fluid properties. Table
4-1 shows that the experimental data and the model predictions have the same trend with
respect to the variation of the water viscosity.
82
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary and Conclusions
A simple mechanistic model is developed for the LHC. The model is capable of
predicting the hydrodynamic flow field of the continuous phase within the LHC. The
separation efficiency is determined based on droplet trajectories, and the inlet-underflow
pressure drop is predicted using an energy balance analysis. A user friendly computer
code is developed based on the proposed model. The code provides easy access to the
input data and very fast output, and can be used for the design of LHC by the industry.
The prediction of the proposed model are compared with elaborated published
experimental data sets. Good agreement is obtained between the model predictions and
the experimental data with respect to both separation efficiency and pressure drop.
A summary of the tasks performed during this study and the most important
conclusions are described as follows.
A set of correlations are developed to predict the hydrodynamic flow
behavior of the continuous phase in the LHC. The swirl intensity, which is
the ratio of tangential momentum flux to the average axial momentum
flux, can be predicted using a modified form of Mantilla (1998) model,
incorporating the semi-angle of a conical section and adjusting the inlet
factor for LHC geometry. Good agreement with experimental data is
83
observed for a small angle range, from 0 to 0.75. These are the range of
values used in the Colman and Thew (1988) Design.
It is confirmed that the swirl intensity defines the velocity field within the
LHC. The tangential velocity exhibited a forced vortex near the axis and
free-like vortex in the outer region. This behavior and the order of
magnitude are well predicted by the model, utilizing some of the
parameters of the Rankine Vortex Equation used by Mantilla (1998) and
Algifri et al (1988).
The axial velocity, which shows a reverse flow in the core region, is
predicted by a third order polynomial equation, as suggested by Mantilla
(1998). A modification of the relationship between the reverse flow radius
and the swirl intensity is proposed. The prediction of the downward flow
by the model is excellent as opposed to the reverse upward flow. No
attempt to correct this is done in this study mainly because the critical
parameter considered by the model is only the downward flow, where the
separation is achieved.
The radial velocity is predicted using the continuity equation and wall
conditions suggested by Wolbert et al. (1995). There are no data available
for this velocity component.
A droplet trajectory analysis is developed assuming local momentum
equilibrium. The only forces acting on the droplet are the centripetal and
drag forces in the radial direction. For simplification it is assumed that the
droplet moves at the fluid velocity in the axial and tangential directions.
84
Based on the droplet trajectory the separation efficiency of the LHC is
determined using a similar procedure proposed by Wolbert et al. (1995).
The underflow purity can be computed for a given feed droplet size
distribution.
Through comparison with 17 cases, where the characteristic diameter of
the hydrocyclone, Dc, varies from 20 to 58 mm and the flowrate ranges
from 32 to 250 lpm, the model predicts the underflow purity with an
average relative absolute error of 4%. One of these cases is the study by
Wolbert et al. (1995), where their model predicted 90% of underflow
efficiency, while the experimental results reported 81%. However, the
proposed LHC model predicted 76% underflow efficiency for this same
case. This may suggest that in general the present model predicts a more
realistic velocity field within the LHC.
Based on the velocity field of the continuous phase and using an energy
balance equation, the pressure drop is predicted by the model. Comparison
with 20 data points reveals an average relative absolute error of 11.1% and
an average relative error equal to 7.9%. The pressure drop is compared
not only with the Colman and Thews Design but also with the Youngs
(1993) Design, and good results are also achieved for the latter. It is
important to mention that Youngs design has a conical section of a 3
semi-angle, what goes beyond the range for which the velocity correlation
was developed.
85
After a critical analysis of several experimental data available for the LHC, it is
possible to conclude that the LHC mechanistic model predicts with a good confidence
level the performance of liquid hydrocyclones with geometrical proportions similar to the
Colman and Thews (1988) Design.
5.2 Recommendations
The developed mechanistic model has proven to be a good tool to predict the
performance of various LHC sizes, for Colman and Thews Design. Unfortunately, most
of the experimental data published to date comes from this LHC Design. In order to use
the current model as a design tool, further comparisons with experimental data from
different designs are needed.
Some recommendations that may improve the performance of the model and help
to understand the limitations of its application are as follows.
Acquire local velocity measurements for the axial and tangential velocity
distribution at different tapered section angles, from 0 to 10 semi-angle
section. These data can be used to improve the set of correlation that
defines the LHC flow field.
The axial velocity profile needs to be further investigated, since under
high values of swirl intensity double reversal may occur, for which the
equation that the model uses will no longer be valid.
The model assumes a stable core. However, vortex instability may occur
under certain conditions, as confirmed by Weispfenning and Petty (1991).
They found that this phenomena is strongly dependent on the swirl
86
intensity and a characteristic Reynolds Number. Knowledge of the swirl
intensity values where these undesirable conditions occur will provide a
realistic range of applicability of the model.
This proposed model does not consider recirculation zones or short
circuits at the inlet. These two phenomena cause either the return to the
main flow of some of the fluid that goes with the oil core to the overflow
outlet, or cause the feed to go directly to the reject orifice. These
conditions may affect to some degree the separation efficiency, and they
have to be included in order to have a more robust model.
The model does not consider the overflow to underflow split ratio. This
parameter is crucial for a desirable operation of the LHC but does not
affect considerably the LHC flow field. At this point the model assumes
that the split ratio is sufficient to accommodate the volume of oil that is
separated and that the efficiency does not change with the split ratio, as
many researchers have reported. This assumption may be true in the
typical range of operation of the LHC, namely, 1 to 10 %, but outside this
range a change of the velocity field may occur, and that must be accounted
for.
There is a relationship between the swirl intensity and the reverse flow
radius. As shown by the experimental data and followed by the models
prediction, the reverse flow radius is reduced as the swirl decays. But there
is a point where there is no longer reverse flow and still some swirling
motion can occur. Under this condition the model will still consider a
87
reverse flow. A proper improvement will be to know for which small swirl
intensity values the flow will not exhibit reverse flow and incorporate this
aspect in the model.
Finally, to use this model as a design tool, a good prediction of the swirl intensity
with the axial position for different taper sections is crucial. It is believed that in the small
angle tapered section the swirl intensity decreases at a slower rate as compared to a
cylindrical section. Nevertheless, a point can be reached at the conical section where
lower values of swirl intensity are generated, as illustrated in the next hypothetical
diagram.
Figure 5.1 Hypothetical Swirl Intensity Decay
At this point, not sufficient information is available to confirm this notion, but it is
important to note that the swirl intensity is crucial for the LHC performance and also for
design purposes. If a model is able to predict accurately the swirl intensity, this can be
used as a design parameter, where an optimum design will be the one with the highest
possible swirl intensity.
88
NOMENCLATURE
A = cross sectional area
B = factor that determines the peak tangential velocity radius
C
D
= drag coefficient
d = droplet diameter
D = diameter
Dc = LHC characteristic diameter
f = friction factor
h = losses
I = inlet factor
k = concentration
L = length
m& = mass flow rate
M
t
= momentum flux at the inlet slot
M
T
= axial momentum flux at the characteristic diameter position
n = centrifugal force correction factor
P = pressure
Q = volumetric flow rate
r = radial position
R = LHC radius
89
Re = Reynolds Number
t = time
T
m
= maximum momentum of the tangential velocity at the section
u = continuous phase local axial velocity
U = bulk axial velocity
v = continuous phase local radial velocity
V = volumetric fraction / velocity
V
r
= droplet radial velocity
V
sr
= droplet slip velocity in the radial direction
V
z
= droplet axial velocity
w = continuous phase local tangential velocity
W = mean tangential velocity
Greek Letters:
= swirl intensity
= taper section semi-angle
= efficiency / purity / pipe roughness
= axis horizontal angle
= viscosity
= density
90
Subscripts:
av = average
c = characteristic diameter location / continuous phase
cf = centrifugal
crit = critical
d = dispersed phase / droplet
f = frictional
g = gravity acceleration
i = inlet
is = inlet section
o = overflow
r = resultant
rev = reverse flow
u = underflow
z = axial position
Abbreviations:
CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics
ESP = Electric Submergible Pump
LDA = Laser Doppler Anemometry
LHC = Liquid Hydrocyclones
91
REFERENCES
Algifri, A., Bhardwaj, R. and Rao, Y., 1988, Turbulence Measurements in Decaying
Swirl Flow in a Pipe. Applied Scientific Research, Vol. 45, pp. 233-250.
Ali, S., Wesson, G., Petty, C. and Parks, M., 1994, The Use of Small Hydrocyclones for
Produced Water Clarification. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium, Michigan State
University.
Bloor, M., 1987, "On Axially Symmetric Flow Models for Hydrocyclones". In 3rd
International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England,
pp. 83-89.
Bloor, M. and Ingham, D., 1973, "Theoretical Investigation of the Flow in a Conical
Hydrocyclone". Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 51, pp. 36-41.
Bloor, M. and Ingham, D., 1984, "The Influence of Vorticity on the Efficiency of the
Hydrocyclone". In 2nd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath,
England, paper B2, pp. 19-21.
Bloor, M. and Ingham, D., 1987, "The Flow in Industrial Cyclones". Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 178, pp. 507-519.
Bloor, M., Ingham, D. and Laverack, S., 1980, "An Analysis of Boundary Layer Effects
in a Hydrocyclone". In International Conference on Hydrocyclone, Cambridge, England,
paper 5, pp. 49-62.
92
Bowers, B., Lloyd, D., Schrenkel, P. and Matthews, C., 1996, "Downhole Application of
Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones". In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and
Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 423-434.
Bradley, D., 1965, "The Hydrocyclone". Pergamon Press.
Bradley, D. and Pulling, D., 1959, "Flow Patterns in the Hydraulic Cyclone and Their
Interpretation in Terms of Performance". Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 37, pp. 35-44.
Chakraborti, N. and Miller, J., 1992, "Fluid Flow in Hydrocyclones: A Critical Review".
Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review, Vol. 11, pp. 211-244.
Chang, F and Dhir, V., 1994, Turbulent flow field in tangentially injected swirl flows in
tubes. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 15, pp. 346-356.
Colman, D., 1981, The Hydrocyclone for Separating Light Dispersions. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Southampton, England.
Colman, D. and Thew, M., 1980, "Hydrocyclone to Give a Highly Concentrated Sample
of a Lighter Dispersed Phase". In International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA,
Cambridge, United Kingdom, paper 15, pp. 209-223.
Colman, D. and Thew, M., 1983, "Correlation of Separation Results From Light
Dispersion Hydrocyclones". Chem. Eng. Res. Des., Vol. 61, pp. 233-240.
Colman, D. and Thew, M., 1988, "Cyclone Separator". U.S. Patent 4764287.
Colman, D., Thew, M. and Corney, D., 1980, "Hydrocyclones for Oil/Water Separation".
In International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Cambridge, United Kingdom,
paper 11, pp. 143-165.
93
Colman D., Thew, M. and Lloyd, D., 1984, "The Concept of Hydrocyclones for
Separating Light Dispersions and a Comparison of Field Data with Laboratory Work". In
2nd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath, England, paper F2, pp.
217-232.
Dabir, B., 1983, "Mean Velocity Measurements in a 3''-Hydrocyclone Using Laser
Doppler Anemometry". Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University, Michigan.
Fanglu, G. and Wenzhen, L., 1987, "Measurements and Study of Velocity Field in
Various Cyclones by Use of Laser Doppler Anemometry". In 3rd International
Conference on Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, pp. 65-74.
Fraser, S. and Abdullah, M., 1995, "LDA Measurement on a Modified Cyclone". ASME
Laser Anemometry, FED-Vol. 229, pp. 395-403.
Flanigan, D., Stolhand, J., Shimoda, E. and Skilbeck, F., 1992, "Use of Low-Shear
Pumps and Hydrocyclones for Improved Performance in the Cleanup of Low-Pressure
Water". SPE Production Engineering, August, pp. 295-300.
Hall, N., 1957, Thermodynamics of Fluid Flow. Longmans, Green, New York.
Hargreaves, J., 1990, Computing and Measuring the Flowfield in a Deoiling
Hydrocyclone. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Southampton, England.
Hargreaves, J. and Silvester, R., 1990, Computational Fluid Dynamic Applied to the
Analysis of Deoiling Hydrocyclone Performance. Trans. IchemE., Vol. 68, Part A, pp.
365-383.
Hashmi, K., Friesen, W., Bohun, D. and Thew, M., 1996, "Application of Hydrocyclones
for Treating Produced Fluids in Heavy Oil Recovery". In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D.,
Svarovsky, L. and Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 369-382.
94
He, P., Salcudean, M., Branion, R. and Gartshore, I., 1997, "Mathematical Modeling of
Hydrocyclones". In ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, FEDSM97-
3315.
Hsieh, K. and Rajamani, R., 1991, "Mathematical Model of the Hydrocyclone Based on
Physics of Fluid Flow". AIChE Journal, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp 735-746.
Hubred, G., Mason, A., Parks, S. and Petty, C., 2000, "Dispersed Phase Separations: Can
CFD Help?". Proceeding of ETCE/OMAE Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Jirun, X., Qian, L. and Qui, J., 1990, "Studying the Flow Field in a Hydrocyclone With
no Forced Vortex I, II". Filtration and Separation, July/August, pp. 276-278,
September/October, pp. 356-359.
Kang, J., 1984, "On the Analysis of the Flow and Particle Motion in a Hydrocyclone".
Society of Petroleum Engineers, paper 13407.
Kang, J. and Hayatdavoudi, A., 1985, "Analytical Model Determining the Flow Pattern
and the Distribution of d50 in a Hydrocyclone". Society of Petroleum Engineers, paper
15202.
Kelsall, D., 1952, "A Study of the Motion of Solid Particles in a Hydraulic Cyclone".
Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 30, pp. 87-108.
Kraipech, W., Chen, W. and Parma, F., 2000, "Prediction of Hydrocyclone Performances
- How Much Can the Models Do?". American Filtration & Separation Society Annual
Conference, Myrtle Beach, SC, March 14-17.
Mantilla, I., 1998, Bubble Trajectory Analysis in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone
Separators. M.Sc. Thesis. The University of Tulsa.
95
Meldrum, N., 1988, "Hydrocyclones: A Solution to Produced-Water Tratment". SPE
Production Engineering, November, pp. 669-676.
Moraes, C., Hackenberg, C., Russo, C. and Medronho, R., 1996, "Theoretical Analysis of
Oily Water Hydrocyclones". In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and Thew,
M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 383-398.
Morsi, S. and Alexander, A., 1972, An Investigation of Particle Trajectories in Two-
Phase Flow Systems. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 55, part 2, pp. 193-208.
Munson, B., Young, D. and Okiishi, T., 1994, Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. Second Edition.
Nezhati, K. and Thew, M., 1987, Aspects of the Performance and Scaling of
Hydrocyclones for Use with Light Dispersions. In 3rd International Conference on
Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, pp. 167-180.
Parks, S. and Petty, C., 1995, Prediction of Angular Momentum Distribution in Deoiling
Hydrocyclones Using a Constant Eddy Viscosity Model. Technical Report No. HDC-
R2. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium, Michigan State University.
Rajamani, K. and Devulapalli, B., 1994, "Hydrodynamic Modeling of Swirling Flow and
Particles Classification in Large-Scale Hydrocyclones". KONA Powder and Particle, No.
12, pp. 95-104.
Rajamani, K. and Hsieh, K., 1988, "Hydrocyclone Model: A Fluid Mechanic Approach".
In Society of Mineral Engineers Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, preprint # 88-163.
Rhodes, N., Pericleous, K. and Drake, S., 1987, "The Prediction of Hydrocyclone
Performance with a Mathematical Model". In 3rd International Conference on
Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, pp. 51-58.
96
Rietema, K., 1961, "Performance and Design of Hydrocyclones - I,II,III,IV". Chemical
Engineering Science, Vol. 15, pp. 298-320.
Seyda, B. and Petty, C., 1991, "Separation of a Light Dispersion in a Cylindrical Vortex
Chamber". Technical Report No. HDC-R6. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium,
Michigan State University.
Sinker, A. and Thew, M., 1996, Drop Size Distribution in De-watering Type
Hydrocyclones. In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and Thew, M. (eds),
M.E.P., London, England, pp 345-356.
Smyth, I., 1988, Cyclonic Dewatering of Oil. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Southampton,
England.
Smyth, I. and Thew, M., 1987, A Comparison of the Separation of Heavy Particles and
Droplets in a Hydrocyclone. In 3rd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Wood,
P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, pp. 193-204.
Smyth, I. and Thew, M., 1996, A Study of the Effect of Dissolved Gas on the Operation
of Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones. In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and
Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 357-368.
Smyth, I., Thew, M. and Colman, D., 1984, The Effect of Split Ratio on Heavy
Dispersion Liquid-Liquid Separation in Hydrocyclones. In 2nd International Conference
on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath, England, paper E2, pp. 177-190.
Smyth, I., Thew, M., Debenham, P. and Colman, D., 1980, Small-Scale Experiments on
Hydrocyclones for De-watering Light Oils. In International Conference on
Hydrocyclone, Cambridge, England, paper 14, pp. 189-208.
97
Stroder, S. and Wolfenberger, E., 1994, "Hydrocyclone Separation: A Preferred Means of
Water Separation and Handling in Oilfield Production". Society of Petroleum Engineers,
paper 27671.
Svarovsky, L., 1984, "Hydrocyclones". Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Svarovsky, L., 1996, "A Critical Review of Hydrocyclones Models". In Hydrocyclones
96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 17-30.
Taitel, Y., 1995, Advances in Two Phase Flow Mechanistic Modeling. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, paper 27959.
Thew, M., 1986, "Hydrocyclone Redesign for Liquid-Liquid Separation". The Chemical
Engineer, July/August, pp. 17-21.
Thew, M., Silk, S. and Colman, D., 1980, "Determination and Use of Residence Time
Distribution for Two Hydrocyclones". In International Conference on Hydrocyclones,
BHRA, Cambridge, United Kingdom, paper 16, pp. 225-248.
Thew, M. and Smyth, I., 1997, "Development and Performance of Oil-Water
Hydrocyclone Separators - A Review". In Innovation in Physical Separation
Technologies Conference, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Falmouth, United
Kingdom, pp. 77-89.
Thew, M., Wright, C. and Colman, D., 1984, "R.T.D. Characteristics of Hydrocyclones
for the Separation of Light Dispersions". In 2nd International Conference on
Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath, England, paper E1, pp. 163-176.
Weispfennig, K., Parks, S. and Petty, C., 1995, An Experimental Study of Internal Flow
Structures of a Deoiling Hydrocyclone. Technical Report No. HDC-R3. Hydrocyclone
Development Consortium, Michigan State University.
98
Weispfennig, K. and Petty, C., 1991, "Flow Visualization in a Confined Vortex Flow".
Technical Report No. HDC-R5. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium, Michigan State
University.
Wolbert, D., Ma, B. and Aurelle, Y., 1995, "Efficiency Estimation of Liquid-Liquid
Hydrocyclones Using Trajectories Analysis". AIChE Journal, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp 1395-
1402.
Young, G., 1993, Desalting Crude Oil Using Hydrocyclone-Centrifuge Arrangement.
Produced in Amoco Production Company Research Department Tulsa Production
Research Division.
Young, G., Taggart, D. and Hild, D., 1993, Improved Understanding of Deoiling
Hydrocyclones Leads to Significant Performance Improvement. Produced in Amoco
Production Company Research Department Tulsa Production Research Division.
Young, G., Walkley, W., Taggart, D., Andrews, S. and Worrel, J., 1990, Oil-Water
Separation Using Hydrocyclones: An Experimental Search for Optimum Dimensions.
American Filtration Society, Advanced in Filtration and Separation Technology, Vol.3,
Conference held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.