OBJECTIVES

 To study the effect of cyclone body diameter upon collection efficiency.

 To study the effect of inlet velocity upon collection efficiency.
 To compare the overall collection efficiency between single and double cyclone.
 To verify the theoretical relationship between pressure drop, AP and inlet velocity, Vi.

SUMMARY

The experiment’s main purposes are to study the effect of cyclone body diameter upon
collection efficiency, to study the effect of inlet velocity upon collection efficiency, to compare
the overall collection efficiency between single and double cyclone, and to verify the theoretical
relationship between pressure drop, AP and inlet velocity, Vi. The variables involved in this
experiment are air flowrate (m3/hr), inlet velocity (m/s), and pressure drop, DPT (in H2O). The
experimental procedures first started by clearing/cleaning the dust collector with a blower. Then,
the respective dust collector, the feed container, dust hopper and the plastic beaker were
weighted and the sample were prepared and the tools were then connected and linked properly to
the main instrument (Double Cyclone System). Once settled, the main switch of the Double
Cyclone System was switched on and the experiment finally began. After some time, the results
can be obtained from the computer screen which is linked to the Double Cyclone System by
which the results (air flowrate (m3/hr), inlet velocity (m/s), pressure drop, DPT (in H2O)) were
obtained through the detectors installed in the instrument. After the data of results were obtained,
for the first experiment (200 mm), the average air flowrate calculated is 34.31 m3/hr, the average
inlet velocity is 2.58 m/s, the average value for pressure drop, DPT1 (in H2O) is 0.053 and the
collection efficiency, ŋ (%) calculated is 64.58 . As for the second experiment (100 mm), the
average air flowrate calculated is 30.66 m3/hr, the average inlet velocity is 14.87 m/s, the average
value for pressure drop, DPT2 (in H2O) is 1.483 and the collection efficiency, ŋ (%) calculated is
79.31. Further elaborations on the theoretical objectives were made. In addition to that, trend
graphs were plotted in demonstrating the relationships of the variables for experiments 1 and 2
respectively (Refer to Appendices). From that, the objectives were achieved.
 INTRODUCTION

This experiment is all about the Particulate Emission Control by Double Cyclone System.
Cyclonic separation can be defined as a method of removing particulates from an air, gas or
liquid stream, without the use of filters, through vortex separation. Rotational effects
and gravity are used to separate mixtures of solids and fluids. Cyclones are gas-solid separation
devices used in a wide variety of industries, mainly for the recovery of raw or process materials,
as collectors for compliance with particulate emission limits, and as primary collectors to
decrease the burden on more expensive secondary collectors. Cyclones are essentially attractive
for operation at high temperatures and/or pressure, and the development of highly efficient
cyclones, especially for fine particles below 2-3µm in diameter, could have a significant impact
in the chemical processing industries. The method can also be used to separate fine droplets of
liquid from a gaseous stream. The experiment’s objectives are to study the effect of cyclone body
diameter upon collection efficiency, to study the effect of inlet velocity upon collection
efficiency, to compare the overall collection efficiency between single and double cyclone, and
to verify the theoretical relationship between pressure drop, AP and inlet velocity, Vi. The
sample will be filtered with a dust filter in obtaining a finer sample for better efficiency of the
cyclone. Configurations will be made suitable in carrying out the test and the results will be
displayed on the computer screen linked with the processing instrument.
 THEORY

Cyclonic separation is a method of removing particulates from an air, gas or liquid

stream, without the use of filters, through vortex separation. Rotational effects and gravity are
used to separate mixtures of solids and fluids. The method can also be used to separate fine
droplets of liquid from a gaseous stream.

A high speed rotating (air) flow is established within a cylindrical or conical container
called a cyclone. Air flows in a spiral pattern, beginning at the top (wide end) of the cyclone and
ending at the bottom (narrow) end before exiting the cyclone in a straight stream through the
centre of the cyclone and out the top. Larger (denser) particles in the rotating stream have too
much inertia to follow the tight curve of the stream and strike the outside wall, falling then to the
bottom of the cyclone where they can be removed. In a conical system, as the rotating flow
moves towards the narrow end of the cyclone the rotational radius of the stream is reduced,
separating smaller and smaller particles.

Large scale cyclones are used in sawmills to remove sawdust from extracted air.
Cyclones are also used in oil refineries to separate oils and gases, and in the cement industry as
components or kiln preheaters. Cyclones are increasingly used in the household, as the core
technology in bagless types of portable vacuum cleaners and central vacuum cleaners. Cyclones
are also used in industrial and profession kitchen ventilation for separating the grease from the
exhaust air in extraction hoods. Smaller cyclones are used to separate airborne particles for
analysis. Some are small enough to be worn clipped to clothing, and are used to separate
respirable particles for later analysis.

Cyclone Separators
 RESULTS

Experiment 1: 200 mm body diameter cyclone

Air flow rate, Q (m3/h) 34.31

Inlet velocity, v (m/s) 2.58
Pressure Drop (in water) 0.053

Initial weight of sample in feed container, WCI (g) 50

Final weight of sample in feed container, WCF (g) 2
Weight of sample collected in dust hopper, WH (g) 31
Collection efficiency, ŋ (%) 64.58

Experiment 2: 100 mm body diameter cyclone

Air flow rate, Q (m3/h) 30.66

Inlet velocity, v (m/s) 14.87
Pressure Drop (in water) 1.483

Initial weight of sample in feed container, WCI (g) 50

Final weight of sample in feed container, WCF (g) 21
Weight of sample collected in dust hopper, WH (g) 23
Collection efficiency, ŋ (%) 79.31

Additional Information

 Weight of beaker – 32 g
 Feed – 50 g
 Hopper – 858 g
Air Flowrate, Q Inlet Velocity Pressure Drop,
(m3/hr) (m/s) DPT1 (in water)

34.61 2.6 0.02

34.73 2.61 0.02

34.55 2.6 0.06

34.17 2.57 0.06

34.2 2.57 0.06

34.27 2.58 0.06

34.19 2.57 0.06

34.17 2.57 0.07

34.26 2.58 0.06

33.96 2.55 0.06

Table 1: Results of Experiment 1

Air flowrate, Q Inlet Velocity Pressure Drop,
(m3/hr) (m/s) DPT2 (in water)

30.47 14.78 1.61

31.99 15.51 1.49

30.6 14.84 1.47

30.56 14.82 1.48

30.52 14.8 1.47

30.54 14.81 1.47

30.54 14.81 1.46

30.53 14.81 1.46

30.43 14.76 1.47

30.48 14.78 1.45

Table 2: Results of Experiment 2

 DISCUSSION

The objectives of this experiment are to study the effect of cyclone body diameter upon
collection efficiency, to study the effect of inlet velocity upon collection efficiency, to compare
the overall collection efficiency between single and double cyclone, and to verify the theoretical
relationship between pressure drop, AP and inlet velocity, Vi. The variables involved in this
experiment are air flowrate (m3/hr), inlet velocity (m/s), and pressure drop, DPT (in H2O).

The experimental procedures first started by clearing/cleaning the dust collector with a
blower. Then, the respective dust collector, the feed container, dust hopper and the plastic beaker
were weighted and the sample were prepared and the tools were then connected and linked
properly to the main instrument (Double Cyclone System). Once settled, the main switch of the
Double Cyclone System was switched on and the experiment finally began. After some time, the
results can be obtained from the computer screen which is linked to the main instrument by
which the results (air flowrate (m3/hr), inlet velocity (m/s), pressure drop, DPT (in H2O)) were
obtained through the detectors installed in the Double Cyclone System.

After the data of results were obtained, for the first experiment (200 mm), the average air
flowrate calculated is 34.31 m3/hr, the average inlet velocity is 2.58 m/s, the average value for
pressure drop, DPT1 (in H2O) is 0.053 and the collection efficiency, ŋ (%) calculated is 64.58 .
As for the second experiment (100 mm), the average air flowrate calculated is 30.66 m3/hr, the
average inlet velocity is 14.87 m/s, the average value for pressure drop, DPT2 (in H2O) is 1.483
and the collection efficiency, ŋ (%) calculated is 79.31. The formula utilized in calculating the
collection efficiency, ŋ (%) is shown in the Appendices section. It was observed that, as the
diameter and length of the cyclone increase, the conversion rate decreases (decrease in total
collection efficiency). It can be observed from the data accumulated in the results section, the
collection efficiency of experiment 1 (64.58 %) is much lower than of experiment 2 (79.31 %)
due to larger diameter and longer length. In addition to that, trend graphs were generated to
demonstrate the relationships of the variables for experiments 1 and 2 respectively (Refer to
Appendices).
 Theoretically speaking, it was observed that, as the diameter and length of the cyclone
increase, the conversion rate decreases (decrease in total collection efficiency). It can be
observed from the data accumulated in the results section, the collection efficiency of experiment
1 (64.58 %) is much lower than of experiment 2 (79.31 %) due to larger diameter and longer
length. Based on the equation on calculating the centrifugal force (Refer to Appendices), it is
evident that small cyclones will have the highest efficiency. However, smaller cyclones are
preferably used to separate airborne particles for analysis. Hence, is the most suitable type of
cyclone for this “Particulate Emission Control by using Double Cyclone System” experiment.

Moreover, in justifying the effect of inlet velocity upon collection efficiency, a relative
elaboration is provided. The higher the inlet velocity, the better the efficiency (better collection
efficiency). Explanation on the statement would be, the shorter the particle has to travel and the
closer the particle is to the wall, the better the efficiency, because the velocity is at the highest
thus the radial distance is short. In comparison of the overall collection efficiency between single
and double cyclone as well as to verify the theoretical relationship between pressure drop and
inlet velocity, the maximum tangential velocity in the cyclone decreases with increasing the
cyclone inlet dimensions. Increasing the cyclone inlet dimension decreases the pressure drop.
The cyclone cut-off diameter increases with increasing cyclone inlet dimension. Consequently,
the cyclone overall efficiency decreases due to weakness of the vortex strength. Multicyclones
are offered to handle larger volumes of hot gas and to achieve better operating efficiencies.
Hence, in terms of overall collection efficiencies, the double cyclone operation would be a better
choice of system compared to the single cyclone operation.

There are several possibilities that might have contributed to the errors that occurred
during the experiment. Among those errors is physical errors (caused by experimenters). The
experimenters might not have waited for the readings to stabilized first and have recorded down
the wrong data, which could lead to an abnormal trend of results. Not just that, the experimenter
may not have focused well during the experiment and may have recorded down readings of the
parameter in the field of another parameter. By doing so, the recordings will be inaccurate. Thus,
the ideal expected results could not be achieved. Other than that, the pipings and parts of the
instrument used in the experiment may be faulty without any realization. This could lead to
unstable and irregular readings and/or could lead to disastrous and chaotic outcomes.
 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the flow and process of the Particulate Emission Control by using Double
Cyclone System were explained in this experiment. Each of the components/devices/tools used
in the experiment has its own details by which has its own function in ways of conducting the
experiment and most definitely aided the process throughout the experimentations. The data and
information recorded from the experimentations were used to study the effect of cyclone body
diameter upon collection efficiency, to study the effect of inlet velocity upon collection
efficiency, to compare the overall collection efficiency between single and double cyclone, and
to verify the theoretical relationship between pressure drop, AP and inlet velocity, Vi. After the
data of results were obtained, for the first experiment (200 mm), the average air flowrate
calculated is 34.31 m3/hr, the average inlet velocity is 2.58 m/s, the average value for pressure
drop, DPT1 (in H2O) is 0.053 and the collection efficiency, ŋ (%) calculated is 64.58 . As for the
second experiment (100 mm), the average air flowrate calculated is 30.66 m3/hr, the average
inlet velocity is 14.87 m/s, the average value for pressure drop, DPT2 (in H2O) is 1.483 and the
collection efficiency, ŋ (%) calculated is 79.31. Further descriptions on the theoretical statements
have been done. In addition to that, trend graphs were generated to demonstrate the relationships
of the variables for experiments 1 and 2 respectively (Refer to Appendices). Thus, the objectives
were successfully achieved which were to study the effect of cyclone body diameter upon
collection efficiency, to study the effect of inlet velocity upon collection efficiency, to compare
the overall collection efficiency between single and double cyclone, and to verify the theoretical
relationship between pressure drop, AP and inlet velocity, Vi.
 RECOMMENDATIONS

Firstly, put maximum focus and patience while waiting for the readings to stabilize
before recording any data to prevent any physical errors (caused by experimenters) from
occurring. Also, emphasize and practice punctuality in recording the data. Next, in order to
prevent recording the wrong data, work together to operate and record the data and not just be
dependent on just a team member to do all the work. Also, team members should reconfirm with
each other on the results to acquire the readings which best fit.

Early precautions are important so that the experiment can be carried out smoothly
without any unwanted errors. Make sure to read the lab manual before going through with the
experiment to get a brief idea on how to conduct the experiment. This step is really important so
that the experimenters know what to do in the lab rather than waiting for the technicians to guide
them through until the end and to prevent any amateur hour. Furthermore, prioritizing the
instrument’s condition is really important as it will affect the results. Besides that, asking the
technician to provide a quick check-up/service of the instrument before conducting the
experiment is highly recommended to prevent any unwanted errors that could drastically slow
down the entire process and/or generate unneeded accidents.

Also, in relation to the actual experiment, make sure the volume of the feed was inserted
with the right amount prescribed. Otherwise, this will jeopardise the data readings toward the
ideal results. Moreover, make sure to examine the feed vessel that will be used for the upcoming
experiment is somewhat empty, so that it would not disturb the actual feed volume that will be
filled later. If not, the fresh feed volume will be mixed with the previous feed volume which will
in turn cause abnormality in data measurements.
REFERENCES

1. Anonymous A, (2014). Cyclone Separator, [Online]. Available from:

http://www.che.iitb.ac.in/online/labfacility/cyclone-separator [3rd May 2014].

2. Anonymous B, (2014). Cyclonic separation, [Online]. Available from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclonic_separation [3rd May 2014].

3. Anonymous C, (2014). How Cyclones Work, [Online]. Available from:

http://www.heumannenviro.com/index.php/hec-products/hec-cyclones/how-cyclones-
work [3rd May 2014].

4. Anonymous D, (2014). Cyclone, [Online]. Available from:

rd
http://www.niro.com/niro/cmsdoc.nsf/webdoc/ndkw5y7gu9 [3 May 2014].

5. Elsayed, K. (2011). Analysis and Optimization of Cyclone Separators Geometry Using

RANS and LES Methodologies, [Online]. Available from:
th
http://mech.vub.ac.be/thermodynamics/phd/PhD_thesis_Khairy_Elsayed.pdf [4 May
2014].

6. Anonymous E, (2014). Cyclones and Multi Cyclones, [Online]. Available from:

http://uniconinter.com/index.php/unicon_cms_service/cyclones.html [4th May 2014].
APPENDICES

A graph between Air flowrate, Q

(m3/hr) againt Time (min)
34.8
Air flowrate, Q (m3/hr)

34.6

34.4

34.2 Volumetric Flowrate, Q

(m3/hr)
34

33.8
0 5 10 15
Time (min)

Figure 1: A graph between Air flowrate, Q (m3/hr) againt Time (min) for Experiment 1

A graph between Air velocity (m/s)

against Time (min)
2.62
2.61
2.6
Velocity (m/s)

2.59
2.58
2.57 Velocity (m/s)
2.56
2.55
2.54
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (min)

Figure 2: A graph between Air velocity (m/s) against Time (min) for Experiment 1
 A graph between pressure drop,
DPT1 (in H2O) against Time (min)
0.08
0.07
0.06
DPT1 (in H2O)

0.05
0.04
0.03 DPT1
0.02
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (min)

Figure 3: A graph between pressure drop, DPT1 (in H2O) against Time (min) for
Experiment 1

A graph between Air flowrate, Q

(m3/hr) against Time (min)
32.5
Air flowrate, Q (m3/hr)

32

31.5

31 Volumetric Flowrate, Q
(m3/hr)
30.5

30
0 5 10 15
Time (min)

Figure 4: A graph between Air flowrate, Q (m3/hr) againt Time (min) for Experiment 2
 A graph between Inlet velocity (m/s)
against Time (min)
15.6

15.4
Velocity (m/s)

15.2

15
Velocity (m/s)
14.8

14.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (min)

Figure 5: A graph between Inlet velocity (m/s) against Time (min) for Experiment 2

A graph between pressure drop,

DPT2 (in H2O) against Time (min)
1.65

1.6
DPT2 (in H2O)

1.55

1.5
DPT2
1.45

1.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (min)

Figure 6: A graph between pressure drop, DPT1 (in H2O) against Time (min) for
Experiment 2
 FORMULA USED IN CALCULATING THE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, ŋ (%)

COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, ŋ (%) = 100 % x WH / ( WCI – WCF )

Experiment 1
Calculations on the
Collection Efficiency, ŋ = 100 % x WH / (WCI – WCF) Collection Efficiency for
Experiments 1 and 2
= 100 % x 31 / (50 – 2)

= 64.58 %

Experiment 2

Collection Efficiency, ŋ = 100 % x WH / (WCI – WCF)

= 100 % x 23 / (50 – 21)

= 79.31 %
 FORMULA USED IN CALCULATING THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE

Centrifugal force, C: m x Vt2 / r

Where:

C : Centrifugal force
m : Mass of particle
Vt : Tangential air velocity
r : Radial distance to the wall from any given point