Saimaa University of Applied Sciences

Technology, Imatra
Paper Technology

Loan Dinh

Development of the Pressure Screen Foil

Bachelor’s Thesis 2012
Abstract

Loan Dinh
Development of the Pressure Screen foil, 60 pages, 12 appendices
Saimaa University of Applied Sciences
Technology, Imatra Paper
Technology Bachelor’s
Thesis 2012
Instructors: Mr Ari Pelkiö, Chief Technology Manager, Andritz
Mr Pekka Karppinen, Product Manager, Andritz
Mr Jarkko Männynsalo, MSc, Senior Lecturer, Saimaa UAS Mr
Tapio Tirri, Director, MUAS FiberLaboratory
Mr Jari Käyhkö, Research Director, MUAS FiberLaboratory

The purpose of the research was to develop new foils model for headbox screen
on higher consistency level of the feed flow than foil that is used today with target
feed/accept consistency being approximately 2.0%. However, energy consumption
and pulsation level should be in same range as today’s foil type has. The study was
commissioned by Andritz.

The study was carried out at Fiber-Laboratory in Savonlinna. The work was divided into
four parts. First part was the test of Dolphin D foil and Bump foil. Second part was the
test of new foil with different position on the rotor. Third part was the test of three
new foils which were designed from new original foil. Last part was the test of new
HB foil. The purpose was to find out which one has the best condition for using in
headbox screen of the paper machine. The data for this thesis were collected from the
control room of the laboratory. The information was gathered from literature,
newspapers, journal, theses and the internet.

The final result of this thesis was that Bump had the most suitable condition for working
in headbox screen. However, if concentrating on the results of new foil, new designed
foils and HB foil, No8 (new designed foil with two cutting edges) had the most suitable
condition with low pulsation, good runnability, low thickening factor and low power
consumption.

Keywords: pressure screen, headbox screen, pressure pulsation, power consumption,

screening, foil

2
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
Theoretical part........................................................................................................................... 6
2 Pressure screen’s structure and principle ........................................................................... 6
3 Screening parameters ............................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Design parameters .......................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Feed construction..................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Rotor design .............................................................................................................. 7
3.1.2 Screen cylinder design ............................................................................................ 9
3.2 Operational parameters ................................................................................................ 11
3.2.1 Aperture velocity ..................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Rotor tip speed and rotor frequency.................................................................... 12
3.2.3 Feed consistency ................................................................................................... 12
3.2.4 Volumetric reject rate ............................................................................................. 13
3.3 Furnish parameters ....................................................................................................... 13
3.3.1 Temperature and pH.............................................................................................. 13
3.3.2 Viscosity................................................................................................................... 14
3.3.3 Fiber properties....................................................................................................... 14
3.3.4 Properties of debris ................................................................................................ 14
4 Mechanism and Theory of pressure screening ................................................................ 15
4.1 Flow patterns .................................................................................................................. 15
4.2 Pressure pulses ............................................................................................................. 16
4.3 Reject thickening ........................................................................................................... 17
5 Power consumption .............................................................................................................. 18
Experimental part ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4 Materials and Equipment .........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5 Experiments ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 Dolphin D and Bump foil...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 New foil and redesigned original foil ...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3 HB foil ..................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6 Results and Discussions..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.1 Results of Dolphin D foil and Bump foil..........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.1.1 Pressure difference ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.1.2 Power consumption....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3
 6.1.3 Pressure pulsation .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.2 Results of new original foil ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.2.1 Pressure difference ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.2.2 Power consumption....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.2.3 Thickening factor ........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.2.4 Pressure pulsation .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3 Results of redesigned original foils ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3.1 Pressure difference ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3.2 Power consumption....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3.3 Thickening factor ........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3.4 Pressure pulsation .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.4 Results of HB foil ...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.4.1 Pressure difference ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.4.2 Power consumption....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.4.3 Thickening factor ........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.4.4 Pressure pulsation .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
7 Summary ....................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Pictures ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 19
References ................................................................................................................................ 21
Appendices

4
 1 Introduction

Pressure screening is the key process in pulp and paper production and is used to
enhance the quality of a wide range of pulp and paper products. While the usual goal
of screening is to remove oversize contaminants from the pulp with minimal fiber loss
and acceptable cost, screening is finding increased use for fiber fractionation which
means that the pulp can be split into fiber classes, which differ in their average
properties. For these reasons, pressure screen are an increasingly important unit
operation in pulping, recycling and papermaking.

In approach flow applications, pressure screening is the final stock cleaning stage
before the headbox, and the machine is called headbox screen or machine screen.
It is used to protect the headbox and paper machine from foreign material, to remove
debris and dirt, to deflocculate the stock and to improve formation.

The purpose of this study is to develop new foils and new HB foil model for headbox
screen for Andritz on higher consistency level of the feed flow than foil that is used
today with target feed/accept consistency of approximately 2.0%. However, energy
consumption and pulsation level should be in the same range as today’s foil type has.

1. Introducción
El clasificador de presión es el proceso clave en la producción de pulpa y papel y se utiliza para
mejorar la calidad de una amplia gama de productos de pasta y papel. Mientras que el objetivo
de la revisión es habitual para eliminar los contaminantes de gran tamaño de la pulpa con la
pérdida de fibra mínima y coste aceptable, la detección es encontrar un mayor uso para el
fraccionamiento de la fibra lo que significa que la pulpa se puede dividir en clases de fibras,
que difieren en sus propiedades medias. Por estas razones, la pantalla de la presión son un
funcionamiento de la unidad cada vez más importante en la fabricación de pasta, el reciclaje y
la fabricación de papel.
En las aplicaciones de flujo de aproximación, exámenes de presión es la etapa final de stock de
limpieza antes de la caja de entrada, y la máquina se llama pantalla de caja de entrada o en la
pantalla de la máquina. Se utiliza para proteger la máquina de la caja de entrada de papel y de
materiales extraños, para eliminar los residuos y la suciedad, para flocular la población y
mejorar la formación.

El propósito de este estudio es desarrollar nuevas láminas y nuevo modelo de hoja de HB para
la pantalla caja de entrada de Andritz en alto nivel de consistencia del flujo de alimentación de
papel de aluminio que se utiliza hoy en día con la alimentación de destino / aceptar la
consistencia de aproximadamente 2,0%. Sin embargo, el consumo de energía y el nivel de
pulsaciones deben estar en el mismo rango que el tipo de lámina de hoy tiene.

5
Theoretical part

2 Pressure screen’s structure and principle

A pressure screen contains two main components: the rotor and screen cylinder.
Once the unscreened pulp enters the screen via the feed stream, the accept fibres pass
through small slots or holes in the screen cylinder to the accept stream, while
oversized particles continue down the length of the cylinder to the reject stream.
The main components of pressure screen are presented in Figure 1.

Parte teórica
Clasificador de presión estructura y el principio
UN SP contiene dos componentes principales: el rotor y el clasificador cilíndrico. Una
vez que la pulpa no clasificada entra en el clasificador a través de la corriente de
alimentación, las fibras aceptadas pasan a través de pequeñas ranuras u orificios en el
cilindro de tamiz a la corriente de aceptados, mientras que las partículas de gran tamaño
siguen abajo de la longitud del cilindro para la corriente de rechazo. Los principales
componentes de la pantalla de presión se presentan en la Figura 1.

Figure 1 Clasificador de presión (Andritz)

The principal measures of screen performance are: 1) Contaminant removal efficiency,

defined as the mass percentage of contaminants leaving the screen through the reject
port to that entering the screen; 2) Capacity, defined as the maximum mass flow rate of
pulp in the accept stream; 3) Power consumption, defined as the power required by the
rotor; and 4) Reject rate, defined as the mass flow of fibres rejected with the
6
 contaminants. Achieving high capacity and
high efficiency with reduced energy demand at low reject rate is the goal of an optimal
rotor design.
Las principales medidas de rendimiento de la pantalla son los siguientes: 1) la eficiencia de extracción, que se
define como el porcentaje en masa de contaminantes que salen de la pantalla a través del puerto de rechazar que
entrar en la pantalla; 2) Capacidad, que se define como el caudal de masa máxima de la pulpa en la corriente de
aceptar; 3) El consumo de energía, definida como la potencia requerida por el rotor; y 4) el porcentaje de rechazos,
definido como el flujo de masa de fibras rechazadas con los contaminantes. El logro de alta capacidad y
alta eficiencia con la demanda de energía reducida a baja tasa de rechazo es el objetivo de un diseño óptimo del
rotor.

3 Screening parameters

The parameters affecting the screening result can be divided into three main classes:
design parameters, operating parameters and furnish parameters.
Parámetros de clasificación

Los parámetros que influyen en el resultado de cribado se pueden dividir en tres clases principales: los parámetros
de diseño, parámetros de funcionamiento y los parámetros equipe.

3.1 Design parameters

Design parameters consist of the rotor design and screen cylinder design.
Parámetros de diseño

Los parámetros de diseño consisten en el diseño de diseño del rotor y el cilindro de tamiz

3.1.1 Feed construction

The feed construction can be either axial or tangential and the chamber size can be
varied. The existence of a feed chamber was found to reduce the efficiency of the
pressure screen which suggests that the capacity of the screen is improved. (Niinimäki
1998.) However, if a feed chamber in terms of volume is too small, the capacity of an
axially fed pressure screen can be decreased significantly.
La construcción de alimentación (Diseño de entrada o alimentación)

La construcción de alimentación puede ser o bien axial o tangencial y el tamaño de la cámara se puede variar. Se
encontró que la existencia de una cámara de alimentación para reducir la eficiencia de la pantalla de presión que
sugiere que la capacidad de la pantalla se mejora. (Niinimäki 1998.) Sin embargo, si una cámara de alimentación
en términos de volumen es demasiado pequeño, la capacidad de una pantalla de presión alimentado axialmente se
puede disminuir de manera significativa.

3.1.2 Rotor design

The rotor plays a critical role in screen operation. Functions of rotor are to accelerate the
7
 pulp suspension on the feed side of the screen to a high velocity and to induce
turbulence on the surface of the screen plate. Rotor is also used to create a negative
pressure pulse that back flushes the screen apertures, clearing fibre accumulations and
preventing plugging of the apertures (Feng 2003, Feng et al. 2003 and Gonzalez
2002). The rotor design and speed thus directly affect the maximum capacity of the
screen. (Olson et al. 2007.)

Diseño del rotor

El rotor tiene un papel crítico en la operación del clasificador. Funciones del rotor son acelerar la suspensión de
pasta en el lado de alimentación de la pantalla para una alta velocidad y para inducir turbulencia en la superficie de
la placa de pantalla. Rotor también se utiliza para crear un impulso de presión negativa que de nuevo elimina las
aberturas de pantalla, compensación acumulaciones de fibra y evitar la obstrucción de las aberturas (Feng 2003,
Feng et al. 2003 y González 2002). El diseño del rotor y la velocidad por lo tanto afectan directamente a la
capacidad máxima del clasificador. (Olson et al. 2007.)

Additionally, a decrease in the clearance between the foil and screen plate improves
capacity but reduces screening efficiency.

There are two classes of rotor design in widespread use: solid core and foil rotors. The
solid-core rotors have a solid cylindrical core with various shaped hydrodynamic
elements on the surface. The advantage of the foil design is the ability to optimize the
angle of attack and the gap between the foil and the screen cylinder for a given type of
pulp.

Además, una disminución en la separación entre la placa de aluminio (cuchilla del rotor) y la cesta clasificadora
mejora la capacidad, pero reduce la eficiencia de detección.

Hay dos clases de diseño de rotor en uso generalizado: núcleo sólido y de lámina de rotores. Los rotores de núcleo
sólido tienen un núcleo cilíndrico sólido con diversos elementos hidrodinámicos forma en la superficie. La ventaja
del diseño de este tipo de rotor es la capacidad de optimizar el ángulo de ataque y la distancia entre la lámina y el
cilindro de pantalla para un tipo dado de pasta.

A cross-section of a rotor foil and screen cylinder with an illustration of the local flow
patterns is shown in Figure 2 (Andritz). It shows pulp flowing outward through the
apertures ahead of the foil, a suction pulse and a flow reversal adjacent the foil. The
outward flow through the apertures in the screen cylinder resumes in the foil’s wake.
During the suction pulse phase, the slot is cleared by the flow which returns from the
accept side to the feed side of the screen cylinder. The strength of the pulsations may be
increased by changing the foil design, decreasing the gap between the rotor and cylinder
surface, or by increasing the speed of the rotor. It is important to make the pulsation on
the screen plate surface to keep it open, but it is equally important to keep the pulsation
low. Too high pressure pulse causes both fines and coarse fibres pass to the accept
side, and too high suction pulse makes the fines come back to the reject side and
eventually to the reject outlet. Thus strong pulses will reduce efficiency.

8
 Figure 2 Schematic image of a rotor foil passing a section of a screen cylinder
(Andritz)

Una sección transversal de una lámina de rotor y el cilindro de pantalla con un ejemplo de los patrones de flujo
locales se muestra en la Figura 2 (Andritz). Muestra de pasta que fluye hacia fuera a través de las aberturas por
delante de la lámina, un pulso de succión y una inversión del flujo adyacente a la lámina. El flujo hacia el exterior
a través de las aberturas en el cilindro de tamiz se reanuda en la estela de la lámina. Durante la fase de pulso de
succión, la ranura se borra por el flujo que retorna desde el lado aceptar para el lado de alimentación del cilindro
de tamiz. La fuerza de las pulsaciones puede aumentarse cambiando el diseño de papel de aluminio, la
disminución de la distancia entre la superficie del rotor y el cilindro, o por el aumento de la velocidad del rotor. Es
importante hacer la pulsación sobre la superficie de la placa de pantalla para mantenerla abierta, pero es
igualmente importante mantener la pulsación baja. Demasiado impulso de alta presión hace que ambas multas y
fibras gruesas pasan al lado de aceptar, y el pulso de succión demasiado alta hace que las multas regresan a la
rechazan lado y, finalmente, a la salida de rechazo. De este modo pulsos fuertes reducen la eficiencia.

Reject thickening is related to the ratio of the duration of the positive pulse to that of
the negative pulse in each pulsation cycle. The greater this ratio is, the more probable it
is that the reject will tend to thicken (Yu 1994). This explains most of the differences
observed between the types of rotor. In the case of the foil type, the width of the foil can
be used to control reject thickening. In low- consistency screening is possible to use
narrow foils, because the reject pulp can be allowed to thicken to a reasonable extent,
but in the case of high consistency screening, long, powerful suction pulses brought
9
about by very wide foils are needed to avert reject thickening and screen plugging
(Ämmälä
1997-2000.)

3.1.2 Screen cylinder design

There are three types of screen cylinders: holed, slotted and wedge wire (picture
1). The slot type screen basket is made up of milling slots on the screen plate by cutter
and then rolling it up round. The hole type screen basket is made up of drilling holes on
the screen plate and on the profiled surface. Wedge wire screen is made in panel or
cylinder type from V shaped profile wire with an unique welding process, offering great
strength, precision and long service life. Wedge wire panels offer a perfectly flat and
smooth surface with rectangular openings. The screen surface can be on the inside or
outside of the cylinder, to

10
give flow in to out, or out to in. (Sanya Wedge Wire Factory.) Slot and hole have to be
vertical against rotor's rotation direction for maximized filtration effect. The aperture
type, size and open area of the screen plate varies depending on the manufacturer and
application. Nowadays, holed screen plates are used as first stage screens in a screen
room and sometimes before the paper machine headbox. Depending on the application,
the size is typically between 1.2 and
3.0 mm having an open area of 10 - 25%. Slotted screens when used as headbox screens
have slot widths varying between 0.20 to 0.5 mm and open area from 7 to 15% (Bliss
1992.)

Both of the above three types of baskets have two kinds of surfaces: smooth surface
and contoured surface. Contours are depressions or protrusions on the feed side of the
screen plates. Fundamental research has shown that contours can greatly reduce the
hydraulic resistance of a screen plate by streaming the flow through it. Contours can also
reduce accumulations of fibres in the slot by increasing the turbulence level at the
entry and downstream of slots. The biggest effect of the contours is that they can
dramatically increase the screening capacity (Bliss 1992.)

Each cylinder type has an optimum operating point, holed and slotted cylinders have
distinct operating characteristics. Slotted cylinders have higher contaminant removal
efficiencies, but also require stronger and more frequent rotor pulsations. Small slots
offer particularly high screening efficiencies. Slot width has the greatest effect on screen
capacity, efficiency and other performance variables.

11
Picture 1 Holed screen cylinder (upper left), slotted screen cylinder (upper right)
and wedge wire panels (down – Sanya Wedge Wire Factory)

3.2 Operational parameters

The operational parameters of screening are the aperture velocity, rotor tip speed,
volumetric reject rate, feed consistency, temperature and pH.

3.2.1 Aperture velocity

The effects of the aperture velocity (accept flow rate) are linked to the pressure
difference across the screen plate. To reduce screening efficiency, aperture

12
velocity is increased, especially if the debris is compressible. On the other hand, there
are also observations pointing to no effect of slot velocity on screening efficiency
(Seifert 1993). A higher aperture velocity will increase the accept consistency, leading to
an improvement in production rate.

3.2.2 Rotor tip speed and rotor frequency

A higher foil tip speed will increase the capacity and reduce the screening efficiency.
The effect is based on increasing turbulence and fluidization of the pulp suspension,
which is thought to reduce the flow resistance over the screen plate and it appears to be
clearer with profiled screen plates. According to Niinimäki (1998b), energy
consumption is related to rotor frequency, the frequency required being dependent on
the network strength of the fibre suspension and the desired accept capacity. Capacity
will be increased and screening efficiency will be decreased with increasing
rotor frequency (McCarthy 1988) so the highest possible circumferential speed of the
rotor is economically desirable. Increase in rotor frequency also increases the amount
of accepted long fibers, and the rotor frequency may be used as a tool for optimizing the
long fiber acceptance (Repo & Sundholm 1995).

3.2.3 Feed consistency

Feed consistency is the most widely used control variable in pressure

screening. Capacity increases with increasing feed consistency, but then decreases
rapidly after a certain threshold consistency has been reached (McCarthy 1988).
Increasing the feed consistency is usually improving the screening efficiency although it
has also been suggested that the latter is independent of feed consistency.

13
3.2.4 Volumetric reject rate

The volumetric reject rate is mainly responsible for the operating point of screening,
because it is instrumental in determining the reject thickening behaviour, together with
the mass reject rate (Ämmälä 1997-2000). Kubat & Steenberg (1955) have said that this
is not an operating parameter anymore, it is rather a combined function of operating,
design and furnish parameters, but it has been found to be very useful because the
screening efficiency responds to the mass reject rate significantly if particle separation is
based on probability.

3.3 Furnish parameters

The furnish parameters can be considered to comprise pH, temperature, fluid viscosity
and fibre properties, and also properties of debris.

3.3.1 Temperature and pH

According to Levis (1991), to decrease screening efficiency and to increase capacity the
pH is increased. This is due to the lubrication effect of alkalis, which improves the
passage of fibres through the screen apertures.

Levis (1991) has also found that an increase in temperature will reduce the screening
efficiency, as debris will soften at higher temperatures. McCarthy (1988) attributes the
effect of temperature to the change in the viscosity of the fluid, but Wakelin & Paul
(2000) suggest that the increase in the passage of fibres at higher temperatures is due
to softening of the fibres and not to any alteration in the viscosity.

14
3.3.2 Viscosity

Paul et al. (1999) has found that the screening capacity and long-fibre yield could
be improved markedly by increasing the viscosity of the fluid with carboxymethyl
cellulose. Zhao & Kerekes (1993) have said that the uniformity of a suspension increases
with increasing viscosity of the liquid, because a high viscosity will lower the mobility
of the fibres, restraining reflocculation of the dispersed fibres under conditions of
decaying turbulence.

3.3.3 Fiber properties

Fibre dimensions, especially length, have been found to have a powerful influence on
the passing probability of particles (Kumar 1991). An increase in the freeness of the
feed pulp will lead to higher mass reject rates and reject thickening if screening
conditions remain unchanged (Wakelin et al. 1994). It has been suggested that the
amount of debris in the accept pulp may correlate with the amount in the feed pulp
(Sealey & Miller 1981).

3.3.4 Properties of debris

Properties of debris affect screening efficiency, because passing probability depends

greatly on dimensions and other properties of debris particles. Debris can be defined as
an unclassified assortment of material that has to be rejected. These impurities can be
wood-based particles, but also material of artificial origin such as plastics and
stickies. The most difficult debris type in screening is grit, because it is impossible to
screen out, and if it is present, cleaners are required before the screen room to avoid
serious wear problems in the pressure screen baskets. The removable debris may be
looked on as three dimensional particles.

Debris particles having three large dimensions are the most dangerous, because
they can protrude from both sides of a thin sheet of paper regardless

15
their orientation. However, this type of debris is easiest to remove. A debris particle
having two large dimensions, i.e. a flake, can easily hide in a sheet of the paper, but it
is still unacceptable. This kind of debris particle is removable, but it can pass through
the screen aperture in a certain position. The last shape type is a particle having two
small dimensions and one large one, a shive. These particles are still more difficult
to remove but they are less likely to cause either functional or runability problems.
However, shives are the most common debris type in virgin fiber preparations, and for
that reason, screening efficiency is often expressed as shive removal efficiency. The
selection of screening equipment utilizing mostly barrier or probability screening must
be based on the knowledge of debris types to be removed. The amount and properties of
debris have to be taken into account also in screen optimization (Niinimäki 1998b.)

4 Mechanism and Theory of pressure screening

4.1 Flow patterns

The mechanism that determines whether a fiber or a contaminant passes through the
screen plate or is rejected is extremely complex. According to Yu and DeFoe (1994b),
the primary factor affecting throughput and efficiency is the fiber behavior at the feed-
side surface, which is governed by the basket design. Meanwhile, the rotor, the internal
geometry and operation of the screen affect the fiber orientation and flow path.

The flow pattern of the pulp near and through the screen apertures have been studied by
many investigators. One of them found that near a slot on the wall in a rectangular
channel, a highly curved flow field would be generated. Due to their experiment results,
there was no signification separation of the flow on the upper wall, and the Reynolds
number in their study did not have a strong effect on the flow pattern.

Yu and DeFoe (1994a) also studied about the flow pattern at the feed-side surface of
smooth and contoured screen baskets. They observed the flow

15
separation and vortices on the contoured basket screen and found out that when
flow went from feed side to accept side, there was no separation found on the surface.
Therefore, they concluded that the accept flow for the smooth basket was caused by
local pressure, while the accept flow for the contoured basket was from reattachment of
the flow stream. Halonen et al. (1990) had same opinion with Gooding and Kerekes
(1989) that higher velocity implies greater capacity. However, Gooding (1986) also
reported that higher slot velocities increased the probability that a shive would be
accepted.

4.2 Pressure pulses

To allow pressure screens to run continuously, foils or bumps on the rotor periodically
clean the fibres in the apertures of the basket are moved and it generated the negative
pressure pulse. The essence of the pressure screening is the intermittent pulsing action.
The magnitude and shape of the pressure pulse is critical to the performance of
pressure screens. According to Karvinen and Halonen (1984), too high of a pulse will
lower the capacity of the screens as a large amount of material is backflushed, while
with too small of a negative pulse, the rotor is not able to clean the slots. Further,
too high of a positive pulse may force deformable contaminants through the apertures.
Thus, in the design of a screen, the pressure pulsation ought to be minimized but still
retain its cleaning effect.

The magnitude of the negative pressure is a function of rotor type, rotational speed, and
the clearance between rotor and the screen. According to Yu & Crossley (1994), the
pressure-pulse signature for a foil rotor and contoured- drum rotor are quite different.
Decreasing clearance between the rotor and basket significantly increases the peak to
peak pressure pulse. The frequency and the magnitude of the pulsation are decreased by
lowering the rotational speed.

16
4.3 Reject thickening

According to Martin et al. (2005), pulp samples were taken at various rotor speeds to
evaluate reject thickening. According to Martin et al., reject thickening is the reject
consistency (Cr) divided by the feed consistency (Cf) as in equation
1:

(1)

High reject thickening can be a precursor of runnability problems. It means that a high
reject thickening factor can lead to blocking or plugging of the screen and therefore
must be carefully monitored in order to ensure continued operation. The amount of
reject thickening that occurs during screening is usually controlled by varying one
or both of two factors. The first and most important of these factors is the relative flow
rate between the feed (Qf) and the rejects (Qr). The ratio of these two flow rates is
referred to as the volumetric reject rate (R v) as in equation 2. The reject thickening
increases when the volumetric reject rate
is lowered.

(2)

The second factor in controlling reject thickening is the feed consistency. At high
feed consistencies, the consistency near the reject end may increase dramatically and
cause blocking of the screen.

17
5 Power consumption

The challenge for equipment manufactures today is to design pressure screens to provide
the highest capacity, the required level of efficiency while consuming minimal.

According to Niinimäki (1998a), the total power consumption in pressure screening

includes the pressure loss over the screen and the power consumption of the screen
motor. Screening also includes the energy consumption of the dilution water and
pumping seal water. However, they represent a negligible proportion of the total energy,
thus these can be ignored.

The energy efficiency of pressure screening is normally expressed in terms of specific

energy, which describes the energy used per unit mass of bone dry fiber material. In
additional, design and operation and stock parameters do not have affect to energy
demand of a pressure screening unit (Niinimäki 1998a.)

Niinimäki (1998a) has said that according to the report in Paper VII, the effect of the
feed pulp consistency and rotor frequency on the energy consumption of the screen unit
was tested. The rotor frequency has a great effect, while the effects of the pulp
consistency and feed rate were found to be negligible. These findings mean that
the specific energy of pressure screening increases as the rotational speed is increased
and the consistency and throughput rate are decreased. The energy consumption of the
screen is affected by the position and hydronamics of the foil. It means that at a
constant rotor frequency, the power requirement of the screen motor increases when
the gap between the screen surface and foil is decreased and the angle of incidence of
the foil is increased.

The screening consistency has a great effect on the total specific energy demand in the
screening process. Because a higher profile and greater aperture size in the screen
plate reduce the pumping energy, it may have an effect on the total energy consumption.
In other words, the smaller profile and aperture size, the greater is the energy
consumption of the screen. In addition, Vitori and Philippe (1989) have found that a
smooth-surfaced slotted cylinder requires more specific energy than would a profiled
screen cylinder.

18
Pictures

Picture 1 Holed screen cylinder (upper left), slotted screen cylinder (upper right) and wedge wire
panels (down – Sanya Wedge Wire Factory) ................................................. 11
Picture 2 Andritz’s pressure screen - ModuScreen F1........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Picture 3 Dolphin D foil (above) and Bump foil (below).......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Picture 4 Design of new original foil (left) and the rotor (right) ............ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Picture 5 Redesigned original foil with one upper cutting edge .......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Picture 6 Redesigned original foil with two cutting edges (upper and lower) ............ Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Picture 7 Redesigned original foil with two cutting edges and holes . Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Picture 8 Design of HB foil ..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Tables

Table 1 Constant parameters were used during all the tests Error! Bookmark not defined. Table
2 Needed parameters during all the tests .....................Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3
Number and position of foils for different tests .......... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4
Foil dimensions of new foil and new designed foils from its original............. Error! Bookmark
not defined.
Table 5 Points when the screen cylinder was blocked........... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figures

Figure 1 Pressure screen (Andritz).......................................................................................... 6

Figure 2 Schematic image of a rotor foil passing a section of a screen cylinder (Andritz)
...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 Pressure difference over the screen basket of Dolphin and Bump with rotor tip speed of
15 m/s ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4
Power consumption of Dolphin foil and Bump foil with rotor tip speeds
increase and accept flow rate at 1.5 m/s .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 5 Pulsation of Dolphin and Bump foils at accept side with accept flow of 1.5 m/s
........................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not
defined. Figure 6 Pressure difference over the screen basket of Bump foil and new foil with rotor
tip speed of 16 m/s....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 7 Power consumption of Bump foil and new foil with rotor tip speeds increase and accept
flow rate at 1.5 m/s ..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

19
Figure 8 Thickening factors of Bump foil and new foils at rotor tip speed 12 m/s and 16 m/s
.................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 9 Pulsation of Bump and six experiments with new foils at accept side with accept flow
rate 1.5 m/s ..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 10
Pressure difference over the screen basket of No3 and new designed foils with rotor tip speed of
16 m/s .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 11 Power
consumption of No3 and new designed foils with rotor tip speeds increase and accept flow rate at
1.5 m/s .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 12 Thickening factors of
No3 and new designed foils at rotor tip speed 12 m/s and 16
m/s.....................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure
13 Pulsation of No3 and redesigned original foils at accept side with accept flow rate 1.5 m/s
...................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 14
Pressure difference over the screen basket of No8, HB1 and HB2 with rotor tip speed of 12
m/s....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 15
Power consumption of No8, HB1 and HB2 with rotor tip speeds increase and accept flow rate at
1.5 m/s ..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 16
Thickening factors of No8, HB1 and HB2 at rotor tip speed 12 m/s and 16
m/s .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 17 Pulsation of No8, HB1 and HB2 at accept side with accept flow rate 1.5 m/s
........................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

20
References

Andritz Pulp and Paper. ModuScreen HBE.

Bliss, T. Screening in Pulp and Paper Manufacture, Volume 6 Stock

Preparation. 1992. TAPPI, pp. 234-235

Feng, M. 2003. Numerical simulation of the pressure pulses produced by a pressure

screen foil rotor. Univ. British Columbia. Dept. Mech. Eng. M. A. sc. Thesis.

Feng, M., Olson J.A., Ollivier-Gooch, C.F., Xia J., and Gooding, R.W. 2003.
Acomputational fluid dynamic (CFD) tool for advanced pulp screen foil roto design.
ABTCP Conf, San Paulo, Brazil.

Gonzalez, J.A. 2002. Characterization of design parameters for a tree foil rotor in a
pressure screen. Univ. British Columbia. Dept. Mech. Eng. M.A. Sc. Thesis.

Gooding, R.W., & Kerekes R.J. 1989. The motion of fibres near a screen slot. JPPS
15(2), pp. 59-62.

Gooding, R.W. 1986. The passage of fibres through slots in pulp screening. University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. M.A.Sc. Thesis.

Halonen, L., Ljokkio, R., & Peltonen, K. 1990. Improved screening concepts. TAPPI
Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, pp. 207-212.

Karvinen, R., & Halonen, L. 1984. The effect of various factors on pressure pulsation of
a screen. Paperi ja Puu 66(2), pp. 80-83.

Kemppainen, J. 2011. Development of the pressure screen foil. Lappeenranta

University of Technology. Degree Programme in Chemistry. Master’s Thesis.

Kubat, J. & Steenberg, B. 1955. Screening at low particle concentrations. Svensk.

Papperstidning 58(9), pp. 319-324.

Kumar, A. 1991. Passage of fibres through screen apertures. University of

British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Ph.D. Thesis.

Levis S.H. 1991. Screening of secondary fibers. Progress in Paper Recycling

1(1), pp. 31-45.

Martin A., Michael W., Zuben W. 2005. Internal fibre length concentration in a
pressure screen. University of Waikato, New Zealand. Appita.

McCarthy C.E. 1988. Various factors affect pressure screen operation and capacity. Pulp
& Paper 62(9), pp. 233-237.

21
Niinimäki, J. 1998a. On the fundamentals of pressure screening, an
experimental study of conditions and phenomena in the screen basket. University of
Oulu.

Niinimäki, J. 1998b. Phenomena affecting the efficiency of a Pressure screen. University

of Oulu.

Niinimäki, J., Ämmälä, A., Dahl, O., Kuopanportti, H. & Nissilä, S. 1998. The settings
of hydrofoils in a pressure screen. Proc. International Symposium on Filtration, Las
Palmas, Canary Islands, pp. 71-78.

Olson, J.A., Pflueger, C.D., Delfel, S., Ollivier-Gooch, C., Martin, P., Vaulot, F., and
Gooding, R.W. 2007. High performance foil rotor improves de-ink pulp screening. Dept.
Mech. Eng., Univ. British Columbia, Canada.

Paul, T., Chen, D., Duffy, G., & Walmsley, M. 1999. Improved screening performance
with viscous media. Proc. 53 rd Appita Annual Conference, Rotorua, New
Zealand, pp, 821-824.

Pflueger, C.D., Olson, J.A., and Gooding, R.W. The performance of the EP Rotor
in de-ink pulp screening, preprints 2007 Appita Conf., 8p.

Repo, K. & Sundholm, J. 1995. The effect of rotor speed on the separation of coarse
fibers in pressure screening with narrow slots. Proc. International Mechanical Pulping
Conference, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 271-275.

Sanya Wedge Wire Factory. Welded Wedge Wire Screen.

http://www.wedgewire.org/wedgewire/weldedwedgewirescreen.html

Sealey, R. & Miller, G. 1981. Modified screen basket geometry improves pressure
screen operation. Pulp & Paper 55(6), pp. 97-100.

Seifert, P. 1993. Understanding screening of secondary fiber. Proc. TAPPI Engineering

Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 429-438.

Vitori, C.M., & Philippe, I.J. 1989. New technology for improved performance and
longer wear life in contour-Surface slotted-screen cylinders. Proc. TAPPI Pulping
Conference, Seattle, USA, pp. 707-714.

Wakelin, R.F., Blackwell, BG., & Corson, SR. 1994. The influence of equipment and
process variables on mechanical pulp fractionation in pressure screens. Proc. 48th
Appita Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 611-621.

Wakelin, R.F., & Paul, S.T. 2000. Effects of some process variables on screen
fractionator performance. Proc. 54th Appita Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia,
pp. 153-160.

Yu, C.J. 1994. Pulsation measurement in a screen. Proc. TAPPI Engineering

Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 767-782.

Yu, C.J., & Defoe, R.J. 1994a. Fundamental study of screening hydraulics. Part
1: Flow patterns at the feed-side surface of screen baskets; mechanism of fiber- mat
formation and remixing. TAPPI Journal 77(8), pp. 219-226.

22
Yu, C.J., & Defoe, R.J. 1994b. Fundamental study of screening hydraulics. Part
2: Fiber orientation in the feed side of a screen basket. TAPPI Journal 77(9), pp.
119-124.

Yu, C.J., & Crossley, B.R. 1994. Fundamental study of screening hydraulics. Part 3:
Model for calculating effective open area. TAPPI Journal 77(9), pp. 125-
131.

Zhao, RH., & Kerekes, R.J. 1993. The effect of suspending liquid viscosity on fiber
flocculation. TAPPI Journal 76(2), pp. 183-188.

Ämmälä, A. 1997-2000. Fractionation of thermomechanical pulp in pressure screening.

University of Oulu. Department of Process and Environmental Engineering. Master’s
Thesis.

23