Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

Case Study 9 HYDROCYCLONE

Contents
CASE STUDY 9 HYDROCYCLONE .............................................................. 9-1
9.1 9.2 9.3 Description of the System............................................................................. 9-3 Manufacturer / Distributor ........................................................................... 9-3 Information Sources....................................................................................... 9-4

9.4 Performance Data ........................................................................................... 9-4 9.4.1 Olson (2000) - Cone modifications and recovery performance of hydrocyclones ............................................................................................................ 9-4 9.4.2 Shutt et al. (1975) - Evaluation of a hydrocyclone for piggery wastewater ................................................................................................................. 9-5 9.5 9.6 9.7 Running Costs and Maintenance ................................................................ 9-7 Practical Operating Issues............................................................................. 9-8 Piggery Case Studies...................................................................................... 9-8

9.8 Summary Selection Criteria..................................................................... 9-10 9.8.1 Solids removed........................................................................................... 9-10 9.8.2 Capital cost ................................................................................................. 9-10 9.8.3 Operating costs and returns ..................................................................... 9-10 9.8.4 Ease of operation........................................................................................ 9-10 9.8.5 Solids management options ..................................................................... 9-10 9.9 References ...................................................................................................... 9-11

List of Figures Figure 9-1 Schematic diagram of a Hydrocyclone - Rushton et al. (2000) ................ 9-2 Figure 9-2 - Efficiency of a hydrocyclone as a function of cone angle - Olson (2000) 9-5 List of Photographs Photograph 9-1 Hydrocyclone operating with the BioLoc system............................ 9-2 Photograph 9-2 Hydrocyclones operating in Parallel at an Abattoir........................ 9-4 List of Tables Table 9-1 - Removal efficiency of hydrocyclone as a function of nozzle diameter and pressure drop ............................................................................................................... 9-7 Table 9-2 Capital and operating costs of Hydrocyclone case study.......................... 9-9

April 2002

FSA Environmental

Page No.9-1

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

FIGURE 9-1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A HYDROCYCLONE - RUSHTON ET AL. (2000)

PHOTOGRAPH 9-1 HYDROCYCLONE OPERATING WITH THE BIOLOC SYSTEM

April 2002 FSA Environmental Page No.9-2

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

9.1

Description of the System

The operating principle of a hydrocyclone is similar to that of a centrifuge (Rushton et al., 2000). Both depend on the generation of a centrifugal force. In a hydrocyclone, the liquid is fed into the cone to minimise turbulence but to maximise the tangential velocity. A primary and a secondary vortex are generated (Figure 9-1), and a pressure drop develops relative to the feed inlet. The primary vortex carries suspended material down the axis of the cyclone (underflow), whilst the secondary vortex carries material up the axis and into the overflow vortex finder. The design of the vortex finder determines whether the hydrocyclone will function as a classifier, or as a thickener. A classifier is designed to split the liquid feed into two fractions, above and below a defined particle size cut-off. In contrast, the design of a thickener will maximise the proportion of solids collected in the underflow. Provided there is a density difference between the dispersed and liquid phases, hydrocyclones can effectively separate out particles as small as 2 m in diameter. Hydrocyclones consist of a cylindrical and a conical section (Olsen, 2000). Relative to the cyclone diameter, lengthening the cylinder section increases the residence time of the liquid in the cyclone, but also reduces the tangential velocity. However, by varying both the cone angle and length, a higher unit capacity and sharper particle separation can be achieved. As the diameter of the cone decreases, the centrifugal force increases, improving the recovery of finer particles. In practice cone orifices (nozzles) of less than 2 inches in diameter have too low a capacity and are too prone to plugging. However, in contrast to other mechanical thickening devices, hydrocyclones have no moving parts with the exception of the solids discharge system, rendering them relatively maintenance-free. The key features of the Krebs hydrocyclone are: Tangential feed entry which increases centrifugal force compared to typical slotted feed designs Cone section maintains the centrifugal force of the liquid as it moves down the unit resulting in significantly finer separation and greater solids recovery compared to designs without a cone section. The cone section is fabricated of long lasting AR plate or, in KD units, is also available in rubber lined steel All units available with any type of connection All units can be certified pressure vessel ASME code stamped and are available in a variety of alloy construction Krebs automatic discharge system complete with automatic valve and timer are available with any of the decanters (hydrocyclones)

9.2

Manufacturer / Distributor

Krebs Engineers Pty. Ltd. Unit 5, 15 Reichert Drive Ernest, Qld 4214 April 2002 FSA Environmental Page No.9-3

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

Phone Facsimile Email Internet

07 5571 6760 07 5571 6762 vdhall@krebs.com www.krebsengineers.com

PHOTOGRAPH 9-2 HYDROCYCLONES OPERATING IN PARALLEL AT AN ABATTOIR 9.3 Information Sources

The information presented in this case study is derived from the following sources. Olson (2000) - Information provided by Krebs Engineers Pty. Ltd. Shutt et al. (1975) - Evaluation of solids separation devices.

9.4

Performance Data

9.4.1 Olson (2000) - Cone modifications and recovery performance of hydrocyclones The objective of this study was to describe how modifications to the cone section of a hydrocyclone could change the performance characteristics of the unit.

April 2002

FSA Environmental

Page No.9-4

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

The recovery efficiency for hydrocyclones is calculated relative to the particle size analysis of the test sample (Rushton et al., 2000). The reduced grade efficiency is a calculation accounting for the separation of the solids into the underflow (uf) and overflow (Figure 9-1), adjusted for the volume of separation. Reduced grade efficiency = ((uf mass/feed mass) (uf volume/feed volume)) x100 for a specified particle size class of the solids In this study the recovery efficiency performance could be varied significantly by altering the angle of the cone of the hydrocyclone (Figure 9-2). The feed had a TS concentration of 55 to 57%, of which 65 to 70% consisted of particles greater than 34 m and less than 212 m, and 35% of the particles were greater than 212 m. Maximising the cone angle improved the separation achieved with a 20-degree cone by 35 to 40%, and a 20% finer separation over the 10-degree cone. The author concluded that an improvement of the order of 35 to 40% equated to an entire mesh size advantage. The improvement in performance can be used to offset the nozzle diameter (larger less likely to clog) and pressure drop requirement, without adversely affecting performance. In contrast, changing the length of the cylinder did not significantly affect the separation performance of the hydrocyclone. In practice, knowledge of the particle size fractions of the substance to be separated can be used to model the desired performance outcome using a computer program (CYMOD). The computer output can then be used to indicate the cone design criteria that will achieve the required separation outcome.

FIGURE 9-2 - EFFICIENCY OF A HYDROCYCLONE AS A FUNCTION OF CONE ANGLE OLSON (2000)

9.4.2 Shutt et al. (1975) - Evaluation of a hydrocyclone for piggery wastewater The objective of this study was to compare the performance of several mechanical devices for the separation of the solids fraction from piggery wastewater flushed April 2002 FSA Environmental Page No.9-5

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

from a fattening shed. The devices tested were a hydrocyclone, a stationary screen, a vibrating screen and a settling chamber. There is no indication of a sump being used to produce a more uniform flow rate and TS concentration for the tests. Hence, the reported variability in the data is very large. The TS concentration ranged from 0.2 to 0.7%, and the standard deviation around the mean value for the COD ranged from 1443%. The hydrocyclone tested was 76 mm in diameter with a 6-degree apex cone, constructed from polyvinyl chloride. The testing program varied both the nozzle aperture at the base of the cone (6.4, 4.7 and 3.2 mm diameter), and the pressure drop (1.4, 2.8, 4.2 and 5.6 kg/cm2). To minimise the clogging of the nozzles the influent was passed down a stationary screen with a mesh aperture of 1 mm prior to feeding into the hydrocyclone. Assuming that the screen pre-treatment was operated to achieve a consistent feed for the hydrocyclone, 65% of the solids but only 38 and 31% of the BOD and COD respectively of the original wastewater would have remained. This result is very odd, suggesting that a high proportion of the finer particles would have been removed by screening. The TSS concentration of the feed to the hydrocyclone ranged from 0.1-0.5%. By inference a pump must have been used to achieve the variation in the flow rate of the feed, but no agitator was used to improve the consistency of the TS concentration. The results for the removal efficiencies as a function of nozzle size and pressure drop are also inconsistent. For the smallest nozzle diameter, a higher proportion of both the TS and the TSS are retained as the pressure drop increases (Table 9-1). However, for the larger nozzle diameters this relationship does not hold. The inconsistent results are most likely the consequence of the variable TS concentrations in the feed, best reflected in the extremely variable flow volumes recorded for the larger diameter nozzles. The authors claim of an 18-fold increase in the TSS concentration is difficult to interpret, given that a high proportion of the fines appears to have been removed by the screening pre-treatment. The extremely variable nature of the data also makes the nozzle diameter and pressure drop recommendations untenable. The solids concentration of the separated solids fraction was 8%, indicating that further dewatering would have been required. At 8%, pumping would be difficult, as would spading. The action of a hydrocyclone is more appropriate for thickening, with the potential to change the flow rate and cone configurations to achieve a TS concentration of closer to 5% (pumpable). Further interpretation of these results cannot be justified due to the unreliability of the data.

April 2002

FSA Environmental

Page No.9-6

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

TABLE 9-1 - REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF HYDROCYCLONE AS A FUNCTION OF NOZZLE

DIAMETER AND PRESSURE DROP

Parameter 68 Lpm flow, 1.4 kg/cm2 pressure drop Flow volume % inflow TS volume % inflow TS concentration % wet basis TSS volume % inflow TSS concentration % wet basis TVS volume % inflow 88 Lpm flow, 2.8 kg/cm2 pressure drop Flow volume % inflow TS volume % inflow TS concentration % wet basis TSS volume % inflow TSS concentration % wet basis TVS volume % inflow 111 Lpm flow, 4.2 kg/cm2 pressure drop Flow volume % inflow TS volume % inflow TS concentration % wet basis TSS volume % inflow TSS concentration % wet basis TVS volume % inflow 127 Lpm flow, 5.6 kg/cm2 pressure drop Flow volume % inflow TS volume % inflow TS concentration % wet basis TSS volume % inflow TSS concentration % wet basis TVS volume % inflow

Results for underflow nozzle diameters 3.2 mm 4.7 mm 6.4 mm 2.2 20.3 7.5 11.3 7.1 5.5 2.1 26.5 8.4 38.8 8.2 5.8 0.9 10.5 9.0 15.7 9.1 6.6 1.8 15.8 5.8 23.5 5.5 4.1 10.4 14.7 3.0 4.5 0.3 2.3 4.8 14.1 2.4 20.7 2.2 1.7 5.1 23.5 3.4 34.0 2.9 2.6 5.0 17.1 3.7 21.1 3.3 2.7 10.0 26.1 3.1 30.2 2.6 2.3 11.2 24.1 1.6 34.4 1.3 0.7 9.6 27.0 2.0 40.7 1.7 1.4 10.4 24.2 1.6 34.5 1.3 1.1

9.5

Running Costs and Maintenance

Hydrocyclones contain no moving parts, reducing the need for maintenance. A sump, agitator and pump are required to regulate the TS concentration and the flow rate into the hydrocyclone. However, a coarse pre-screen of the inflow is recommended (screen aperture 5 mm diameter), to minimise the likelihood of blocking the cone nozzle. (For the BioLoc system see Case Study 13 static rundown screens precede the hydrocyclone.) In practice, running cyclones in series can remove the coarser solids fraction using a wider aperture nozzle in the first step, prior to feeding into a unit with a finer nozzle aperture for removal of the finer particle fraction.

April 2002

FSA Environmental

Page No.9-7

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

9.6

Practical Operating Issues

Recent advances in the design of the feed entry into the hydrocyclone, and variations in the angle and length of the conical section have improved the capacity and separation efficiency of hydrocyclones (Olson, 2000). If the specific gravity of the solids in the slurry, the size distribution of the solids, and TS concentrations are known, the expected performance of different hydrocyclone models can be simulated for the specified feed. The best combination of cone configuration and flow rate can then be selected to produce the outcome required. More recent models are also equipped with either manual or automated solids discharge systems.

9.7

Piggery Case Studies

Four piggery case studies have been analysed. These are a 200-sow and a 2000-sow unit operated under low flushing (5 L/SPU/day) and high flushing (25 L/SPU/day) regimes. Complete details of these case-study piggeries are given in the Part A report. It was assumed that power costs $0.13/kWhr and labour costs are $25/hr. Table 9-2 provides summarised capital and operating costs. Sumps, pumps and agitators have been built into the capital and operating costs of the separator. A coarse screen (5 mm) to remove larger particles has also been built into the cost.

April 2002

FSA Environmental

Page No.9-8

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

TABLE 9-2 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS OF HYDROCYCLONE CASE STUDY

Item Units 200-sow lowflush 200-sow high flush 2000-sow low-flush 2000-sow high flush

No of pigs SPU 2,134 2,134 21,340 21,340 Flushing L/SPU/day 5 25 5 25 Hosing L/SPU/day 1 2 1 2 Total effluent a ML/yr 9 25 85 250 Effluent flow (24 L/s 0.27 0.79 2.7 7.9 hr) Solids content of % TS 3.1 1.2 3.3 1.2 effluent Solids t/yr 270 290 2,800 2,940 Data Krebs Engineers Hydrocyclones Flowrate L/s 4.0 4.0 11.5 15.4 Operation hrs/day 1.6 4.8 5.6 12.3 hrs/yr 600 1,750 2,060 4,500 Solids Removal b % 25 25 25 25 t/yr 67 73 700 730 Capital cost c $ 24,500 24,500 59,000 74,000 $/ML 2,870 980 690 300 treated/yr $/t solids 365 337 84 101 removed /yr Operating Cost kWhr/yr 5,980 17,470 41,190 90,020 $/yr (power) 780 2,270 5,350 11,700 Labour hr/day 91 91 63 47 $/yr (labour) d 910 910 1,830 1,830 $/yr (main) e 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 Total Operating $/yr 2,690 4,180 9,180 15,530 $/ML treated 315 167 107 62 $/t solids 40 58 13 21 removed a Total effluent includes flushing water, hosing water, manure and drinking water wastage. b While higher solids removal percentages have been measured, this figure is adopted until better data is available. c Capital cost includes a coarse basket screen, the cyclone, a manure collection sump with pumps and agitator. d Labour for monitoring and maintenance costed at $ 25/hr e Routine maintenance of pumps and agitators

April 2002

FSA Environmental

Page No.9-9

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

9.8

Summary Selection Criteria

9.8.1 Solids removed

There is only limited data available on the solids removal efficiencies of hydrocyclones. Shutt et al. (1975) measured the removal of TS from pre-screened piggery wastewater of 10.5-27% for three different sized underflow nozzles (3.2, 4.7 and 6.4 mm). The wastewater fed to the hydrocyclone was pre-screened with a stationary run-down screened (1 mm aperture), which removed 35% of the TS (very high). The separated solids from the hydrocyclone were still high in moisture, with a TS concentration of 8%. For the purposes of the case studies it is assumed that the overall TS removal efficiency of the hydrocyclone and the coarse screen is 25%.

9.8.2

Capital cost

From Table 9-2, the capital cost could be $24,500 for a 200-sow piggery and $ 59,000 to $74,000 for a 2000-sow piggery. This includes the rougher and cleaner hydrocyclones, coarse screen, collection sump, agitator and pump.

9.8.3

Operating costs and returns

From Table 9-2, the operating costs could range from $167 to $315/ML of effluent treated for the 200-sow case studies and $62 to $107/ML of effluent treated for the 2000-sow case studies. Operating costs per tonne of dry solids removed range from $40 to $58 for a 200-sow piggery and $13 to $21 for a 2000 sow piggery. The lower costs reflect economies of scale with larger piggeries. The hydrocyclones itself has no moving parts and the maintenance requirement is generally low.

9.8.4

Ease of operation

Provided that a coarse screen is used to minimise the likelihood of nozzle blockage, hydrocyclones are comparatively easy to manage. Provided that the hydrocyclone has been matched to the TS concentration and particle size distribution of the feed, management should be restricted to checking the flow rate into the device, and the timer on the automatic discharge system.

9.8.5

Solids management options

Hydrocyclones can be matched to the characteristics of the waste stream to thicken the solids to about 4 or 6% TS concentration. Within this range the separated solids fraction could then be pumped into either a screw press or a centrifuge for further

April 2002

FSA Environmental

Page No.9-10

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

dewatering. Concentrating the solids above this range is not recommended. Hydrocyclones can only concentrate the solids to about 8% TS maximum, which is neither pumpable nor spadable. Alternatively, a hydrocyclone could be selected for the separation of the fine, COD-rich particle fraction for thickening (4 to 6 % TS) prior to anaerobic digestion.

9.9

References

Olson T. 2000. Hydrocyclone design for fine separations at high capacities. Presented at the 2000 Annual AICHE Meeting, Symposium on Recent Advances in Cyclones and Hydrocyclones, Los Angeles, 12-17 November 2000. Rushton A., Ward A.S. and Holdich R.G. 2000. Solid-liquid filtration and separation technology. Second edition, WILEY-VCH. Shutt J.W., White R.K., Taiganides E.P. and Mote C.R. 1975. Evaluation of solids separation devices. Managing Livestock Wastes. Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers Urbana, Illinois, USA. pp 463-467.

April 2002

FSA Environmental

Page No.9-11

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 9 Hydrocyclone

April 2002

FSA Environmental

Page No.9-12