Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry Case Study 9 –Hydrocyclone

Case Study 9 –
HYDROCYCLONE
Contents
CASE STUDY 9 – HYDROCYCLONE .............................................................. 9-1
9.1 Description of the System............................................................................. 9-3
9.2 Manufacturer / Distributor ........................................................................... 9-3
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 Running Costs and Maintenance ................................................................ 9-7
9.6 Practical Operating Issues............................................................................. 9-8
9.7 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 µm 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 07 5571 6760

Facsimile 07 5571 6762
Email vdhall@krebs.com
Internet 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
µm and less than 212 µm, and 35% of the particles were greater than 212 µm.
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
14—43%.

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 Results for underflow nozzle diameters

3.2 mm 4.7 mm 6.4 mm
68 Lpm flow, 1.4 kg/cm2 pressure drop
Flow volume % inflow 2.2 10.4 10.0
TS volume % inflow 20.3 14.7 26.1
TS concentration % wet basis 7.5 3.0 3.1
TSS volume % inflow 11.3 4.5 30.2
TSS concentration % wet basis 7.1 0.3 2.6
TVS volume % inflow 5.5 2.3 2.3
88 Lpm flow, 2.8 kg/cm2 pressure drop
Flow volume % inflow 2.1 4.8 11.2
TS volume % inflow 26.5 14.1 24.1
TS concentration % wet basis 8.4 2.4 1.6
TSS volume % inflow 38.8 20.7 34.4
TSS concentration % wet basis 8.2 2.2 1.3
TVS volume % inflow 5.8 1.7 0.7
111 Lpm flow, 4.2 kg/cm2 pressure drop
Flow volume % inflow 0.9 5.1 9.6
TS volume % inflow 10.5 23.5 27.0
TS concentration % wet basis 9.0 3.4 2.0
TSS volume % inflow 15.7 34.0 40.7
TSS concentration % wet basis 9.1 2.9 1.7
TVS volume % inflow 6.6 2.6 1.4
127 Lpm flow, 5.6 kg/cm2 pressure drop
Flow volume % inflow 1.8 5.0 10.4
TS volume % inflow 15.8 17.1 24.2
TS concentration % wet basis 5.8 3.7 1.6
TSS volume % inflow 23.5 21.1 34.5
TSS concentration % wet basis 5.5 3.3 1.3
TVS volume % inflow 4.1 2.7 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 200-sow 2000-sow 2000-sow

low- high flush low-flush high flush
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