UCD School of Chemical &

Bioprocess Engineering

CHEN30210:
Chemical & Bioprocess Engineering Laboratory 2
2019/20

Experiment 2: Filter Press Performance

Name: Jia-Yi Chai

Laboratory Pair: D

Experiment Performed: Week 5

February 18 2019
Report Due: February 28 2019
Report Submitted: February 28 2019

KEY LEARNING GAINS FROM THIS EXPERIMENT (INCL. REPORT)

1. Applying Carman-Kozeny equation to cake filtration as cake acts as packed bed.

2. Difference in specific cake resistance variation with pressure drop if cake is compressible
or incompressible.

MOST DIFFICULT CONCEPTS (if any):

1. Determining the porosity of the filter cake formed.

2. Differentiating a graph of t against v to find dt/dv

1
Engineering

Chemical & Bioprocess Engineering

2019/2020
CHEN30210
Chemical & Bioprocess Engineering Laboratory II
Experiment 2 Laboratory Report

Dr. Roderick Jones

Jia-Yi Chai 17205258

Jia-Yi 26/02/20

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ABSTRACT 4

INTRODUCTION 5

MATERIALS & METHODS 6

RESULTS 9

DISCUSSION 15

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 17

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Experimental Data 18

Appendix B. Sample Calculations 21

Appendix C. Nomenclature 25

Appendix D. References 26

3
ABSTRACT

The objective of the experiment is to examine the performance of a simple plate-and-frame

filter press by evaluating specific cake resistance (α), the porosity of the cake (ε) as well as the
specific cake surface area (S). In the experiment, the total pressure drop (ΔP) was varied at 3
different values (0.6 bar, 1.1 bar and 1.4 bar) and the parameters mentioned were evaluated for
each run. The specific cake resistances were found to be very high for each pressure drop
examined, at 6.66x109 m/kg for Run 1, 1.03x1010 m/kg for Run 2 and 8.33x109 m/kg for Run 3.
However, a clear relationship between α and ΔP could not be determined from this experiment.
The cake porosity was consistent across the 3 runs at approximately 0.72. For specific cake
surface area, the highest S was found for Run 2 at 2.72x106 m-1 and the lowest for Run 1 at
𝑑𝑡
2.25x106 m-1. The experimental data fitted well with the 𝑑𝑉 model used (Equation 3) and
provided graphs of expected straight line trends. This verifies the use of the incompressible
cake constant pressure filtration model in the experiment.

4
INTRODUCTION

This experiment is an introduction to the operation of a conventional plate-and-frame filter

press. Filtration is an important and common separation process that involves the removal of
solid particles from liquids. This is done by passing the liquid through a filter medium known
as the septum, where the solid filtered out is deposited. According to Coulson & Richardson
(1991), there are two basic types of filtration processes, namely cake filtration (where solid
particles build up on septum and effectively act as filter medium) and deep-bed filtration (where
solid particles enters pores of filter medium and are trapped within the medium).
The plate-and-frame filter press used in the experiment is one of the main types of filter press
used, other than the recessed plate filter press and it consists of alternating plates and frames
supported by a rail (Coulson & Richardson, 1991). In this experiment, three square plates of
cross-sectional area 324cm2 are used. The experiment investigates the filtration and the filter
cake performance under 3 different pressure drops of 0.6 bar, 1.1 bar and 1.4 bar.
In this experiment, cake filtration is examined, where calcium carbonate-water slurry is passed
through the filter press to deposit calcium carbonate as residue and water as filtrate. As filtration
continues, the solids start to form and build up a filter cake and this cake effectively acts as the
new filter medium, where further filtered calcium carbonate is prevented from passing through
the filter paper to ensure the filtrate collected is purely water without calcium carbonate. As the
filter cake builds up, there will be an increase in the resistance to the fluid flow due to this filter
cake. Hence, the experiment aims to determine the specific cake resistance (α) alongside the
cake porosity (ε) and the specific surface area of the cake particles (S).
The Carman-Kozeny equation for fluid flow through packed beds is applied to the filtration
process as the filter cake acts as a packed bed in this case and the equation is given below:
∆𝑃𝑐 𝐾𝑙 ∙𝜇∙𝜐∙(1−𝜀)2 ∙𝑆 2
= Equation 1.
𝐿 𝜀3

Where Kl is a constant that is taken to have a value of 5 (Jones et. al., 2019). However, it is
important to note that this constant may vary with other factors such as voidage as discussed in
Geankoplis (1978).
It is also important to note that filter cake formed can be divided into two types – incompressible
cake and compressible cake. In this experiment, it is assumed that the filter cake formed is
incompressible. Thus, the equations and calculations used for this experiment is for a constant
pressure filtration with the formation of an incompressible cake as given in Equation 3 in
Appendix B of this report.

5
MATERIALS & METHODS

The materials and methods used in the experiment are as described in the CHEN30210
Laboratory Manual (Jones et al., 2019). The Risk Assessment Form and Safety Data Sheet for
the materials were consulted prior to the experiment and there are no suggested amendments to
it. A conventional plate-and-frame filter press with variable number of plates was used. In the
experiment, only three plates were used as this results in sufficient degree of separation. It is
noted that filter paper has to be inserted between each plate for the filter cake to form and be
collected.

3 different runs were conducted at varying pressure drop (0.6 bar, 1.1 bar and 1.4 bar), where
the filter cake formed at the 3 plates were collected and weighed for wet weight and dry weight.
The weight of the filtrate is also recorded at regular time intervals using a digital data logging
system. It is important to note that the pump and data logger were stopped when the filtrate
weight reached 16kg as this value shows that the filtration has reached completion. The
temperature of the filtrate was also measured after each filtration run.

Examining the pump usage in this experiment, a Mono pump was used to supply the slurry in
the feed vessel into the filter press. The pump is also known as a progressive cavity pump and
it is a type of positive displacement pump, which means that the pump moves the fluid in cycles
where each cycle traps a given volume of the fluid and then displaces it into the system
(Mackay, 2019). The Mono pump consists of a single helix rotor which rotates inside a stator
with a double-helix hole (Elsey, 2017). The flow rate of fluid through the pump is essentially
constant due to the constant volume of fluid moved in the operation cycle. The operation of the
pump in cycles means that the operation mode of the pump is discontinuous or in batch mode.

According to Engineering Toolbox (2003), it is vital that a safety pressure relief valve be
installed on the discharge side of a positive displacement pump as even with valves on the
discharge side, the pump will continue operating. This in turn produces a very high pressure in
the discharge line that may lead to bursting of the pipe. This type of pump is well-suited for the
filtration process examined the pump provides a constant flow of slurry to filter press even
under varying pressures.

6
 UCD SCHOOL OF CHEMICAL & BIOPROCESS ENGINEERING
CHEN30210-CHEN30240 SAFETY SUMMARY SHEET

Experiment
2 Title: Filter Press Performance
No.:
Academic/Technical
Dr. Roderick Jones
Staff Responsible:
Demonstrator: Burcu Akkoyunlu
Sheet prepared by: Jia-Yi Chai Date: 17/02/20

MATERIAL HAZARDS & ASSOCIATED PREVENTIVE ACTIONS

Material Hazard(s)
Calcium Carbonate - Irritant to skin
- Irritant to eyes
- May cause respiratory
irritation
Preventive Action(s)
- Always wear nitrile gloves,
eye protection and
laboratory coat.
- Avoid breathing dust
- Wash exposed skin
thoroughly after handling
- Only use in well-ventilated
area

OPERATING HAZARDS & ASSOCIATED PREVENTIVE ACTIONS

Technique/Procedure Hazard(s) Preventive Action(s)
Working with compressed air Over pressure may cause Ensure pressure regulator valve
bursts or explosions is working.
Working with stirrer or pump May cause injury to body Avoid contact with moving
if in contact parts and operate with caution.

WASTE DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Waste Disposal Instruction(s)
Calcium carbonate Collect and dry and leave with laboratory demonstrators.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING RISK ASSESSMENT

AND/OR MSDS
Document Section/Pag Recommendation & Justification
e
N/A N/A N/A

7
 EXPERIMENTAL FLOWSHEET

START

Check flow path & ensure all

connections are correct and tight

Set required filtrate delivery pressure on

controller

Start the pump and switch on PC-based

monitoring system

When filtrate flow stopped, turn off pump

and allow press to drain
Vary
Take a sample of cake from each frame operating
recess and weigh pressure

Place samples in drying oven and weigh

when dry

8
RESULTS

3 experimental runs were conducted using the plate-and-frame filter press under different
pressure drop at 0.6 bar, 1.1 bar and 1.4 bar. The wet filter cake was collected from the filter
paper of each of the 3 plates used and then weighed. The sample was then left to dry in the
drying oven and the dry weight was measured the following day. The dry cake weight and wet
cake weight recorded for each run is shown in Table 1 below. Both the wet weight and dry
weight of the slurry was also measured and recorded. It is assumed that this remains constant
for all three runs as the same slurry is used.

Table 1. Mass of wet cake and dry cake collected at each plate for each run as well as for the
slurry used.
Mass of wet cake (g) Mass of dry cake (g)
Plate 1 54.6 27.5
Run 1 (ΔP = 0.6bar) Plate 2 54.5 27.3
Plate 3 53.1 26.9
Plate 1 57.1 29.1
Run 2 (ΔP = 1.1bar) Plate 2 69.7 35.8
Plate 3 77.2 39.7
Plate 1 45.7 23.6
Run 3 (ΔP = 1.4bar) Plate 2 46.5 24.0
Plate 3 42.9 22.2
Slurry 551.9 9.4

The weight of the filtrate was collected and the volume of the filtrate was calculated as shown
in Equation 2 in Appendix B. For all experimental runs, a graph of filtration time as a function
of filtrate volume was plotted as shown in Figures 1 to 3 below.

t against V for Run 1

1200

y = 1E+06x2 + 42053x + 21.599

1000 R² = 0.9999

800
t (s)

600

400

200

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
V (m3)
Figure 1. Graph of filtration time against filtrate volume collected for Run 1 at pressure drop
of 0.6 bar.
9
 t against V for Run 2
700

600 y = 850721x2 + 21041x + 17.846

R² = 0.9998
500

400
t (s)

300

200

100

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
V (m3)
Figure 2. Graph of filtration time against filtrate volume collected for Run 2 at pressure drop
of 1.1 bar.

t against V for Run 3

450
y = 537817x2 + 15532x + 17.337
400
R² = 0.9995
350

300

250
t (s)

200

150

100

50

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
V (m3)
Figure 3. Graph of filtration time against filtrate volume collected for Run 3 at pressure drop
of 1.4 bar.

For each of the runs, the data plotted is fitted to a second order polynomial using the Trendline
function in EXCEL. The quadratic equation found was then differentiated to determine the
𝑑𝑡
derivative of filtration time with respect to filtrate volume (𝑑𝑉). This is done in order to plot a
𝑑𝑡
graph of 𝑑𝑉 as a function of filtrate volume. The equations of the polynomial and their
derivatives are listed for each run as shown in Table 1 below.

10
Table 2. The quadratic equation obtained for each run and its derivative equation.
Run Quadratic equation Derivative equation
𝑑𝑡
1 𝑡 = 1.00 × 106 𝑉 2 + 42053𝑉 + 21.599 = 2.00 × 106 𝑉 + 42053
𝑑𝑉
𝑑𝑡
2 𝑡 = 8.51 × 105 𝑉 2 + 21041𝑉 + 17.846 = 1.70 × 106 𝑉 + 21041
𝑑𝑉
𝑑𝑡
3 𝑡 = 5.38 × 105 𝑉 2 + 15532𝑉 + 17.337 = 1.08 × 106 𝑉 + 15532
𝑑𝑉

𝑑𝑡
Using the derivative equations determined, a graph of 𝑑𝑉 as a function of filtrate volume (V)
was plotted as shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6 for each of the respective runs.

dt/dV against V for Run 1

80000

70000
y = 2E+06x + 42053
60000
R² = 1
50000
dt/dV

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
V (m3)
𝑑𝑡
Figure 4. Graph of 𝑑𝑉 against V for Run 1 at pressure drop of 0.6 bar.

dt/dV against V for Run 2

60000

50000

40000
y = 1.70E+06x + 2.10E+04
R² = 1.00E+00
dt/dV

30000

20000

10000

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
V (m3)
𝑑𝑡
Figure 5. Graph of 𝑑𝑉 against V for Run 2 at pressure drop of 1.1 bar.

11
 dt/dV against V for Run 3
35000

30000
y = 1.08E+06x + 1.55E+04
25000 R² = 1.00E+00

20000
dt/dV

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
V (m3)
𝑑𝑡
Figure 6. Graph of 𝑑𝑉 against V for Run 3 at pressure drop of 1.4 bar.

𝑑𝑡
From the graphs plotted using the 𝑑𝑉 equation, it is evident that the equation of the straight line
can be compared to Equation 3 (Appendix B). Thus, from Figures 4, 5 and 6, the slope of the
2
straight line is equal to the term 𝐶, where C is a constant of integration. The y-intercept of the
2𝑉
straight line in turn give the term 𝐶 𝑓 , where Vf is the filtrate volume which would deposit a
filter cake depth with equivalent resistance to that of the filter medium. Thus, the values of C
and Vf were determined for each run and tabulated in Table 3 below.
𝑑𝑡
Table 3. The slope and y-intercept of the graph of 𝑑𝑉 against V and the corresponding values
of C and Vf calculated for each run.
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
Slope of graph 2.00x106 1.70 x106 1.08x106
y-intercept of graph 42053 21040 15532
C 1.00x10-6 1.18x10-6 1.85x10-6
Vf 0.0210 0.0124 0.0144

From Table 3, using the known values of the constant C, the specific cake resistance (α) is
computed using Equation 6 as shown in Appendix B. In order to calculate α, the weight ratio
of solids in slurry has to be first calculated using Equation 7 (Appendix B) and this uses the
values of wet cake and dry cake of the slurry as listed in Table 1. The calculated values of α are
listed in Table 4 below for each run.

12
Table 4. Computed values of specific cake resistance for each run.
Pressure drop (ΔP) (bar) Specific cake resistance (α) (m/kg)
Run 1 0.6 6.66x109
Run 2 1.1 1.03x1010
Run 3 1.4 8.33x109

The porosity of the filter cake (ε) formed at each run was calculated using Equation 8 (Appendix
B). However, the weight ratio of wet cake to dry cake (m) is needed to compute ε, which was
first determined using Equation 9 (Appendix B). This was calculated for the cake collected at
each plate for each run and an average value was calculated and recorded. The specific surface
area of the cake particles (S) was also calculated for each plate of each run as described in
Equation 10 (Appendix B). It should be noted again that the value of the constant Kl in the
equation is assumed to be 5 (Jones et. al., 2019). The average values of porosity and specific
surface area of the filter cake formed are listed in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Average values of cake porosity and specific surface area for each run.
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
ε (-) 0.7270 0.7200 0.7166
S (m-1) 2.25x106 2.72x106 2.42x106

Lastly, to examine how the specific filter cake resistance varied with pressure drop, a graph of
α as a function of ΔP was plotted in Figure 7 below in accordance with the values presented in
Table 4.

α against ΔP
1.20E+10

1.00E+10

8.00E+09
α (m/kg)

6.00E+09

4.00E+09

2.00E+09

0.00E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
ΔP (Pa)

Figure 7. Graph of α as a function of ΔP.

13
According to McCabe, Smith & Harriott (1993), the relationship between specific cake
resistance and pressure drop can be described as below:

𝛼 = 𝛼0 (∆𝑃)𝑠

Where αo and s are empirical constants. S is known as the cake compressibility coefficient and
is equal to zero when the filter cake formed is incompressible. If the cake is compressible, then
s would have a value of larger than zero at approximately 0.2-0.8.

Thus, to whether the experimental fits the relationship above, the equation can first be linearised
to become:
ln 𝛼 = 𝑠 ln ∆𝑃 + ln 𝛼0

A straight-line graph of ln α as a function of ln ΔP is then plotted as shown in Figure 8 below:

ln (α) against ln (ΔP)
23.1
23.05
23
22.95
22.9
y = 0.3521x + 22.849
22.85
ln (α)

R² = 0.4971
22.8
22.75
22.7
22.65
22.6
22.55
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
ln (ΔP)
Figure 8. Graph of ln α as a function of ln ΔP.

14
DISCUSSION

From Table 1, it is generally observed that the mass of the dry cake obtained for each run does
not vary much for between each individual plate. With the exception of Run 2, the samples
collected remain within ±2.0g of each other and were found to be less than 30g. The wet and
dry cake weight recorded for Run 2 seemed skewed as both cake from plate 2 and 3 were found
to exceed 30g. This is likely due to an error in sampling and measuring the filter cake formed.
As no exact amount was specified to be collected and it was only done by intuition, it was easy
to collect too much sample or too little sample.

From Figures 1 to 3, it is evident that the filtrate volume increases with filtration time. The
experimental data also agrees well with the quadratic fit as all the runs showed R2 values of
above 0.99, showing an almost perfect fit. Hence, the derivative linear equation obtained from
the quadratic fit should be accurate and this is confirmed from the linear fit of R2=1. From
Figures 4 to 6 and values from Table 3, it is observed that the slope of the linear graph decreases
as the pressure drop is increased. The y-intercept of the graph was also found to follow a similar
trend.

From Table 3, the constant of integration (C) obtained from the graphs were very small and all
in the 10-6 range. It is also observed that C increases as the pressure drop increases whereas the
Vf value found did not show a clear relationship with pressure drop, though the highest value
of 0.0210 was obtained at the lowest pressure drop of 0.6 bar. This is consistent with the
expectation that for a lower pressure drop, a larger amount of filtrate would be required to
deposit a filter cake with an equivalent resistance to the filter medium.

From Table 4, Run 2 was found to have the highest specific cake resistance of 1.03x1010 m/kg
while Run 1 was found to have the lowest cake resistance at 6.66x109 m/kg. To examine the
accuracy of these values, the experimentally-obtained α values are compared with those of
literature. From literature (Holdich & Madi, 2013), the specific cake resistance obtained for
constant pressure filtration at a pressure drop range of 0.3 to 0.6 bar was 5.59x109 m/kg. The
experimental value for α agreed very well with a deviation of 1.07x109 m/kg. In general,
Holdich & Madi (2013) found that the specific cake resistance varied between 1x109 to 1x1011
m/kg depending on the pressure drop and this agreed well with the α values obtained from the
experiment as seen in Table 4.

The porosity (ε) of the filter cake formed was found to be consistent across the 3 runs at a value
of approximately 0.72 as seen in Table 5. This means that 72% of the filter cake is made up of
empty space that allows the water to flow through. This is reasonable as looking at a filtration
example in literature (Seader, Henley & Roper, 2010), the porosity values used were around
0.75-0.80. Meanwhile, the specific surface area of the cake particles (S) were very high at above
2x106 m-1 for each run. Similar to specific cake resistance, S was the highest for Run 2 at
2.72x106 m-1 and the lowest for Run 1 at 2.25x106 m-1.

Examining the relationship between specific cake resistance and pressure drop, the correlation
given by McCabe, Smith and Harriott (1993) was plotted using the experimental data. However,
from Figure 8, it can be seen that the experimental data does not fit the model well as the R2
value for the linear fit was very low at 0.4971. Also, the slope of the graph gives a
compressibility coefficient of 0.3, indicating that the filter cake formed in the experiment is
compressible and that the incompressible cake assumption was invalid. However, due to the

15
low agreement with the model, another approach or model has to be investigated to further
determine the validity of this assumption.

There are a few sources of error in this experiment including that as previously mentioned,
where the collection of the wet cake from the plates of the filter press were not specified exactly.
In addition to this, as the samples were collected separately by 3 different experimenters, this
could lead to a deviation in the amount of filter cake collected for weighing. Besides that, there
could also be sources of error due to the cleaning of the filter press. Although the filter press
was cleaned using water after each run, it is highly likely that some of the deposits from the
previous run would have remained on the press and affected the results of the following run.

16
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, the experiment provided a good introduction to the operation and performance
of a plate-and-frame filter press. The graph of the derivative of filtration time with respect to
𝑑𝑡
filtrate volume ( 𝑑𝑉) was plotted for each run and found to match well with the linear
expectation. The specific cake resistances were obtained for each run of varying pressure drop
at high values of 6.66x109 m/kg, 1.03x1010 m/kg and 8.33x109 m/kg for Run 1, 2 and 3
respectively. The α values fell within the range given in literature by Holdich & Madi (2013)
and especially, the experimental value of α at 0.6 bar matched well with the literature value at
0.3 – 0.6 bar with a deviation of 1.07x109 m/kg. The cake porosity (ε) was also found to be
approximately 0.72 across all runs whereas specific surface area of cake (S) was found to be
2.25x106 m-1, 2.72x106 m-1 and 2.42x106 m-1 for Runs 1, 2 and 3 respectively. A clear
relationship could not be found between α and ΔP and the empirical model examined could not
be applied to the experimental data and thus, an incompressible filter cake formation is
continually assumed in the experiment.

It is recommended that the experiment be carried out with more instruction in collecting the
filter cake from each plate of the press. For example, only one experimenter should collect the
filter cake from the plates after each run to ensure consistency. Also, the containers can be
marked at a certain volume to ensure that the sample cake collected always reaches a certain
amount. Lastly, it is recommended that the experiment be repeated for more experimental runs
at even higher pressure drops. This is so that a clearer relationship can be drawn between cake
specific resistance and the pressure drop.

17
Appendix A. Experimental Data

Run 1: (ΔP=0.6bar)

plate 1 plate 2 plate 3 slurry

Mass of container 44.0 44.3 46.2 196.3
Mass of container + wet cake 98.6 98.8 99.3 748.2

Mass of container + dry cake 71.5 71.6 73.1 205.7

Mass of wet cake 54.6 54.5 53.1 551.9

Mass of dry cake 27.5 27.3 26.9 9.4

Run 2: (ΔP=1.1bar)

plate 1 plate 2 plate 3 slurry

Mass of container 47.5 47.7 45.7 196.3
Mass of container + wet 104.6 117.4 122.9 748.2
cake
Mass of container + dry 76.6 83.5 85.4 205.7
cake
Mass of wet cake 57.1 69.7 77.2 551.9
Mass of dry cake 29.1 35.8 39.7 9.4

Run 3: (ΔP=1.4bar)

plate 1 plate 2 plate 3 slurry

Mass of container 48.2 43.5 46.2 196.3
Mass of container + wet 93.9 90 89.1 748.2
cake
Mass of container + dry 71.8 67.5 68.4 205.7
cake
Mass of wet cake 45.7 46.5 42.9 551.9
Mass of dry cake 23.6 24 22.2 9.4

Short snippet of PC-based experimental data for Run 1:

mass of water (kg) time date point

0.000 10:19:09 02-18-2020 12
0.000 10:19:12 02-18-2020 13
0.000 10:19:14 02-18-2020 14
0.001 10:19:16 02-18-2020 15
0.001 10:19:18 02-18-2020 16
0.012 10:19:21 02-18-2020 17
0.031 10:19:23 02-18-2020 18
0.046 10:19:25 02-18-2020 19
0.075 10:19:27 02-18-2020 20
0.108 10:19:30 02-18-2020 21
0.157 10:19:32 02-18-2020 22
0.170 10:19:34 02-18-2020 23
0.200 10:19:36 02-18-2020 24
0.240 10:19:39 02-18-2020 25
18
 0.270 10:19:41 02-18-2020 26
0.310 10:19:43 02-18-2020 27
0.340 10:19:45 02-18-2020 28
0.370 10:19:47 02-18-2020 29
0.410 10:19:50 02-18-2020 30
0.440 10:19:52 02-18-2020 31
0.480 10:19:54 02-18-2020 32
0.520 10:19:56 02-18-2020 33
0.560 10:19:59 02-18-2020 34
0.600 10:20:01 02-18-2020 35
0.650 10:20:03 02-18-2020 36
0.690 10:20:05 02-18-2020 37
0.740 10:20:08 02-18-2020 38
0.780 10:20:10 02-18-2020 39
0.830 10:20:12 02-18-2020 40

Short snippet of PC-based experimental data for Run 2:

mass of water (kg) time date point
0 10:48:48 02-18-2020 9
0 10:48:50 02-18-2020 10
0 10:48:53 02-18-2020 11
0 10:48:55 02-18-2020 12
0.001 10:48:57 02-18-2020 13
0.001 10:48:59 02-18-2020 14
0.001 10:49:01 02-18-2020 15
0.001 10:49:04 02-18-2020 16
0.001 10:49:06 02-18-2020 17
0.001 10:49:08 02-18-2020 18
0.014 10:49:10 02-18-2020 19
0.065 10:49:12 02-18-2020 20
0.126 10:49:15 02-18-2020 21
0.21 10:49:17 02-18-2020 22
0.295 10:49:19 02-18-2020 23
0.383 10:49:21 02-18-2020 24
0.473 10:49:24 02-18-2020 25
0.564 10:49:26 02-18-2020 26
0.655 10:49:28 02-18-2020 27
0.746 10:49:30 02-18-2020 28
0.836 10:49:33 02-18-2020 29
0.928 10:49:35 02-18-2020 30
1.020 10:49:37 02-18-2020 31

Short snippet of PC-based experimental data for Run 3:

mass of water (kg) time date point

0.000 11:08:32 02-18-2020 5
0.004 11:08:35 02-18-2020 6
0.005 11:08:37 02-18-2020 7
0.005 11:08:39 02-18-2020 8
0.005 11:08:41 02-18-2020 9
0.005 11:08:44 02-18-2020 10
0.005 11:08:46 02-18-2020 11
19
0.020 11:08:48 02-18-2020 12
0.071 11:08:50 02-18-2020 13
0.138 11:08:53 02-18-2020 14
0.240 11:08:55 02-18-2020 15
0.350 11:08:57 02-18-2020 16
0.470 11:08:59 02-18-2020 17
0.590 11:09:02 02-18-2020 18

20
Appendix B. Sample Calculations

21
22
23
24
Appendix C. Nomenclature

A Total cross-sectional area for filtration (m2)

C Constant of integration
m Weight ratio of wet cake to dry cake
S Specific surface area of particles (m2/m3)
ΔPc Pressure drop across cake (Pa)
ΔP Total pressure drop (Pa)
t Time (s)
tf Time equivalent to hypothetical filtration (s)
V Volume of filtrate collected up to time t (m3)
Vf Volume of filtrate equivalent to filter medium (m3)
w Weight ratio of solids in slurry

Greek Symbols

α Specific resistance of cake (m/kg)

ε Void fraction or porosity of cake
μ Filtrate viscosity (Pa.s)
ρ Filtrate density (kg/m3)
ρs Solid density (kg/m3)

Subscripts

c Cake
f Filtrate/ Filtration
s Solid

25
Appendix D. References

Jones, R. et. al. (2019) CHEN30210 Chemical & Bioprocess Engineering Laboratory II
Laboratory Manual. Dublin: University College Dublin.

Coulson, J. & Richardson, J. (1991). Chemical Engineering, Vol. 2. (4th ed.). New York:
Pergamon Press.

McCabe, W. L., Smith, J. C. & Hariott, P. (1993) Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering
(5th Ed.). Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Geankoplis, C. (1978). Transport Process and Unit Operations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.

Mackay, R. (2019) Understanding positive displacement pumps. Available at:

http://www.pumpscout.com/articles-expert-advice/understanding-positive-displacement-
pumps-aid89.html [Accessed 25 February 2020]

Elsey, J. (2017) A Beginner’s Guide to Progressive Cavity Pumps. Available at:

https://www.pumpsandsystems.com/progressive-cavity/beginners-guide-progressive-cavity-
pumps [Accessed 25 February 2020]

Engineering ToolBox, (2003). Positive Displacement Pumps. Available at:

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/positive-displacement-pumps-d_414.html [Accessed 25
February 2020].

Holdich, R. G. & Mahdi, F. M. (2013). ‘Laboratory cake filtration testing using constant
rate.’ Chemical Engineering Research & Design. 91(6):1145-1154

Seader, J. D., Henley, E. J. & Roper, D. K. (2010). Separation Process Principles (3rd Ed.).
New York: McGraw Hill.

26