Powder Technology 272 (2015) 276–281

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Reducing cyclone pressure drop with evasés

P.A. Funk ⁎
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Southwestern Cotton Ginning Research Lab, 300 E. College Dr., PO Box 578, Mesilla, Park, NM 88047, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Cyclones are widely used to separate particles from gas flows and as air emission control devices. Their cost of
Received 27 June 2014 operation is proportional to the fan energy required to overcome their pressure drop. Evasés or exit diffusers po-
Received in revised form 4 December 2014 tentially could reduce exit pressure losses without affecting collection efficiency. Three rectangular evasés and a
Accepted 11 December 2014
radial evasé with a variable opening were tested on two cyclones. Pressure drop was recorded for inlet velocities
Available online 19 December 2014
from about 10 to 20 m s−1. The radial evasé reduced cyclone pressure drop by between 8.7 and 11.9 percent
Keywords:
when its exit area was equal to the flow area of the cyclone vortex finder or gas exit. A simple payback based
Cyclone on avoided energy costs was estimated to be between 3600 and 5000 h, not including installation cost.
Energy recovery Published by Elsevier B.V.
Evasé
Pressure regain
Pressure drop
Return on investment

1. Introduction operating energy may be reduced by the amount of pressure energy

regained [2].
1.1. Rationale

Cyclone separators are widely used to separate particles from gas
flows and as air emission control devices in the chemical, metals, min-
ing, petroleum, pharmaceutical and processing industries. Cyclones
have low capital costs compared to other control devices. With no mov-
ing parts, cyclones intrinsically have low maintenance costs. The oper-
ating cost of a cyclone is the cost of the energy required to overcome
its pressure drop. In the cotton ginning industry energy costs have
risen more than other inputs in recent years [1]. Other industries likely
face similar financial pressure. An evasé (ā”vä-zā′) is a diffuser located
at the exit of a duct or fan. An evasé on a cyclone exhaust was not ex-
pected to have a significant impact on particle collection, since it is lo-
cated after the separation region. The goal of this research was to
estimate the potential economic return of using rectangular and radial
evasés at cyclone outlets by quantifying pressure drop reductions and
calculating corresponding energy savings.
The benefit of an evasé may be twofold; first, it may reduce the exit
loss and second, it protects the inside of the cyclone from weather. An
evasé could be of a rectangular (two or three dimensional) design, or
of a radial design (Fig. 1). With either option, the smooth transition in
the flow area of the expansion region converts the gas kinetic energy
into pressure energy, minimizing exit losses. Theoretically, cyclone
⁎ Tel.: +1 575 526 6381; fax: +1 575 525 1076.
E-mail address: paul.funk@ars.usda.gov.
1.2. Antecedents
There has been considerable research conducted on cyclone pres-
sure drop, both empirical and computational. The focus of past research
has frequently been on the dimensions of the cyclone [3–5], or occa-
sionally on modifications to the cyclone inlet or particle outlet [6,7],
but no publications were found reporting research on the impact of
evasés on cyclone pressure drop. For empirical studies, this may be
due to the practice of directing exhaust through a duct or filter to facil-
itate emissions quantification.
Attempts to predict and minimize cyclone pressure drop are numer-
ous. Many semi-empirical pressure drop models have been proposed
[8–14]. Additional work has also been done using computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) [15–27], among many others, but none included
modeling evasés.
Early empirical research on devices that reduced cyclone pressure
drop included an inlet vane that protruded into the cyclone cylinder
[28]. When this inlet vane was shortened, pressure drop doubled [29].
In another study, vertical, horizontal and spiral grooves were cut into
the cyclone cylinder wall. These altered the velocity profile, reducing
pressure drop [30]. Another modification that reduced pressure drop
was a stick inserted through the top of the cyclone, extending to the
cone bottom. Empirical tests [31] and numerical simulations [32] indi-
cated a decrease in pressure drop up to 37% with the stick. These mod-
ifications would not be appropriate when handling materials that tend
to agglomerate. Inlet angle modifications have also been attempted

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2014.12.019
0032-5910/Published by Elsevier B.V.
 P.A. Funk / Powder Technology 272 (2015) 276–281
Fig. 1. Section showing proposed rectangular and radial evasés on cyclones.
[17,33]. None of the aforementioned experiments included measuring
pressure drop reduction through evasés.
Three studies looked at cyclone pressure drop with gas outlet mod-
ifications. A numerical simulation and empirical test examined vortex
finder length and diameter [34]. An empirical study conducted with
tangential inlet cyclones indicated a reduction in pressure drop with
vortex finders having a cone-shape [7]. A more recent empirical study
of axial inlet cyclones also indicated a reduction in pressure drop with
vortex finders having a cone-shape [35]. Though these latter two studies
did not examine pressure drop in relation to evasés specifically, the test-
ed modifications to the shape of the vortex finder may have had a sim-
ilar function in that flow area gradually increased, possibly resulting in
partial static pressure regain. Unfortunately, this modification cannot
be made to existing cyclones inexpensively.
Patents describing cyclones with evasés and diffusers have been
awarded throughout the last century [36–38], but evasés are not widely
used at present. The common practice is for the gas outlet (exhaust, or
vortex finder) to end just above the cyclone top (Fig. 2a), or to cover it
with a shallow cone (“rain hat”) to keep rain out (Fig. 2b). Though less
common, some installations have covers (called spin caps) that direct
Fig. 2. Three types of cyclone gas outlet (exhaust, or vortex finder) terminations found in industry: a) direct; b) with rain hat; and c) with spin cap.
277
exhaust away from prevailing winds or an adjacent structure (Fig. 2c).
There may be regulatory as well as practical reasons for these various
designs.
1.3. Cautions
In some jurisdictions, such as North and South Carolina, rain hats (and
thus evasés) would not be in compliance with existing regulations, at
least for cyclones controlling cotton gin emissions, as permit authorities
prohibit rain hats or require cyclone exhaust to be directed upwards
[39,40]. Currently these jurisdictions only allow exhaust flappers to
keep rain and snow out of the cyclone. Although installing evasés would
be in violation of the existing rules, a petition for alternative controls
may be filed, provided adequate justification is given. Though precedent
is lacking, permission might be granted since reducing electrical energy
consumed reduces the power plant contribution to pollution in the re-
gional airshed [41]. Note that directing particulate upwards results in a
greater effective source height. Increasing effective height increases the
distance from the source where maximum concentration occurs and it re-
duces maximum ground level concentration [42]. Although local concen-
tration is less, the time particles remain suspended and the distance they
travel is more. In the U.S., industrial sources are to control emissions, not
merely disperse them [43].
In South Carolina, air permit conditions stipulate monitoring pres-
sure drop to verify proper cyclone operation. The rule is based on pub-
lished values for pressure drop that result from operating 2D2D and
1D3D cyclones in a range bracketing their design inlet velocities [44].
The values, from 748 to 1495 Pa, were claimed to be a compromise be-
tween collection efficiency and power requirement (though empirical
evidence has not been found in the literature). Since the purpose of
the evasé is to reduce pressure drop, adding evasés would again require
petitioning for a variance.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Apparatus
Two 30.48 cm diameter cyclones, A and B, were built according to
the fully enhanced 1D3D design [45]. The cyclones' gas outlet, or vortex
278 P.A. Funk / Powder Technology 272 (2015) 276–281
Fig. 3. Schematic of test apparatus showing supply duct with flow straightening, temper-
ature sensing, velocity, and pressure measurement sections, and a 30.5 cm cyclone with
dust bin and radial evasé.
finder, was 15.24 cm in diameter. A sealed container (dust bin, Fig. 3)
was attached to the particle outlet at the bottom.
A test apparatus was constructed that held one of the two cyclones.
Air was supplied to the cyclone by a 5.6 kW centrifugal fan. The fan was
controlled by a variable frequency drive (VLT 8000 AQUA, Danfoss,
Nordborg, Denmark). A 10 cm diameter duct connected the fan to the
cyclone. The duct included sections that provided flow straightening,
temperature sensing, and velocity and pressure measurement functions
(Fig. 3). Pitot-static velocity pressure, Venturi differential pressure, and
cyclone pressure were indicated on inclined manometers and also were
converted to 4–20 mA signals (Model 614, Dwyer Instruments, Inc.,
Michigan City, Indiana, USA). Signals were recorded continuously at 1-
s intervals using a data logger (Model 34970A, with 34908A switch
unit, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, California, USA).
2.2. Rectangular evasés
Three rectangular evasés with matching spin caps were tested. The
length of an evasé is normally selected to balance pressure regain with
friction losses. When designing evasés to fit on a cyclone, stresses
caused by wind load and weight also require consideration. This favors
Fig. 4. Rectangular evasés 1 (a), 2 (b) and 3 (c), with inlet areas equal to either the cyclone inlet (a) or the cyclone outlet (b and c). The top line (photos) shows the evasés with their ded-
icated spin caps.
a shorter evasé. Charts presenting plane (two dimensional) diffuser per-
formance, Figs. 2.29 to 2.31 in Fan Engineering [2], guided the design of
the three dimensional rectangular evasés used in this study. Evasés inlet
dimensions were selected to match either the cyclone inlet or vortex
finder flow area.
The first evasé had a 7.6 × 15.2 cm inlet, for an area equal to the cy-
clone inlet, 116 cm2 (Fig. 4a). The second and third evasés both had inlet
areas equal to the cyclone outlet, 183 cm2. The second evasé was only
slightly taller than it was wide, with a 12.1 × 15.2 cm inlet (Fig. 4b).
The third evasé was much taller, with a 7.6 × 24.1 cm inlet (Fig. 4c).
All three of the rectangular evasés had a flat top, and sides and a bottom
that diverged 7.5° from parallel. All three extended from the spin cap
until their outlet areas were approximately twice their inlet areas. This
resulted in a length of 21.3, 29.2 and 23.8 cm for the first, second and
third rectangular evasé, respectively.
Rectangular evasés can only be attached to a cyclone by a spin cap.
Analyses of spin cap flow dynamics were not found in the literature.
Each spin cap had a cylindrical portion that was the diameter of the
gas outlet, equal in height to its matching rectangular evasé, with a col-
lar extending 5 cm below to attach to the gas outlet. Each spin cap had
one vertical wall that intersected the cylindrical portion radially. The
first and third spin caps had an outside vertical wall that intersected
the cylindrical portion tangentially, parallel to the radial wall. The sec-
ond spin cap had a volute transition to the outside vertical wall, to ac-
commodate its wider evasé. To quantify the contributions of the spin
caps, each rectangular evasé spin cap was tested alone as well as with
its evasé. Each spin cap discharged air from the side complimenting
the direction of rotation established by the cyclones.
2.3. Radial evasé
Numerous publications reported radial diffuser research, primarily
on turbo machinery (typically compressors or jet engines). These arti-
cles were considered somewhat applicable since turbo machinery and
cyclone exhausts both present the radial diffuser or evasé with a
swirling flow. Since flow from cyclones used as air emission control de-
vices contain particulate, a vaneless diffuser would be preferred. The
best vaneless designs appear to be ones with a near constant flow area
[46], or similarly, ones with a slightly restricted flow area [47]. The
 P.A. Funk / Powder Technology 272 (2015) 276–281 279

fit for each cyclone and evasé combination. The coefficient of determi-

nation was used to evaluate how well each curve fit the data.

3. Results

3.1. Rectangular evasé results

Second order polynomial curves fit the data well (in each case, R2 N
0.99). Results for each evasé at representative velocities are shown in
Table 1. Rectangular evasé results were disappointing. With cyclone A
there was a small reduction in cyclone pressure drop with rectangular
evasés (Fig. 6). At 1D3D cyclone design inlet velocity (16.26 m s− 1)
Fig. 5. Radial evasé shown in section. Exit separation heights, h4, of 1.11, 1.27, 1.67, 1.91,
evasés 1, 2, and 3 on cyclone A resulted in a decrease in pressure drop
2.22, 2.54, and 2.86 cm were tested. The throat opening, h3, was 0.27 cm greater than
h4, the exit separation height.
of 13, 40, and 0 Pa, a potential energy savings of 1.5, 4.9, and 0%, respec-
tively. With cyclone B, pressure drop increased slightly with the addi-
tion of rectangular evasés (Fig. 7). At design inlet velocity evasés 1, 2,
tested design had a flow area that was restricted at the throat, and that
and 3 on cyclone B resulted in an increase in pressure drop of 18, 16,
then expanded.
and 23 Pa, a potential energy loss of 2.2, 2.0, and 2.8%, respectively. It
The radial evasé, Fig. 5, was equal in diameter to the cyclone,
is not known why cyclone B had a different response than cyclone A. Di-
30.5 cm. In theory, an evasé would need to shed water, to protect the cy-
mensions were similar, but cyclone B had more internal roughness.
clone from rain and snow. Therefore, the radial evasé was designed so
Thus cyclone B may have had greater turbulence, and this may have
that the top had a negative slope of 7.5° and the bottom had a negative
caused flow in the rectangular evasés to separate from the wall,
slope of 5.0°. This slight linear convergence still resulted in an increasing
preventing velocity recovery.
flow area with increasing radius. The radial evasé top was supported by
Results also differed by cyclone for the spin caps alone. With cyclone
threaded rod so that the space between the top and bottom could be ad-
A, spin caps 1, 2, and 3 conferred a pressure drop penalty of 5.4, 0, and
justed. The exit opening (h4, at the terminus radius of 15.24 cm) was set
6.6% respectively. With cyclone B, spin caps 1, 2, and 3 conferred a pres-
to 1.11, 1.27, 1.67, 1.91, 2.22, 2.54, and 2.86 cm. The throat (h3, at a radi-
sure drop penalty of 9.4, 5.0, and 4.5% respectively, at design inlet
us of 9.17 cm) was 0.27 cm greater than the exit opening (h4). The ratio
velocity.
of exit area to inlet area ranged from 1.34 to 1.52 for the smallest to the
largest exit openings, respectively. The ratio of the inlet to the exit radii
3.2. Radial evasé results
was a constant 1.66. Due to swirling flow, the radial evasé flow length
was about 6.28 cm (based on photos of tell-tails made through a clear
Radial evasés decreased pressure drop for both cyclones. For cyclone
plastic evasé), for an approximate height to length ratio that varied
A, the greatest reduction in cyclone pressure drop was with a separation
from 0.20 to 0.48 for the smallest to the largest exit openings,
between the top and bottom of 1.67 cm at the radial evasé exit (h4). This
respectively.
resulted in a pressure drop reduction of 97 Pa (11.9%) at the design inlet
velocity of 16.26 m s−1 (Fig. 8). For cyclone B the greatest reduction in
2.4. Procedures cyclone pressure drop was with an evasé exit separation height of
1.91 cm. This resulted in a pressure drop reduction of 70 Pa (8.7%) at
Barometric pressure, air temperature and relative humidity were re- 16.26 m s−1 (Fig. 9). Interestingly, the flow area in the vortex finder
corded and entered into a laptop computer to calculate local air density. was 182 cm2, and at an evasé exit separation height of 1.91 cm the
All gages and instruments were zeroed. The data logger was initiated exit flow area was 182 cm2.
and the fan was operated at six power levels; first, for 2 min at each
power level in descending order, then for 2 min at each power level in
Table 1
ascending order. The power levels were 5% increments, between 25% Cyclone pressure drop over a range of inlet velocities for each cyclone and each evasé.
and 50% of full fan power, to obtain data over a range of cyclone inlet ve-
Cyclone inlet velocity (m s−1)
locities. Inlet velocities were approximately 10 to 20 m s−1, depending
on local air density. 12.26 14.26 16.26 18.26 20.26
In the case of the radial evasé, the exit opening was set at the next Cyclone A alone 442 618 822 1055 1317
level and the test series was repeated. In the case of the rectangular A with spin cap 1 469 653 866 1110 1383
evasés, the evasé was removed and the test series was repeated for A with evasé 1 439 610 809 1036 1290
A with spin cap 2 438 612 814 1045 1304
the spin cap alone, then the spin cap was removed and the test series
A with evasé 2 421 587 781 1003 1252
was repeated for the cyclone alone. The rectangular evasés were tested A with spin cap 3 475 660 876 1122 1398
at each fan setting on each cyclone; the radial evasé was tested at A with evasé 3 446 620 822 1053 1312
each opening and at each fan setting twice on cyclone A, and once on Radial evasé with separation height of:
1.11 cm 421 581 768 981 1220
cyclone B.
1.67 cm 391 545 724 928 1158
2.22 cm 406 567 753 966 1205
Cyclone B alone 435 608 811 1042 1302
2.5. Analysis B with spin cap 1 480 668 887 1137 1417
B with evasé 1 447 623 828 1062 1325
At least 100 observations from the data logger record were averaged B with spin cap 2 457 639 851 1093 1366
B with evasé 2 443 620 827 1063 1328
to obtain a velocity and cyclone pressure value for each combination of
B with spin cap 3 458 638 847 1086 1355
cyclone and evasé at each fan setting. Velocity pressure and local air B with evasé 3 447 625 834 1071 1339
density at the time of the test were used to compute the value for cy- Radial evasé with separation height of:
clone true inlet velocity. Cyclone pressure drop (Pa) and inlet velocity 1.11 cm 430 597 791 1013 1262
(m s-1) values were plotted using a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 1.91 cm 400 557 740 949 1183
2.22 cm 407 569 758 975 1218
2010) and a second order polynomial curve with zero intercept was
280 P.A. Funk / Powder Technology 272 (2015) 276–281
Fig. 6. Cyclone A pressure drop v. cyclone inlet velocity for each rectangular evasé. Poly in-
dicates the second order polynomial curve with zero intercept that was fit to the data for
cyclone A and each evasé.
3.3. Return on investment calculation
What would be the potential return on investment if such an appa-
ratus were to be installed? Potential savings in air power, Pair, is the
product of volumetric air flow, V ̇, and pressure reduction, Δp, Eq. (1),
where the volumetric air flow is determined by the size of the cyclone
and its inlet velocity:
 
ΔPair ðWÞ ¼ V ̇ m s
3 −1
 ΔpðPaÞ ð1Þ
In this example, a 1.52 m diameter 1D3D cyclone with a D/2 high by
D/4 wide inlet operating at a design inlet velocity of 16.26 m s−1 has
been assumed, resulting in a volumetric airflow, V ̇, of 4.72 m3 s−1. The
potential electrical power savings, ΔPelectricity, Eq. (2), is a function of
fan efficiency and motor efficiency:
ΔPelectricity ðWÞ ¼ ΔPair ðWÞ=ðηfan  ηmotor Þ ð2Þ
where the divisor ηfan is the fan efficiency and ηmotor is the motor effi-
ciency, here assumed to be 55% (centrifugal fan) and 95% (high efficien-
cy motor), respectively. A simple payback period in hours can be
Fig. 7. Cyclone B pressure drop v. cyclone inlet velocity for each rectangular evasé. Poly in-
dicates the second order polynomial curve with zero intercept that was fit to the data for
cyclone B and each evasé.
Fig. 8. Cyclone A pressure drop v. inlet velocity for the radial evasé at various openings.
Poly indicates the second order polynomial curve with zero intercept that was fit to the
data for cyclone A and each radial evasé exit separation height.
calculated with Eq. (3) if the cost of an evasé and the cost of electricity
are known:
−1
PaybackðhÞ ¼ Costevasé ðDÞ=½ΔPelectricity ðkWÞ  Costelectricity ðD kWh Þ ð3Þ
For this example published values from the cotton ginning industry
were used; the average cost of electricity per bale, $3.79, reported for
2010 [48] was divided by the average kWh per bale, 34.5, [49] to arrive
at an average cost of $0.11 kWh−1. The cost of obtaining a radial evasé
for a 1.52 m diameter cyclone was estimated to be $350 (W & R Indus-
trial Services, Brownfield, TX), not including installation. This example
calculation resulted in a simple payback of 3614 to 5000 h depending
on pressure drop reduction (97 or 70 Pa for a radial evasé on cyclone
A or B, respectively). Assuming 75 day operation at 24 h per day, the
modification would pay for itself in between two and three seasons
(Table 2). Assuming continuous operation, the simple payback would
be 5 to 7 months. Installation cost was not included because it was dif-
ficult to estimate accurately; the cost could be significant if the work
were performed by an outside contractor on an existing cyclone, or neg-
ligible if the evasé and cyclone were installed at the same time.
Fig. 9. Cyclone B pressure drop v. inlet velocity for the radial evasé at various openings.
Poly indicates the second order polynomial curve with zero intercept that was fit to the
data for cyclone B and each radial evasé exit separation height.
 P.A. Funk / Powder Technology 272 (2015) 276–281 281

Table 2 [15] W. Griffiths, F. Boysan, Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and empirical model-
Example return on investment calculation assuming 1.52 m diameter 1D3D cyclone, ling of the performance of a number of cyclone samplers, J. Aerosol Sci. 27 (1996)
straight-blade fan with 55% efficiency, large high efficiency electric motor with 95% effi- 281–304.
[16] P. Funk, S. Hughs, Dust cyclone modeling, Beltwide Cotton Conferences, National
ciency, total cost for electrical energy $0.11 kWh−1, and radial evasé cost of $350 (calcu-
Cotton Council, Cordova, Tenn., 2000
lation does not include installation cost).
[17] P. Funk, S. Hughs, G. Holt, Dust cyclone design, Appl. Eng. Agric. 17 (4) (2001)
Cyclone A B 441–444.
[18] W. Peng, A. Hoffman, P. Boot, A. Udding, H. Dries, A. Ekker, J. Kater, Flow pattern in
Reduction in pressure drop (Pa) 97 70 reverse-flow centrifugal separators, Powder Technol. 127 (2002) 212–222.
1.52 m cyclone airflow (m3 s−1) 4.72 4.72 [19] L. Hu, L. Zhou, J. Zhang, M. Shi, Studies on strongly swirling flows in the full space of
Air power reduced (W) 460 333 a volute cyclone separator, AIChE J. 51 (3) (2005) 740–749.
Centrifugal fan efficiency 0.55 0.55 [20] J. Gimbun, T. Chuah, A. Fakhru'l-Razi, T. Choong, The influence of temperature and
Motor efficiency 0.95 0.95 inlet velocity on cyclone pressure drop: a CFD Study, Chem. Eng. Process. 44
Electrical power reduced (kW) 0.880 0.636 (2005) 7–12.
[21] T. Chuah, J. Gimbun, T.S. Choong, A CFD study of the effect of cone dimensions on
Electricity costs ($ kWh−1) 0.11 0.11
sampling aerocyclones performance and hydrodynamics, Powder Technol. 162 (2)
Evasé cost ($)a 350 350
(2006) 126–132.
Simple payback (h) 3614 5000
[22] C. Cortes, A. Gil, Modeling the gas and particle flow inside cyclone separators, Prog.
ROI(y) operating 24 h d−1 × 75 d 2.0 2.8 Energy Combust. Sci. 33 (2007) 409–452.
a
Installation cost not included. [23] J. Derksen, H. Van Der Akker, S. Sundaresan, Two-way coupled large-eddy simula-
tions of the gas–solid flow in cyclone separators, AIChE J. 54 (4) (2008) 872–885.
[24] K. Elsayed, C. Lacor, Optimization of the cyclone separator geometry for minimum
pressure drop using mathematical models and CFD simulations, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65
4. Conclusion (2010) 6048–6058.
[25] K. Elsayed, C. Lacor, Modeling, analysis and optimization of aircyclones using artifi-
This research has shown that the pressure drop in a cyclone can be cial neural network, response surface methodology and CFD simulation approaches,
Powder Technol. 212 (2011) 115–133.
reduced by between 8.7 and 11.9% with the addition of a radial evasé. [26] K. Chu, B. Wang, D. Xu, Y. Chen, A. Yu, CFD-DEM simulation of the gas–solid flow in a
Because the evasé is outside of and after the cyclone, it was assumed cyclone separator, Chem. Eng. Sci. 66 (2011) 834–847.
that particulate separation would not be affected. Since the evasé [27] J. Chen, K. Chu, R. Zou, A. Yu, A. Vince, G. Barnett, P. Barnett, How to optimize design
and operation of dense medium cyclones in coal preparation, Miner. Eng. 62 (2014)
alone is inexpensive, the estimated simple payback period, not includ-
55–65.
ing installation cost, is between 2 and 3 seasons for a facility operating [28] C. Shepherd, C. Lapple, Flow pattern and pressure drop in cyclone dust collectors,
24 h a day for 75 days each season. For a year-round operation, the re- Ind. Eng. Chem. 31 (8) (1939) 972–984.
[29] C. Shepherd, C. Lapple, Flow pattern and pressure drop in cyclone dust collectors,
turn on investment would be within 5 to 7 months. It is important to
Ind. Eng. Chem. 32 (9) (1940) 1246–1248.
check the air permit rules governing a facility when considering a radial [30] H. Kim, K. Lee, M. Kuhlman, Exploratory design modifications for enhancing cyclone
evasé. If the facility is located in a jurisdiction where cyclone exhausts performance, Aerosol Sci. 32 (2001) 1135–1146.
must be directed vertically, or where pressure drop is used as a measure [31] L. Wang, Q. Yan, L. Liu, Effect of a stick on the flow field in a cyclone and the pressure
drop reduction mechanism, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 35 (5) (2001) 909–913.
of correct cyclone operation, the modification would not be allowed un- [32] A. Gong, L.-Z. Wang, Numerical study of gas phase flow in cyclones with the Repds,
less appropriate variances could be obtained. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 38 (2004) 506–512.
[33] S. Bernardo, M. Mori, A. Peres, R. Dionisio, 3-D computational fluid dynamics for gas
and gas-particle flows in a cyclone with different inlet section angles, Powder
Acknowledgments Technol. 162 (2006) 190–200.
[34] F. Kaya, I. Karagoz, Experimental and numerical investigation of pressure drop coef-
ficient and static pressure difference in a tangential inlet cyclone separator, Chem.
The author appreciates W & R Industrial Services, Brownfield, TX, for Pap. 66 (11) (2012) 1019–1025.
assistance in estimating evasé costs. [35] Z. Xiong, Z. Ji, X. Wu, Development of a cyclone separator with high efficiency and
low pressure drop in axial inlet cyclones, Powder Technol. 253 (2014) 644–649.
[36] J. H. Keenan, "Cyclone separator". USA Patent 2,033,470, 1936.
References [37] H. C. Reeves, "Cyclone dust separator". USA Patent 2,193,883, 1940.
[38] Kilian, "Process and apparatus for scrubbing exhaust gas from cyclone collectors".
[1] P. Funk, R. Hardin IV, Cotton gin electrical energy use trends and 2009 audit results, USA Patent 3,989,485, 1976.
Appl. Eng. Agric. 28 (4) (2012) 503–510. [39] SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control), Bureau
[2] R. Jorgensen (Ed.), Fan Engineering, Eighth editionBuffalo Forge Company, Buffalo, of Air Quality, Registration Permit, Cotton Ginning Operations, 2011. ([Online]. Avail-
New York, 1983. able: http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/docs/permitting/Registration_Per-
[3] K. Elsayed, C. Lacor, Modeling and Pareto optimization of gas cyclone separator per- mit-Cotton_Ginning_Operations.pdf).
formance using RBF type artificial neural networks and genetic algorithms, Powder [40] NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources), 15A
Technol. 217 (2012) 84–99. NCAC 02D.0542 Control of particulate emissions from cotton ginning operations,
[4] K. Elsayed, C. Lacor, CFD modeling and multi-objective optimization of cyclone ge- 2008. ([Online]. Available: http://daq.state.nc.us/rules/rules/D0542.pdf).
ometry using desirability function, artificial neural networks and genetic algorithms, [41] P. Funk, The environmental cost of reducing agricultural PM2.5 emissions, J. Air
Appl. Math. Model. 37 (2013) 5680–5704. Waste Manag. Assoc. 60 (6) (2010) 681–687.
[5] P. Funk, G. Holt, D. Whitelock, Novel cyclone empirical pressure drop and emissions [42] C. Cooper, F. Alley, Air Pollution Control—A Design Approach, Prospect Heights2nd
with heterogeneous particulate, J. Aerosol Sci. 74 (2014) 26–35. ed., Waveland Press, IL, 1994.
[6] R. Baker, M. Gillum, S. Hughs, Preseparators and cyclones for the collections of strip- [43] R. Schulze, Fundamentals of Air Dispersion Modeling, seminar notes, Trinity Consul-
per cotton trash, Trans. ASABE 38 (5) (1995) 1335–1342. tants, Minneapolis, MN, Dallas, TX, May 21–22 2007.
[7] G. Holt, R. Baker, S. Hughs, Evaluation of static pressure drops and PM10 and TSP [44] W. Anthony, W. Mayfield, Cotton Ginners Handbook; Agricultural Handbook No.
emissions for modified 1D-3D cyclones, Trans. ASABE 42 (6) (1999) 1541–1547. 503, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1994.
[8] M. Lissman, An analysis of mechanical methods of dust collection, Chem. Metall. [45] P. Funk, K. Baker, Dust cyclone technology for gins—a literature review, J. Cotton Sci.
Eng. 37 (10) (1930) 630–634. 17 (1) (2013) 40–51.
[9] C. Stairmand, Pressure drop in cyclone separators, Engineering (Oct. 21 1949) 409. [46] Z. Yingkang, S.A. Sjolander, Effect of geometry on the performance of radial vaneless
[10] W. Barth, Design and layout of the cyclone separator on the basis of new investiga- diffusers, Trans. ASME 109 (1987) 550–554.
tions, Brennst.-Warme-Kraft 8 (1956) 1–9. [47] A. Jaatinen, A. Gronman, T. Turunnen-Saaresti, P. Roytta, Effect of vaneless diffuser
[11] J. Dirgo, D. Leith, Cyclone collection efficiency: comparison of experimental results width on the overall performance of a centrifugal compressor, Proc. IMechE A J.
with theoretical predictions, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 4 (1985) 401–415. Power Energy 225 (2011) 665–673.
[12] H. Mothes, F. Löffler, Prediction of particle removal in cyclone separators, Int. Chem. [48] T. Valco, H. Ashley, J. Green, D. Findley, T. Price, J. Fannin, R. Isom, The cost of ginning—
Eng. 28 (1988) 231–240. 2010 survey results, Beltwide Cotton Conferences, National Cotton Council, Cordova,
[13] E. Muschelknautz, M. Trefz, Pressure drop and separation efficiency in cyclones, VDI— Tenn., 2012
Heat Atlas1992. 1–8. [49] P. Funk, R.G. Hardin IV, Changes in cotton gin energy consumption apportioned by
[14] B. Zhao, A theoretical approach to pressure drop across cyclone separators, Chem. ten functions, J. Cotton Sci. 17 (2013) 174–183.
Eng. Technol. 27 (10) (2004) 1105–1108.