processes
Article
Analysis of Bubble Flow Mechanism and Characteristics in
Gas–Liquid Cyclone Separator
Yujie Bai 1,2 , Hong Ji 1,2, *, Yaozhuo Liu 1,2 , Lei Li 1,2 and Shengqing Yang 1,2






Citation: Bai, Y.; Ji, H.; Liu, Y.; Li, L.;
Yang, S. Analysis of Bubble Flow
Mechanism and Characteristics in
Gas–Liquid Cyclone Separator.
Processes 2021, 9, 123. https://
doi.org/10.3390/pr9010123
Received: 8 December 2020
Accepted: 4 January 2021
Published: 8 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai-
ms in published maps and institutio-
nal affiliations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Processes 2021, 9, 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9010123
1 Energy and Power Engineering School, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China;
13754880446@163.com (Y.B.); lyzh18119343073@163.com (Y.L.); lut2489883853@163.com (L.L.);
yangsq@liugong.com (S.Y.)
2 Gansu Hydraulic and Pneumatic Engineering Technology Research Center, Lanzhou 730050, China
* Correspondence: jihong@lut.cn; Tel.: +86-138-9322-5310
Abstract: The separation of bubbles in a gas–liquid cyclone is complicated. A combination of
numerical simulation and visual experimentation was considered apt to reveal the microscopic
mechanisms of bubble flow. First of all, cyclones with different structures were numerically simulated.
The calculation results show that the larger the diameter of the exhaust port, the better the bubble
flow effect. When the exhaust port diameter was 24 mm, the gas discharge efficiency was 8% higher
than that with an exhaust port diameter of 16 mm. The sequence of the bubble flow effect of a four-
structure cyclone was obtained, and the gas discharge efficiency of the cyclone with a rectangular
inlet was 7% higher than that of the trapezoidal inlet. Finally, a visual experimental platform was
built to compare the rectangular inlet cyclone and spiral inlet cyclone with the best bubble flow effect.
In accordance with the simulation numerical calculations, the bubble flow effect of the rectangular
inlet cyclone was better than that of the spiral and trapezoid inlet cyclones, and the rectangular inlet
in the middle was better. This article provides a specific theory and experience to guide further
research on the separation mechanism, flow field characteristics and structurally optimal design of
gas–liquid cyclones.
Keywords: gas–liquid cyclone; bubble flow; numerical simulation; experimental research
1. Introduction
The gas–liquid cyclone separator is a gas–liquid separation device commonly used
in petrochemical, food and other fields. It has the advantages of a simple structure, high
degassing efficiency, small installation space and simple and convenient operation. Due to
the numerous hazards caused by the gas contained in the hydraulic oil, the problem of oil
degassing has been paid more and more attention by scholars at home and abroad in recent
years. The degassing effect of the gas–liquid cyclone separator in the hydraulic system
is obvious, and it has broad prospects for engineering applications [1–3]. Although the
structure of the cyclone is simple, the internal flow field is more complicated. Compared
with the gas–solid and liquid–solid two-phase flow, the internal gas–liquid two-phase
flow is more complicated due to the instability of the liquid [4,5], and there are also more
uncertain calculated factors, which means that theoretical research into gas–liquid cyclone
separation lags behind that on cyclones and hydrocyclones [6,7].
The cyclone is a device that uses the principle of centrifugal sedimentation to separate
multiple phases in a flow field. When the cyclone is working, the multiphase mixed liquid
enters the cyclone from the feed port tangentially at a certain speed, forming a fast double
layer swirling flow, in which the outer layer is swirling downward and the inner layer is
swirling upward [8]. After the gas–liquid mixture flows tangentially from the cyclone, the
mixture rotates in the cyclone to separate the centrifugal force from gravity. The denser
liquid flows out along the inner wall of the cyclone to the bottom swirl port, and the
less dense gas is separated in the center of the swirl to form an inverted cone-shaped
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes
Processes 2021, 9, 123 2 of 14

swirl surface, finally leaving via the top overflow port of the swirler exhaust; gas–liquid
two-phase cyclone separation is thereby achieved [9].
Numerical and experimental studies on the structural parameters of the cyclone and
its degassing efficiency have been conducted [10–13]. The research shows that the bubbles
mixed into the oil can be effectively eliminated with an appropriate design for the structure
of the cyclone separator. Because the bubble separator uses oil rotation to make the bubbles
gather towards the center [14–17], no external power is needed. The equipment, the bubble
separator, has an obvious de-bubbling effect on the gas-containing oil.
Li Qiang used numerical simulation and experimental methods to evaluate the per-
formance of the notched cyclone in the tangential inlet cyclone [18]. Qing Wei used the
Reynolds stress model to simulate the flow field of cyclones with different cyclone di-
ameters and inlet sizes to determine the mechanism of axial velocity stagnation [19–21].
Wei Pengkai designed a new type of high-speed wet gas–liquid pipeline separator and
concluded that the separation efficiency increases with the gas–liquid superficial veloc-
ity [22]. Zhou Wen used a pressure sensor and a five-hole probe to measure the pressure
and velocity distribution of the gas flow and proposed an improved weighting method
for calculating the droplet separation efficiency [23]. Zeng Xiaobo designed a new type
of gas–liquid separator that combines gravity separation and centrifugal separation, and
concluded that as long as the liquid level in the liquid pipe is at a reasonable position,
the separator can maintain efficient separation under multiple flow patterns [24]. Luo
Xiaoming implemented a slug flow simulation method based on the volume of fluid (VOF)
multiphase flow model through a custom function (UDF) in ANSYS, and applied it to the
diffusion of liquid slugs in the inlet pipe of a gas–liquid cylindrical cyclone (GLCC). When
changing the expansion ratio and the inclination angle at the same time, it was concluded
that the increase in the inclination angle will reduce the gas–liquid carrier gas depth but
enhance the gas–liquid mixing and increase the liquid carrier gas depth [25]. Wang Gang
conducted experimental research on the swirl vane gas–liquid separator, and studied the
influence of the gas content, Reynolds number and flow adjustment elements on the sepa-
ration performance, concluding that the increase in Reynolds number and the arrangement
of flow-regulating elements can only suppress the oscillation of the air core to a certain
extent, and that the separator is more suitable for operation under low air content [26]. Li
Yiqian designed a new type of gas–liquid separator. The purpose of using this equipment is
to alleviate the problem of the liquid entrainment of natural gas in the compressor, increase
the service life of the compressor, and reduce operation and maintenance costs [27–30]. A
consultation of the related literature revealed little research on gas–liquid cyclones with
different structures and the visualization of bubble flow conditions. This research provides
theoretical support for the further optimization of the structure of gas–liquid cyclones and
used the visualization of bubble flow conditions. The experiment verifies the feasibility of
the relevant structural design and the rationality of the relevant simulation results.
This study uses a combination of numerical simulation and visual experimentation to
study the bubble flow states in cyclones with different structures. Through observations
with high-speed cameras and the results of numerical calculations, the flow law for bubbles
in a cyclone separator is revealed.

2. Simulation Analysis
2.1. Cyclone Separator Model
Models of cyclones with different structures were created with reference to experimen-
tal models. Figure 1 shows the schematic diagrams of cyclones with different structures.
The specific parameters are shown in Table 1. Then their flow channels were meshed. In
order to obtain high-precision calculations and good convergence, a structured grid was
used for division, and the grid independence was tested; the output grid was then input
into Fluent, and its boundary conditions were set. The response surface method (RSM)
turbulence model was used to complete the numerical calculation of the cyclone. Through
the numerical calculation of the pressure field, velocity field, turbulence field, etc., the
Processes 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

Processes 2021, 9, 123

then input into Fluent, and its boundary conditions were set. The response surface method 3 of 14
(RSM) turbulence model was used to complete the numerical calculation of the cyclone.
Through the numerical calculation of the pressure field, velocity field, turbulence field,
etc., the internal velocity, pressure and turbulence field distribution rules for different
internal velocity,
structures pressure
of cyclones wereand turbulence
obtained, so asfield distribution
to better rules
elucidate thefor different
flow structures
of bubbles in theof
cyclones were obtained, so as to better elucidate the flow of bubbles in the cyclones.
cyclones.

(a) Rectangular inlet cyclone (b) Rectangular central inlet cyclone

(c) Trapezoidal inlet cyclone (d) Spiral inlet cyclone

Structurediagram
Figure1.1.Structure
Figure diagramofofcyclone.
cyclone.

Geometryofofthe
Table1.1.Geometry
Table thecyclone.
cyclone.

Scale (mm)
Dimension Scale (mm)
Dimension Trapezoidal Spiral Rectangular Rectangular
Rectangular Central
Trapezoidal Spiral Rectangular Central
in’
in’ 19
19 19 19 19 19 19 19
in” 27 14 14 14
in’’ 27 14 ◦ 14 14 ◦
X 12◦ 0 0◦ 0
XD 12
60 ° 0 ° 60 0° 60 0 ° 60
DH 60
220 60 223 60 226 60 189
HH1 105
220 223 105 226 105 189 68
H1H2 98
105 105 101 105 101 68 164
H3 50 50 50 25
H2
out1 98
16 101 16 101 16 164 16
H3
out2 50
22 50 22 50 22 25 22
out1 16 16 16 16
out2 22 22 22 22 It can be seen
Figure 2 is the irrelevance test diagram under five types of grid cells.
from the figure that the degassing rate was the lowest when the grid cells number was
Figure The
1,350,000. 2 is degassing
the irrelevance test diagram
efficiency under five
also increased withtypes of gridin
an increase cells. It can The
the level. be seen
grid
from the figure that the degassing rate was the lowest when the grid cells number was
cells number of 1,450,000 resulted in the best rate, but too many grid cells not only increased
the calculation time but even reduced the separation efficiency. The separation efficiency
was the best when the number of grid cells was about 1,450,000. The number of grid cells
in this study was 1,449,887.
 1,350,000. The degassing efficiency also increased with an increase in the level. The grid
cells number of 1,450,000 resulted in the best rate, but too many grid cells not only in-
creased the calculation time but even reduced the separation efficiency. The separation
efficiency was the best when the number of grid cells was about 1,450,000. The number of
Processes 2021, 9, 123 4 of 14
grid cells in this study was 1,449,887.

92

Degassing efficiency (%)

90

88

86

84
1,300,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,600,000
Number of grids

Figure 2. Grid independence test graph.

Figure 2. Grid independence test graph.
The three-dimensional flow field of the adiabatic cyclone was simulated by computa-
The three-dimensional
tional fluid dynamics (CFD). flow field
For aof the adiabatic
stable cycloneflow,
incompressible wasthesimulated by compu-
continuity, momentum
tational
andfluid
RSM dynamics (CFD). are
model equations For as
a stable incompressible flow, the continuity, momen-
follows:
tum and RSM model equations are as follows:
∂u j
=0 (1)
∂u j∂x j
=0 (1)
∂xj " ! #
∂u j 1 ∂P 1 ∂ ∂Ui ∂Uj
ui =− + µ + − ρui0 u0j (2)
∂x j ρ ∂x j ρ ∂x j ∂x j ∂xi
 ∂u j  1 ∂P 1 ∂   ∂U i ∂U j  
∂ ρui0 u0j ui ∂ =ρu−k ui0 u0j + D ρui0 uμ0j   − ρ ui u j 
' '
+

(2)
∂
+x j
ρ ∂ x j = ρ ∂x j  ∂x j
∂x i 
  = Di,j + Pi,j + Gi,j +Φi,j − ε i,j + Fi,j (3)
∂t ∂xk Dt
In the 'above
∂ ρ ui u 'j
velocity component, (
∂ ρ u k ui' u 'j
+ 0 0
) (
formula, x j represents
=
D ρ ui' u 'j
P is the time-average ) ( )
the coordinate position, u j is the time-average
pressure, µ is the molecular viscosity, ρ(3)
= Di , j + Pi , j + Gi , j + Φ i , j − ε i , j + Fi , j
is the
∂t and ui u∂j xis
fluid density, k
the unknown Dt Reynold stress component determined by the
turbulence model.
In the above formula, 𝑥 represents the coordinate position, 𝑢 is the time-average
2.2. Boundary
velocity component, 𝑃 is theand
Conditions pressure, 𝜇 is the molecular viscosity, 𝜌 is
Numerical Schemes
time-average
the fluid density,
There areand three 𝑢 is the unknown
𝑢 multiphase Reynold
flow models stress the
in Fluent: component
VOF, Mixture determined
and Euler by the
models.
Compared
turbulence with the Euler model, Mixture is more suitable for an environment with a strong
model.
swirling multiphase flow. The Mixture model was selected in this study for comprehensive
comparison.
2.2. Boundary The (SIMPLE)
Conditions algorithm
and Numerical was used for the pressure-velocity coupling form,
Schemes
(PRESTO)
There are three multiphase flow models in Fluent: format,
was used for the pressure compensation the VOF, and (QUICK)
Mixture andwas Eulerused for the
mod-
discrete momentum.
els. Compared with the Euler model, Mixture is more suitable for an environment with a
The RSM
strong swirling model was
multiphase chosen
flow. The for the turbulence
Mixture model was model because
selected in thisit has
study a better effect on
for com-
the multiphase flow and strong swirl environment. The setting
prehensive comparison. The (SIMPLE) algorithm was used for the pressure-velocity cou- of the boundary conditions
plingwas as follows:
form, (PRESTO) (1)was
Theused
inletfor speed of the two
the pressure phases was the
compensation same,
format, andset(QUICK)
to 8 m/s.was (2) The
inlet was set as the
used for the discrete momentum.speed inlet, and the exhaust port and the liquid discharge port were
both set as the pressure outlet. (3) The wall was treated as a non-slip boundary condition,
The RSM model was chosen for the turbulence model because it has a better effect on
that is, the velocity and turbulence intensity were both zero.
the multiphase flow and strong swirl environment. The setting of the boundary conditions
was 2.3.
as follows:
Analysis(1) The inlet speed
of Simulation Results of the two phases was the same, set to 8 m/s. (2) The
inlet was set as the speed inlet, and the exhaust port and the liquid discharge port were
In order to study the flow of bubbles in cyclones with different structures, and to
study the distribution of internal velocity, pressure and turbulence fields, the following
was carried out: (1) Keeping the other conditions unchanged, three types of rectangular
central inlet cyclones with port diameters of 16, 20 and 24 mm were used for simulation
analysis; (2) the rectangular inlet cyclone and trapezoidal inlet cyclone, whose inlet shapes
are rectangular and trapezoidal, and the spiral inlet cyclone, whose inlet mode is spiral,
 2.3. Analysis of Simulation Results
In order to study the flow of bubbles in cyclones with different structures, and to
study the distribution of internal velocity, pressure and turbulence fields, the following
was carried out: (1) Keeping the other conditions unchanged, three types of rectangular
Processes 2021, 9, 123
central inlet cyclones with port diameters of 16, 20 and 24 mm were used for simulation 5 of 14
analysis; (2) the rectangular inlet cyclone and trapezoidal inlet cyclone, whose inlet shapes
are rectangular and trapezoidal, and the spiral inlet cyclone, whose inlet mode is spiral,
were chosen for simulation analysis; (3) the rectangular cyclone and rectangular central
were chosen
cyclone, withforthesimulation analysis;
other conditions (3) the rectangular
unchanged, cyclone
were selected and rectangular
for simulation analysis.central
cyclone,Thewith the other
discharge portconditions
was selectedunchanged, were selected
as the height referencefor (Zsimulation analysis.of the
= 0), the direction
The port
exhaust discharge
was the port was selected
positive as the height
height direction, andreference
a section (Z = 0),affects
Z that the direction of the
the separation
exhaust port was the positive height direction,
structure was selected as the analysis section, where and a section Z that affects
= 60 mm. the separation
structure was selected
In order to explore as the analysis
influencesection,
of the where
diametersection
of the Z exhaust
= 60 mm.port on the bubble
In orderthe
movement, to first
explore the influence
scheme of thecases
explored three diameter
where of the
the diameter
exhaust port onexhaust
of the the bubble port
movement,
(𝐷( ) ) was the first
designed scheme
to be explored
16, 20 or 24three
mm cases
to where
explore itsthe
impactdiameter
on theof the exhaust
internal flow port
field.
(D(out1 ) was
It)can bedesigned
concluded to be 16, Figure
from 20 or 243 mm
that to
theexplore its impact
pressure on thearea
in the center internal flow
of the field.
exhaust
It can be concluded from Figure 3 that the pressure in the
port and the discharge port of the cyclone was the lowest, and the pressure at the inlet center area of the exhaust
port
was and the discharge
the highest; port ofpressure
the internal the cyclonewaswas the lowest,
distributed and the pressure
symmetrically along atthethecentral
inlet
was
axis, gradually decreasing from the outside to inside. The larger the diameter of theaxis,
the highest; the internal pressure was distributed symmetrically along the central ex-
gradually
haust port, decreasing
the smaller from thethepressure
outside to inside.
drop, whichThe means
larger the thatdiameter of thethe
the smaller exhaust
size ofport,the
the smaller
exhaust thethe
port, pressure
more the drop, whichliquid
internal meansaccumulation
that the smaller causedthe size of the exhaust
the pressure drop to port,
in-
the more the internal liquid accumulation caused the pressure
crease. It can be seen from Figure 4 that the pressure difference was the largest when drop to increase. It can be
seen from Figure 4 that the pressure difference was the largest when D(out1) =16 mm, and
𝐷( ) = 16 mm, and the overall pressure was the smallest among the three structures
the overall pressure was the smallest among the three structures when D(out1) = 24 mm; as
when 𝐷( = 24 mm; as the diameter of the exhaust port increased, the pressure gradi-
the diameter )of the exhaust port increased, the pressure gradient gradually decreased, and
ent gradually decreased, and due to the increase in 𝐷( ) , the static pressure and pres-
due to the increase in D(out1) , the static pressure and pressure loss gradually decreased.
sure loss gradually decreased.

Processes 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

(a) 𝐷( ) = 16 mm (b) 𝐷( ) = 20 mm (c) 𝐷( ) = 24 mm

Figure3.
Figure 3. Pressure
Pressure distribution
distributionnephogram
nephogramof
oflongitudinal
longitudinalsection.
section.

60,000

50,000
Static pressure (Pa)

40,000

30,000

20,000
D(out1)=16
D(out1)=20
10,000 D(out1)=24

-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04

Radial position (m)

Figure 4. Static pressure distribution curve of section Z.

Figure 4. Static pressure distribution curve of section Z.
It can be seen from Figure 5 that the radial velocity distributions of the three cyclones
It can be seen
were almost from and
the same Figure 5 that thesymmetrically;
distributed radial velocity distributions
the tangentialofvelocity
the three cyclones
presents an
were almost the same and distributed symmetrically; the tangential velocity presents an
“M2” shape, and the velocity gradually decreased as the position of the axis was ap-
proached. There was a maximum value on both sides of the center, and the tangential
velocity was at a maximum when 𝐷( ) = 24 mm and minimum when 𝐷( ) = 16 mm,
indicating that the ability of bubbles to flow toward the center in the radial position in-
 Radial position (m)

Figure 4. Static pressure distribution curve of section Z.

Processes 2021, 9, 123 It can be seen from Figure 5 that the radial velocity distributions of the three cyclones 6 of 14
were almost the same and distributed symmetrically; the tangential velocity presents an
“M2” shape, and the velocity gradually decreased as the position of the axis was ap-
proached. There was a maximum value on both sides of the center, and the tangential
“M2” shape,
velocity wasandat athe when 𝐷( decreased
velocity gradually
maximum ) = 24 mm and minimum when 𝐷(
as the position of the axis was approached.
) = 16 mm,
There was a maximum value on both sides of the center, and the tangential
indicating that the ability of bubbles to flow toward the center in the radial position velocity was atin-a
maximum when D
creased with an increase = 24 mm and minimum when D
(out1) in the diameter of the exhaust port; = 16 mm, indicating that
(out1)the axial velocity was distrib-the
ability of bubbles to flow
uted axisymmetrically toward
along the the center
central in the
axis. radial
As it positionthe
approaches increased with anthe
axis position, increase
veloc-
in the diameter of the exhaust port; the axial velocity was distributed
ity gradually increased. The central axial velocity was at a maximum when 𝐷( axisymmetrically
) = 16
along the central axis. As
mm. It was the smallest when 𝐷( it approaches the axis position, the velocity gradually increased.
) = 24 mm, which indicates that the ability of bubbles
The central axial velocity was at a maximum when D(out1) = 16 mm. It was the smallest
to flow toward the exhaust port in the axial position decreased with an increase in the
when D(out1) = 24 mm, which indicates that the ability of bubbles to flow toward the exhaust
exhaust port diameter. As the size of the exhaust port increased, if the gas outlet was in
port in the axial position decreased with an increase in the exhaust port diameter. As the
the positive direction, the axial velocity was convex at the center, which means that as the
size of the exhaust port increased, if the gas outlet was in the positive direction, the axial
gas phase at the center flowed upward, liquid flowed downward on both sides.
velocity was convex at the center, which means that as the gas phase at the center flowed
upward, liquid flowed downward on both sides.

4
Tangential velocity of bubble (m/s)

6 1
Radial velocity of bubble (m/s)

Bubble axial velocity (m/s)

4
2 0
0 2
-2 -1
-4
-6 -2
D(out1)=16 D(out1)=16 0 D(out1)=16
-8
D(out1)=20 -3 D(out1)=20 D(out1)=20
-10 D(out1)=24 D(out1)=24 D(out1)=24
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Radial position (m) Radial position (m) Radial position (m)

(a) Radial velocity distribution (b) Tangential velocity distribution (c) Axial velocity distribution

Figure 5. Section
Figure 5. Section Z
Z velocity
velocity distribution
distribution curve.
curve.

It
It can
can be
be seen from Figure
seen from Figure 66 that
that the
the velocity
velocity distribution
distribution shows
shows aa spirally
spirally decreasing
decreasing
state, and the velocity gradient was relatively uniform. It can be inferred
state, and the velocity gradient was relatively uniform. It can be inferred that when D
that when 𝐷((out1))
= 24 mm, the trace was most concentrated at the bottom of the exhaust port, indicating
= 24 mm, the trace was most concentrated at the bottom of the exhaust port, indicating the
the best bubble flow effect; when D(out1) = 16 mm, the velocity concentrated at the bottom
best bubble flow effect; when 𝐷( ) = 16 mm, the velocity concentrated at the bottom of
of the exhaust port was low, indicating that the bubble flow effect was poor. From the
the exhaust port was low, indicating that the bubble flow effect was poor. From the veloc-
velocity trace distribution of the bubble combined with the simulation analysis, it can
Processes 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 ofbe
15
ity trace distribution of the bubble combined with the simulation analysis, it can be con-
concluded that the gas discharge efficiency of D(out1) = 24 mm is 8% higher than that of
cluded that the gas discharge efficiency of 𝐷( ) = 24 mm is 8% higher than that of
D(out1) = 16 mm.
𝐷( ) = 16 mm.

(a) 𝐷( ) = 16 mm (b) 𝐷( ) = 20 mm (c) 𝐷( ) = 24 mm

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Distribution
Distribution of
of bubble
bubble motion
motion in
in longitudinal
longitudinal section.
section.

In
In order
order to explore the influence of the inlet’s shape on the bubble’s movement, the
second scheme
second scheme explored
explored the three cases of rectangular and trapezoidal inlet cyclones and
trapezoidal inlet cyclones, as well as spiral inlet cyclones with spiral inlets, and its influ-
ence on the internal flow field.
It can be seen from Figure 7 that the cross-sectional pressure shows a layered decrease
from the periphery to the middle area, and the overall pressure gradient shows an eccen-
tric circle distribution. It can be concluded from Figure 8 that the pressure drop of the Z-
 (a) 𝐷( ) = 16 mm (b) 𝐷( ) = 20 mm (c) 𝐷( ) = 24 mm

Figure 6. Distribution of bubble motion in longitudinal section.

Processes 2021, 9, 123 7 of 14
In order to explore the influence of the inlet’s shape on the bubble’s movement, the
second scheme explored the three cases of rectangular and trapezoidal inlet cyclones and
trapezoidal inlet
trapezoidal inletcyclones,
cyclones,asaswell
wellasasspiral
spiral inlet
inlet cyclones
cyclones with with spiral
spiral inlets,
inlets, andand its influ-
its influence
ence on the internal flow
on the internal flow field. field.
It can
It can be
be seen
seen from
from Figure
Figure 77 that
that the
the cross-sectional
cross-sectional pressure shows aa layered
pressure shows decrease
layered decrease
from the periphery to the middle area, and the overall pressure gradient
from the periphery to the middle area, and the overall pressure gradient shows an eccentric shows an eccen-
tric circle
circle distribution.
distribution. It canItbe
can be concluded
concluded from from
FigureFigure
8 that 8the
that the pressure
pressure drop ofdrop of the Z-
the Z-section
trapezoidal inlet was the largest; the drop between the rectangular and spiral inletsinlets
section trapezoidal inlet was the largest; the drop between the rectangular and spiral was
wasmuch
not not much different.
different. The The pressure
pressure dropdrop of trapezoidal
of the the trapezoidalinletinlet
was was
five five
timestimes
that that of
of the
the rectangular and spiral inlets, indicating that the trapezoidal inlet had a
rectangular and spiral inlets, indicating that the trapezoidal inlet had a large pressure loss, large pressure
loss, which
which is notisconducive
not conducive
to thetoflow
the of
flow of bubbles.
bubbles.

Processes 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

(a) Trapezoidal inlet (b) Spiral inlet (c) Rectangular inlet

Figure 7. Pressure distribution

distribution nephogram
nephogram of
of section
section Z.
Z.

Trapezoidal inlet
Spiral inlet
300,000
Rectangular inlet
Static pressure (Pa)

200,000

100,000

0
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Radial position (m)

Figure 8. Static pressure distribution curve of section Z.

Thepressure
Figure 8. Static tangential velocity curve
distribution is theof
cause of Z.
section the centrifugal force, so the tangential velocity
can be used to measure the separation effect. The tangential velocity has two peaks in the
pressure
The distribution
tangential velocity cloud
is thechart,
causewhichof theare caused byforce,
centrifugal the composite vortex formed
so the tangential velocityby the
can beinternal
used toand external
measure thevortices.
separation This is theThe
effect. Ranking vortex
tangential [31]. has two peaks in the
velocity
Figure 9 shows
pressure distribution cloudthe trend
chart, lines are
which of the threebysub-velocities
caused the composite in vortex
sectionformed
Z. Theseby three
sets of parameters can well reflect the changing
the internal and external vortices. This is the Ranking vortex [30]. law for the flow field in the separator and
reflect 9the
Figure vortex
shows themotion
trend linesin the flow
of the field.
three After the mixed
sub-velocities liquid
in section Z.was
These separated
three setsby the
swirling flow
of parameters inside,
can well the process
reflect the changingof moving law the for bubbles
the flowupward
field in and the out was realized
separator and by
reflectthe
theparameter
vortex motionof radial
in thevelocity. It is apparent
flow field. After thefrom mixed theliquid
radial wasvelocity distribution
separated by thecurve
in the
swirling flowfigure that
inside, itsprocess
the distribution
of movingwas basically
the bubbles symmetrical;
upward and theoutradial
wasmovement
realized byspeed
the parameter of radial velocity. It is apparent from the radial velocity distributioninlet
of the trapezoidal inlet bubble was the fastest, and that of the rectangular curvebubble
in the figure that its distribution was basically symmetrical; the radial movement speed flow
was the slowest. This shows that the trapezoidal inlet had the strongest ability to
of thetoward
trapezoidalthe center in the radial
inlet bubble was the position,
fastest, while
and that theofrectangular
the rectangular inlet inlet
had abubble
relatively
wasweak
ability;This
the slowest. theoretically,
shows that thethegreater
trapezoidalthe tangential
inlet had velocity, the better
the strongest abilitytheto separation.
flow towardFrom
the tangential velocity curve in the figure, it can be observed
the center in the radial position, while the rectangular inlet had a relatively weak ability; that the tangential velocity
theoretically, the greater the tangential velocity, the better the separation. From the tan- the
was the largest at the trapezoidal inlet and the smallest at the spiral inlet. However,
gentialoverall
velocitytangential
curve invelocity profile
the figure, it canof be
theobserved
trapezoidal thatinlet
the is extremelyvelocity
tangential unstable and
was thehas no
symmetry, indicating that the flow field at the trapezoidal
largest at the trapezoidal inlet and the smallest at the spiral inlet. However, the overall inlet was extremely unstable,
tangential velocity profile of the trapezoidal inlet is extremely unstable and has no sym-
metry, indicating that the flow field at the trapezoidal inlet was extremely unstable, which
is not conducive to the swirling separation of bubbles. From the axial velocity distribution
curve in the figure, it can be seen that the axial velocity distribution has a high middle and
 the slowest. This shows that the trapezoidal inlet had the strongest ability to flow toward
the center in the radial position, while the rectangular inlet had a relatively weak ability;
theoretically, the greater the tangential velocity, the better the separation. From the tan-
gential velocity curve in the figure, it can be observed that the tangential velocity was the
Processes 2021, 9, 123 largest at the trapezoidal inlet and the smallest at the spiral inlet. However, the overall 8 of 14
tangential velocity profile of the trapezoidal inlet is extremely unstable and has no sym-
metry, indicating that the flow field at the trapezoidal inlet was extremely unstable, which
is not conducive to the swirling separation of bubbles. From the axial velocity distribution
which is the
curve in not figure,
conducive
it cantobethe swirling
seen that theseparation of bubbles.
axial velocity distributionFrom
has the axial
a high velocity
middle and
distribution
low sides. The velocity distribution of the spiral inlet is the lowest among the threea struc-
curve in the figure, it can be seen that the axial velocity distribution has high
middle
tures asand low sides.
a whole, The velocity
indicating distribution
that there of the spiral
was no strong inlet
swirling is the
flow lowest
inside theamong the
spiral inlet
three structures
cyclone. as a whole, indicating that there was no strong swirling flow inside the
spiral inlet cyclone.

20 4

Tangential velocity of bubble (m/s)

15 2
Radial velocity of bubble (m/s)

Bubble axial velocity (m/s)

10
5 2
0
0
-5
-2 0
-10
-15
-20 Trapezoidal inlet -4 Trapezoidal inlet Trapezoidal inlet
Spiral inlet Spiral inlet -2 Spiral inlet
-25
Rectangular inlet Rectangular inlet Rectangular inlet
-30 -6
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Radial position (m) Radial position (m) Radial position (m)

(a) Radial
Processes 2021, 9, x FORvelocity distribution
PEER REVIEW (b) Tangential velocity distribution (c) Axial velocity distribution 9 of 15

Figure9.9.Section
Figure SectionZZvelocity
velocitydistribution
distributioncurve.
curve.

It can
It can be
be inferred
inferred from
from Figure
Figure 1010 that
that when
when the
the inlet
inlet was
was rectangular,
rectangular, although the
although the
initial velocity was in the middle of the three, the trace was most concentrated at the
initial velocity was in the middle of the three, the trace was most concentrated at the bot- bottom
of the
tom of exhaust port,
the exhaust indicating
port, that
indicating thethe
that bubble
bubbleflow effect
flow was
effect wasthe
thebest.
best.When
When the
the inlet
inlet
was trapezoidal, although the maximum speed was the fastest, the concentration of the
was trapezoidal, although the maximum speed was the fastest, the concentration of the
trace at the bottom of the exhaust port was slow, indicating that the bubble flow effect was
trace at the bottom of the exhaust port was slow, indicating that the bubble flow effect was
poor. Combining the bubble velocity trace distribution and simulation analysis, it can be
poor. Combining the bubble velocity trace distribution and simulation analysis, it can be
concluded that the gas discharge efficiency of the rectangular inlet was increased by 7%
concluded that the gas discharge efficiency of the rectangular inlet was increased by 7%
compared with that of the trapezoidal inlet cyclone.
compared with that of the trapezoidal inlet cyclone.

(a) Trapezoidal inlet (b) Spiral inlet (c) Rectangular inlet

Figure
Figure 10.
10. Distribution
Distribution of
of bubble
bubble motion
motion in
in longitudinal
longitudinal section.
section.

In
In order
order to explore the influence of the inlet position on the bubble’s movement, in
the
the third
third setup,
setup, a rectangular cyclone and rectangular central cyclone
cyclone were selected for
simulation analysis
simulation analysis to explore their effects on the internal flow field.
At
At last,
last, analyzing
analyzing the static pressure distribution and velocity distribution curves of
the
the rectangular
rectangular inlet and the rectangular central inlet cyclone, it can be concluded that the
inlet
inlet position
position had
had different
different effects
effects on the bubble flow. The rectangular central inlet had a
larger pressure drop than the rectangular inlet, and the bubble flow was faster; the overall
larger
flow effect was better.
flow
As shown in Figure 11, a rectangular inlet cyclone with good simulation results was
selected to simulate the flow of bubbles. In the initial state t = 0.00 s, the simulated oil
entered the cyclone at a speed of 8 m/s, and no bubbles were generated at the beginning.
When t = 0.07 s, a “candle flame” air column was formed from the center of the bottom of
the discharge port to the center of the cyclone. At t = 0.12 s, the air column was connected
Processes 2021, 9, 123 9 of 14

As shown in Figure 11, a rectangular inlet cyclone with good simulation results was
selected to simulate the flow of bubbles. In the initial state t = 0.00 s, the simulated oil
entered the cyclone at a speed of 8 m/s, and no bubbles were generated at the beginning.
When t = 0.07 s, a “candle flame” air column was formed from the center of the bottom of
the discharge port to the center of the cyclone. At t = 0.12 s, the air column was connected
to the exhaust port. The diameter of the air column near the exhaust port was smaller,
and the diameter of the air column below the exhaust port was larger. When t = 0.20 s,
the air column filled the exhaust port, forming a “sword”-shaped air column. Bubbles
accumulated toward the center due to the centripetal force in the radial direction along
with the oil swirl. At the same time, due to the influence of buoyancy, the bubbles flowed
toward the exhaust port and formed a gas column. The flow simulation shows that the
gas column moved from the discharge port to the exhaust port until the air column10was
Processes 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 15
filled with the exhaust port, and the overall bubble flow effect was obvious. Of the gas,
91% flowed to the exhaust port, indicating that the overall structure had a more obvious
degassing effect.

(a) t = 0.01 s (b) t = 0.07 s (c) t = 0.12 s (d) t = 0.20 s

Figure11.
Figure 11.Simulation
Simulationofofbubble
bubbleflow
flowinincyclone.
cyclone.

3. Experimental Analysis
3. Experimental Analysis
3.1. Design of Experimental Device
3.1. Design of Experimental Device
The rectangular inlet and spiral inlet cyclone with better bubble flow effects, accord-
The rectangular inlet and spiral inlet cyclone with better bubble flow effects, according
ing to the simulation analysis, were selected for experimental exploration. Figures 12 and
to the simulation analysis, were selected for experimental exploration. Figures 12 and 13
13 are the system schematic and physical diagrams of the constructed visual experimental
are the system schematic and physical diagrams of the constructed visual experimental
platform. In order to visualize the bubble flow in the cyclone, the rectangular inlet and
platform. In order to visualize the bubble flow in the cyclone, the rectangular inlet and
spiral inlet cyclones were designed and processed as shown in Figure 13a,b. The visible
spiral inlet cyclones were designed and processed as shown in Figure 13a,b. The visible
structure of the experimental system, such as the cyclone and the fuel tank, were all made
structure of the experimental system, such as the cyclone and the fuel tank, were all made
fromhighly
from highlytransparent
transparent acrylic
acrylic material.
material. During
During the the experiment,
experiment, the screw
the screw pumppump sup-
supplied
plied oil to the system. The specific parameters are shown in Table 2. Experimental
oil to the system. The specific parameters are shown in Table 2. Experimental light was light
was provided
provided by a light
by a sheet sheetsource.
light source. A high-speed
A high-speed cameracamera with alens
with a macro macro
waslens was
used used
to film
to film different visualization areas to record the flow
different visualization areas to record the flow of bubbles. of bubbles.

Table 2. Performance parameters of three-screw pump.

Model Flow (L/min) Pressure (MPa) Rated Speed (r/min) Driving Power (KW)
Hebei Far East Pump Co., L3GR30*4W2 60 1.0 2900 2.2
 was provided by a sheet light source. A high-speed camera with a macro lens was used
to film different visualization areas to record the flow of bubbles.

Table 2. Performance parameters of three-screw pump.

Model2021, 9, 123
Processes Flow (L/min) Pressure (MPa) Rated Speed (r/min) Driving Power (KW) 10 of 14
ar East Pump Co., L3GR30*4W2 60 1.0 2900 2.2

Processes 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Figure 12. Experimental schematic diagram. 1—Gas–liquid cyclone separator; 2—Pressure gauge;
Figure 12. Experimental
3—Throttle valve; 4—Safetyschematic diagram.
valve; 5—Three screw1—Gas–liquid cyclone separator;
pump; 6—Three-phase 2—Pressure
asynchronous motor;
gauge; 3—Throttle valve; 4—Safety valve; 5—Three screw pump; 6—Three-phase asynchronous
7—Frequency converter; 8—Filter; 9—Computer; 10—High-speed camera; 11—Sheet light source;
motor; 7—Frequency converter; 8—Filter; 9—Computer; 10—High-speed camera; 11—Sheet light
12—Tank.
source; 12—Tank.

(a) Rectangular inlet cyclone (b) Spiral inlet cyclone

(c) Experiment platform

Figure
Figure13.
13.Experimental
Experimentalplatform
platformfor
forvisualization
visualization of
of bubble
bubble flow
flow in
in cyclone.
cyclone.

3.2. Analysis
Table 2. of Experimental
Performance Results of three-screw pump.
parameters
Figure 14 shows the visualized flow of bubbles in the rectangular inlet cyclone. Before
Model Flow (L/min) Pressure (MPa) Rated Speed (r/min) Driving Power (KW)
the experiment, the oil in the system was in a static state. When the pump was started, the
Hebei Far East Pump Co., L3GR30 * 4W2
return oil entered60the rectangular 1.0
inlet cyclone at 8 m/s.2900Due to the influence2.2of gravity,
when the oil entered the inside of the cyclone, it formed asymmetrical liquid flow clusters
along the inner wall. The oil swirled rapidly, and obvious bubbles of different sizes could
3.2. Analysis of Experimental Results
be observed on the inner wall. After 0.16 s, a visible funnel-shaped swirling air column
Figure
gradually 14 shows
formed. the visualized
Obvious flow of bubbles
bubbles gathered above inthethe rectangular
inside inlet cyclone.
of the cyclone. Before
The swirling
thecolumn
air experiment, the oilshrank
gradually in the until
system wasall
it had in overflowed
a static state.from
Whenthethe pumpport.
exhaust was started,
After 0.7the
s,
return oil entered the rectangular inlet cyclone at 8 m/s. Due to the influence of gravity,
the bubbles were arranged below the exhaust port of the cyclone to form an observable
when the oil entered the inside of the cyclone, it formed asymmetrical liquid flow clusters
undulating line. With the continuous overflow of bubbles, large bubbles continued to ac-
along the inner wall. The oil swirled rapidly, and obvious bubbles of different sizes could
cumulate above the inside of the cyclone.
 Figure 13. Experimental platform for visualization of bubble flow in cyclone.

3.2. Analysis of Experimental Results

Figure 14 shows the visualized flow of bubbles in the rectangular inlet cyclone. B
Processes 2021, 9, 123 the experiment, the oil in the system was in a static state. When the pump 11 ofwas
14 started
return oil entered the rectangular inlet cyclone at 8 m/s. Due to the influence of gra
when the oil entered the inside of the cyclone, it formed asymmetrical liquid flow clu
along the inner wall. The oil swirled rapidly, and obvious bubbles of different sizes c
be observed on
be the inner wall.
observed on theAfter
inner0.16 s, aAfter
wall. visible funnel-shaped
0.16 swirling air column
s, a visible funnel-shaped swirling air col
gradually formed. Obvious bubbles gathered above the inside of the cyclone. The swirling
gradually formed. Obvious bubbles gathered above the inside of the cyclone. The swi
air column gradually shrank
air column until itshrank
gradually had alluntil
overflowed
it had allfrom the exhaust
overflowed fromport. After 0.7port.
the exhaust s, After
the bubbles were arranged below the exhaust port of the cyclone to form an observable
the bubbles were arranged below the exhaust port of the cyclone to form an observ
undulating line. With the
undulating continuous
line. overflow ofoverflow
With the continuous bubbles,of large bubbles
bubbles, continued
large to
bubbles continued t
accumulate above the inside
cumulate aboveof the
the cyclone.
inside of the cyclone.

Processes 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12

1

(a) t = 0.02 s (b) t = 0.06 s (c) t = 0.11 s (d) t = 0.16 s

(e) t = 0.32 s (f) t = 0.40 s (g) t = 0.52 s (h) t = 0.70 s

Figure
Figure 14. Bubble flow14. Bubbleinflow
process process
a cyclone in arectangular
with cyclone with rectangular inlet.
inlet.

Figure 15 shows the 15

Figure visualized
shows the flow of bubbles
visualized flow in of
thebubbles
spiral inlet
in thecyclone. The cyclone.
spiral inlet exper- The ex e
imental conditions were the same as for the rectangular inlet cyclone. When
imental conditions were the same as for the rectangular inlet cyclone. When the sy the system
return oil entered
return theoilspiral
enteredinlet cyclone,
the it was
spiral inlet affected
cyclone, by gravity,
it was affectedforming an asymmet-
by gravity, forming an asym
rical liquid stream along the inner wall with visible bubbles, and
rical liquid stream along the inner wall with visible bubbles, and the the oil rapidly swirled
oil rapidly sw
along the inner wall.
along theThe
innerstratified
wall. Thefunnel-shaped air column was
stratified funnel-shaped air obliquely
column was erected, and erected
obliquely
the air column thefilled the upper
air column part
filled theofupper
the inside
part ofof the
the cyclone.
inside ofThethe swirling
cyclone. air
Thecolumn
swirling air col
gradually shrank until itshrank
gradually had alluntil
overflowed from
it had all the exhaust
overflowed port.
from After
the 0.89 s,
exhaust the After
port. bubbles0.89 s, the
below the exhaust
bles below the exhaust port of the cyclone were arranged to form a visible As
port of the cyclone were arranged to form a visible undulating line. undulating
the bubbles continued
As the bubblesto overflow throughout
continued the entire
to overflow swirling
throughout process,
the there wasprocess,
entire swirling less there
accumulationlessof bubbles above the inside of the cyclone.
accumulation of bubbles above the inside of the cyclone.

(a) t = 0.03 s (b) t = 0.07 s (c) t = 0.10 s (d) t = 0.13 s

(e) t = 0.28 s (f) t = 0.36 s (g) t = 0.54 s (h) t = 0.89 s

Figure
Figure 15. Bubble flow 15. in
process Bubble
spiralflow
inletprocess
cyclone.in spiral inlet cyclone.

In the simulation results shown in Figure 11, only the bubbles gathered in the c
of the cyclone to form a gas column and were discharged to the exhaust port. In th
perimental process shown in Figure 14; however, the initial bubbles followed the swi
flow of the oil down the cyclone, and the gas column disappeared. There is also no pro
pr
Processes 2021, 9, 123 12 of 14

In the simulation results shown in Figure 11, only the bubbles gathered in the center
of the cyclone to form a gas column and were discharged to the exhaust port. In the
experimental process shown in Figure 14; however, the initial bubbles followed the swirling
flow of the oil down the cyclone, and the gas column disappeared. There is also no process
of forming an observable line. The reason for the difference between the analysis simulation
and the experimental results may be due to the selection of the simulation model and the
influence of the simulation parameters, which can be further studied in the later research.
When the bubble was in the rectangular and spiral inlets, it underwent a change from
gradually forming a funnel-shaped air column to the air column disappearing and then
forming a line of observable fluctuations. The rectangular inlet cyclone underwent oil-
liquid separation more quickly than the spiral inlet cyclone; the overall bubble flow effect
was better than that of the spiral inlet cyclone, and there were continuous large bubbles
gathering above the inside. The spiral inlet cyclone did not exhibit the phenomenon of
large bubbles gathering. The initial bubbles flowed downwards spirally along the outer
wall of the cyclone due to the influence of gravity and the given initial velocity with the oil
swirling flow. When the oil was filled with the liquid discharge port, the bubbles gathered
towards the center due to radial centripetal force. The air bubbles flowed upward under
the influence of buoyancy in the axial direction to form a gas column. Since the upper
pressure was lower than the lower pressure, a funnel-shaped gas column formed. As the
bubbles continued to flow to the exhaust port, the air column gradually collapsed until it
disappeared. After a period of time, the remaining bubbles in the oil continued to swirl
to the center, causing it to form a visible wave line near the center axis. The simulation
result is only the process of forming an air column, and no observable fluctuating line was
formed after the air column disappeared. The reason may be the fact that the transient
excerpt was often short or the simulation model selected; more in-depth follow-up studies
can be conducted.

4. Conclusions
The flow fields and bubble flow laws in cyclones with different structures were
analyzed by comprehensive theoretical analysis, CFD numerical simulation and visual
experimental research. The influence of the diameter of the cyclone’s exhaust port, and
the shape and position of the cyclone’s inlet on the bubble flow was studied, and an
experimental platform for the visual observation of bubble flow in the cyclone was built to
observe and record the bubble flow process. The bubble flow mechanism was analyzed,
and the main conclusions are as follows:
1. The exhaust port diameter had a great influence on the bubble flow effect. When
the exhaust port diameter was 24 mm, the gas discharge efficiency increased by 8%
compared with an exhaust port diameter of 16 mm. The larger the exhaust port
diameter, the better the bubble flow effect.
2. The inlet shape of the cyclone had different effects on the bubble flow. When the
rectangular inlet was selected, the initial bubble flow velocity was in the middle of the
three, but the bubble flow effect was the best. When the trapezoidal inlet was selected,
the maximum bubble flow speed was the fastest, but the bubble flow effect was poor.
The gas discharge efficiency of the rectangular inlet was 7% higher than that of the
trapezoidal inlet cyclone. The inlet position of the cyclone affected the bubble flow.
The rectangular central inlet had a larger pressure drop than the rectangular inlet, the
bubble flow was faster, and the overall flow effect was better.
3. When the bubble was in the rectangular and spiral inlets, it underwent a change from
gradually forming a funnel-shaped air column to the air column disappearing and
then forming an observable fluctuating line. The rectangular inlet cyclone underwent
gas–liquid separation for a shorter period of time than the spiral inlet cyclone; the
overall bubble flow effect was better than that of the spiral inlet cyclone, and large
bubbles continued to accumulate above the inside of the cyclone. The spiral inlet
cyclone did not exhibit the phenomenon of large bubbles gathering.
Processes 2021, 9, 123 13 of 14

The experimental results verify the feasibility of the relevant structural design and
the rationality of the conclusions drawn from the numerical simulation, and more deeply
elucidate the mechanism of bubble flow.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition,

H.J.; methodology, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, Y.B.; software, validation,
visualization, Y.L.; investigation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing, L.L.; software, formal
analysis, S.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant
number 51575254 and in part by the Special Fund Project of Strategic and New Industry Development
of Jiangsu Province—The Research and Industrialization of Core Technology of Hydraulic Pump and
Valve Applied in High-End Construction Machinery.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wang, A.; Marashdeh, Q.; Fan, L.-S. ECVT imaging and model analysis of the liquid distribution inside a horizontally installed
passive cyclonic gas–liquid separator. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2016, 141, 231–239. [CrossRef]
2. Sakama, S.; Tanaka, Y.; Suzuki, R. Optimization of bubble eliminator through numerical and experimental investigation. Int. J.
Autom. Technol. 2012, 6, 418–425. [CrossRef]
3. Movafaghian, S.; Jaua-Marturet, J.A.; Mohan, R.S.; Shoham, O.; Kouba, G.E. The effects of geometry, fluid properties and pressure
on the hydrodynamics of gas–liquid cylindrical cyclone separators. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 2000, 26, 999–1018. [CrossRef]
4. Wu, Y.; Zhu, C. Numerical simulation analysis of internal flow field in gas–liquid cyclone separator. J. Chongqing Univ. Sci.
Technol. 2019, 21, 108–112.
5. Liu, X.; Jiang, M.; Zhao, L. Development and feasibility test of equipment on gas–liquid hydrocyclones. Fluid Mach. 2004, 5, 1–4.
6. Sakama, S.; Ryushi, S.; Tanaka, Y. A Study on Design and Estimation of Bubble Eliminator. Trans. Jpn. Fluid Power Syst. Soc. 2014,
45, 79–84. [CrossRef]
7. Hreiz, R.; Lainé, R.; Wu, J.; Lemaitre, C.; Gentric, C.; Fuenfschilling, D. On the effect of the nozzle design on the performances of
gas–liquid cylindrical cyclone separators. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 2014, 58, 15–26. [CrossRef]
8. Rosa, E.S.; França, F.A.; Ribeiro, G.S. The cyclone gas–liquid separator: Operation and mechanistic modeling. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
2001, 32, 87–101. [CrossRef]
9. Lazrag, M.; Mejia-Mendez, D.L.; Lemaitre, C.; Stafford, P.H.E.; Hreiz, R.; Privat, R.; Hannachi, A.; Barth, D. Thermodynamic and
hydrodynamic study of a gas–liquid flow in a cyclone separator downstream supercritical drying. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2016, 118,
27–38. [CrossRef]
10. Mikheev, N.; Saushin, I.; Paereliy, A.; Kratirov, D.; Levin, K. Cyclone separator for gas–liquid mixture with high flux density.
Powder Technol. 2018, 339, 326–333. [CrossRef]
11. Jin, X.; Jin, Y.; Wang, J.; Sun, Z.; Chen, X. Separation performance of gas–liquid cyclone separator. J. Chin. Univ. Pet. 2009, 33,
124–129.
12. Ye, C.; Wang, F.; Hu, H. The discussion on application of pressure drop computation model in gas–liquid cyclone separator.
Cryogenics Supercond. 2011, 39, 41–43, 47. [CrossRef]
13. Jin, X.; Jin, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, Z. Numerical simulation of gas-phase flow field in an axial flow type gas–liquid cyclone separator.
J. Chem. Eng. 2009, 23, 748–755.
14. Zhang, Z.; Cui, X.; Liu, W. Numerical simulation of round pipe gas–liquid cyclone separator. Oil Gas Storage Transp. 2012, 31,
435–440, 487.
15. Hong, W.; Sun, H.; Li, L. Structure optimization design of gas–liquid cyclone separator based on multiple structural factors.
Therm. Power Gener. 2016, 45, 41–47, 53.
16. Wu, Y.; Zhu, C. Numerical simulation of gas phase volume fraction and pressure drop in gas–liquid cyclone separator. Yunnan
Chem. Eng. 2019, 46, 96–99.
17. Ni, L.; Wu, X.; Tan, Z. Structural design and optimization of SFS-GLCC separator. Pet. Mach. 2019, 47, 54–62, 70. [CrossRef]
18. Li, Q.; Wang, Q.; Xu, W.; Zhu, Z.; Zhu, K. Experimental and computational analysis of a cyclone separator with a novel vortex
finder. Powder Technol. 2020, 360, 398–410. [CrossRef]
19. Wei, Q.; Sun, G.; Gao, C. Numerical analysis of axial gas flow in cyclone separators with different vortex finder diameters and
inlet dimensions. Powder Technol. 2020, 369, 321–333. [CrossRef]
20. Zhou, Y.; Xu, Z.; Xiao, G.; Hu, X.; Chen, H.; Zhang, R.; Luo, X.; Wang, J.; Yang, Y. Monitoring the hydrodynamics and critical
variation of separation efficiency of cyclone separator via acoustic emission technique with multiple analysis methods. Powder
Technol. 2020, 373, 174–183. [CrossRef]
Processes 2021, 9, 123 14 of 14

21. Le, D.K.; Yoon, J.Y. Numerical investigation on the performance and flow pattern of two novel innovative designs of four-inlet
cyclone separator. Chem. Eng. Process Process Intensif. 2020, 150, 107867. [CrossRef]
22. Wei, P.; Wang, D.; Niu, P.; Pang, C.; Liu, M. A novel centrifugal gas liquid pipe separator for high velocity wet gas separation. Int.
J. Multiph. Flow. 2020, 124, 103190. [CrossRef]
23. Zhou, W.; E, C.; Fan, Y.; Wang, K.; Lu, C. Experimental research on the separation characteristics of a gas–liquid cyclone separator
in WGS. Powder Technol. 2020, 372, 438–447. [CrossRef]
24. Zeng, X.; Fan, G.; Xu, J.; Liu, A.; Xu, Y.; Yan, C. Experimental study on a new gas–liquid separator for a wide range of gas volume
fraction. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2020, 160, 561–570. [CrossRef]
25. Luo, X.; Ren, J.; Chen, T.; Wang, Y.; Lü, Y.; He, L. Influence of slug flow on flow fields in a gas–liquid cylindrical cyclone separator:
A simulation study. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2020, 28, 2075–2083. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, G.; Yan, C.; Fan, G.; Wang, J.; Xu, J.; Fan, G.; Liu, A. Experimental study on a swirl-vane separator for gas–liquid separation.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2019, 151, 108–119. [CrossRef]
27. Liu, Y.; Wang, C.; Cai, J.; Lu, H.; Huang, L.; Yang, Q. Pilot application of a novel Gas–Liquid separator on offshore platforms. J.
Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 180, 240–245. [CrossRef]
28. Farokhipour, A.; Mansoori, Z.; Saffar-Avval, M.; Ahmadi, G. 3D computational modeling of sand erosion in gas–liquid-particle
multiphase annular flows in bends. Wear 2020, 450–451, 203241. [CrossRef]
29. Pelanti, M.; Shyue, K.M. A numerical model for multiphase liquid–vapor–gas flows with interfaces and cavitation. Int. J. Multiph.
Flow 2019, 113, 208–230. [CrossRef]
30. Li, L.; Li, X.; Zhu, Z.; Li, B. Numerical modeling of multiphase flow in gas stirred ladles: From a multiscale point of view. Powder
Technol. 2020, 373, 14–25. [CrossRef]
31. Ai, X. Study on separation characteristics of oil gas water three-phase swirling flow. Master’s Thesis, Xi’an Petroleum University,
Xi’an, China, 2019.