KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERING

PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

GROUP 2B

GAS CYCLONE

14TH MARCH 2022

i
 NAME INDEX NUMBER SIGNATURE

ADU-AMEYAW ELISHA 8364419

ANTWI EUGENE BOSIAKO 8366219

BOATENG PRISCILLA KEISHA 8367919

NYARKO NANA AMA SERWAA 8369719

PAINTSIL VANESSA 8370719

TETTEH BARNABAS 8371619

ii
 Contents
1.0. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES. ........................................................................................................ 1
2.0. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. THEORY ............................................................................................................................ 3
3.0. APPARATUS AND CHEMICALS .............................................................................................. 4
3.1. LIST OF APPARATUS ......................................................................................................... 4
3.2. LIST OF CHEMICALS .......................................................................................................... 4
4.0. PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................................... 5
5.0. TABLE OF RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS ............................................................................. 6
5.1. GRAPHS ............................................................................................................................ 6
5.2. CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................................. 7
6.0. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................ 17
7.0. PRECAUTION ...................................................................................................................... 19
8.0. ERROR ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 20
9.0. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 21
10.0. REFERENCE ....................................................................................................................... 22

iii
1.0. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES.
1. To determine how the solid material content and airflow volume affect

- Pressure loss at the gas cyclone

- Degree of separation

- Separation function and separation size

2. To compare pressure loss and degree of separation with theoretically calculated

values

1
2.0. INTRODUCTION

The cyclone was introduced as process design equipment in 1891. Originally utilized as

separating devices, cyclones are now manufactured for many purposes. For example,

they are used as combustion chambers, reactors for partially immiscible liquids, and

dryers. The most common use of the cyclone is to separate solid particles from either

liquids or gases. For this purpose, the popularity of cyclone can be attributed to two

main reasons:

1. It is simple and economical to build and operate cyclones since they have no moving

parts and require minimal maintenance.

2. Small particles can be successfully separated from fluid carriers at small energy loss.

For example, a cyclone of scale 1m can separate suspended particles of size 10-5m with

inlet gas velocity of order 10m/s and mechanical energy expenditure per unit of flowing

mass equivalent to just about eight times the inlet kinetic energy. In this experiment, a

gas cyclone is used to demonstrate and investigate how a solid dispersed in an airflow

is filtered out.

2
2.1. THEORY

Centrifugal and inertial forces are used in a cyclone to separate particles from the

contaminated gas stream as it spirals through the cyclone. Contaminated gas is drawn

into the cylinder of the cyclone from the inlet section, and is forced into a circular motion

due to the sudden impact with the walls of the cylinder. This creates a primary vortex

which moves downwards along the cyclone wall, and reverses at the bottom of the gas

cyclone. The filtered gas moves upwards in the center of the cyclone as the secondary

vortex, and the heavy solid particles (contaminants) are accelerated to the wall. They

slide down the walls of the cone and are collected. How well the cyclone separators are

actually able to remove this matter depends largely on particle size. If there is a large

amount of lighter particulate matter, less of these particles are able to be separated out.

Because of this, cyclone separators work best on flue gases that contain large amounts

of big particulate matter.

3
3.0. APPARATUS AND CHEMICALS

3.1. LIST OF APPARATUS

● Trainer, air suction fan, tamper and feed material.

● Weighing scale

● Spatula

● Sheets of paper

3.2. LIST OF CHEMICALS

• Air
• Silica

4
4.0. PROCEDURE

The plunger was placed in the feed cylinder with the Phillips screw facing upward and

the tamper was used to press down the plunger till it touched the surface. The feed

cylinder with the plunger, a sheet of paper and the coarse material cylinder with the

empty tank for coarse material were weighed and the masses were recorded. 2g of the

feed material was poured into the feed cylinder and gently pressed down with the

tamper. This was repeated until the feed cylinder was full. The feed cylinder with the

feed material was weighed and the mass was compared to that of the feed cylinder with

plunger only, and then placed into the brush housing and screwed in place. The trainer

was turned on and the air suction fan was set to stage one. The air volume flow was set

to 10m³/h. The air suction fan was set to another stage and three values were obtained

for different air volume flows (20,30,40,50…). The temperature and differential

pressure were recorded and the switch for the feed was turned on. The values of the

displays for volume flow, temperature and differential pressure were recorded and the

air suction fan and the trainer were turned off after the “lower end position”

lamp turned red.

5
5.0. TABLE OF RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS

5.1. GRAPHS

separation size xs(mm)

0.0004

0.00035

0.0003

0.00025
XS (mm)

0.0002

0.00015

0.0001

0.00005

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Vgas (m3/h)

6
 A GRAPH OF SEPARATION SIZE AGAINST LOAD
0.0004

0.00035

0.0003

0.00025
XS (mm)

0.0002

0.00015

0.0001

0.00005

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
LOAD

5.2. CALCULATIONS
Unit Measurement no. Measurement no.
Volume flowrate m3/h 10.00 10.00
o
Temperature C 26.60 27.90
Differential pressure Δp mbar 2.10 1.90
Feed rate 3.00 6.00
Feed velocity rate mm/s 4.60 4.90
Volume flowrate m3/h 10.00 10.00
o
Temperature C 26.80 27.90

7
 Differential pressure Δp mbar 2.20 2.30
Mass of feed material g 19.74 14.33
Mass of coarse material g 18.78 13.09
Mass flow of the feed g/s 1.0089 0.78024
Load N 0.3016 0.2333
Separation size XS Mm 0.0003659 0.00037685
Limit load (N limit) 0.0199 0.0202
Total degree of separation 0.95 0.91
(E) measured
Total degree of separation 110.4322 74.6695
(E) calculated
Pressure loss Δp calculated mbar 2.1433 2.0673

Table 2: Worksheet for conducting the experiment

Unit Measurement no. Measurement no.
Volume flowrate m3/h 20.00 20.00
o
Temperature C 27.10 28.00
Differential pressure Δp mbar 2.10 8.70
Feed rate - 3.00 6.00
Feed velocity mm/s 4.80 4.90
Volume flowrate m3/h 20.00 20.00
o
Temperature C 27.20 28.10
Differential pressure Δp mbar 8.90 9.10
Mass of feed material g 18.16 17.48
Mass of coarse material g 17.80 17.09
Mass of flow of the feed g/s 0.9685 0.9517
Load (N) - 0.1448 0.1423
Limit load (N/limit) - 0.0196 0.0198
Total degree of separation (E) - 0.980 0.98
measured
Total degree of separation (E) - 269.8381 142.0058
calculated
Separation size XS mm 0.00024989 0.00025431
Pressure loss Δp calculated mbar 8.8751 8.6474

8
Table 3: Worksheet for conducted experiment
Unit Measurement no Measurement no
Volume flowrate m3/h 30.00 30.00
o
Temperature C 27.20 28.20
Differential pressure Δp mbar 19.60 16.00
Feed rate - 3.00 3.00
Feed velocity mm/s 4.50 4.90
Volume flowrate m3/h 30.00 30.00
o
Temperature C 27.30 28.30
Differential pressure Δp mbar 20.00 18.10
Mass of feed material g 19.48 18.07
Mass of coarse material g 18.58 17.23
Mass flow of the feed g/s 0.974 0.9838
Load N - 0.09407 0.09804
Separation size XS mm 0.00020313 0.00020584
Limit load N/limit - 0.0196 0.0197
Total degree of separation - 0.95 0.95
(E) measured
Total degree of separation - 3258.2212 266.3173
(E) calculated
Pressure loss Δp mbar 8.8915 8.7585
calculated

9
Table 4: Worksheet for conducting experiment
Unit Measured no Measured no
Volume flowrate m3/h 40.00 40.00
o
Temperature C 27.60 28.50
Differential pressure Δp mbar 37.10 33.50
Feed rate - 3.00 6.00
Feed velocity mm/s 4.60 4.90
Volume flowrate m3/h 40.00 40.00
o
Temperature C 27.70 28.50
Differential pressure Δp mbar 37.40 33.10
Mass of feed material g 20.39 18.26
Mass of coarse material g 19.91 17.90
Mass flow of the feed g/s 1.0422 0.9942
Load N - 0.07790 0.07431
Separation size XS mm 0.00016966 0.00017591
Limit load N/limit - 0.0192 0.0196
Total degree of separation - 0.98 0.98
(E) measured
Total degree of separation - 844.3228 381.4842
(E) calculated
Pressure loss Δp mbar 9.3325 8.9106
calculated

10
Table 5: Worksheet for conducting experiment
Unit Measured no Measured no
Volume flowrate m3/h 50.00 50.00
o
Temperature C 27.60 28.70
Differential pressure Δp mbar 57.70 51.30
Feed rate - 3.00 6.00
Feed velocity mm/s 4.50 4.90
Volume flowrate m3/h 50.00 50.00
o
Temperature C 27.70 28.90
Differential pressure Δp mbar 57.50 55.70
Mass of feed material g 18.00 19.25
Mass of coarse material g 17.30 18.43
Mass flow of the feed g/s 0.900 1.0481
Load N - 0.05382 0.06267
Separation size XS mm 0.0015315 0.00015594
Limit load N/limit - 0.0193 0.0195
Total degree of separation - 0.96 0.96
(E) measured
Total degree of separation - 764.6814 516.0429
(E) measured
Pressure loss Δp calculated mbar 9.2421 9.0345

11
CALCULATIONS AND GRAPHS
(a) Calculating E; (Degree of Separation E, measured)

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑠𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙

𝐸=
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙

FOR TABLE 1
18.78 13.09
𝐸1 = = 0.9574 𝐸2 = = 0.9135
19.74 14.33

FOR TABLE 2
17.80 17.09
𝐸1 = = 0.9802 𝐸2 = = 0.9777
18.16 17.48

FOR TABLE 3
18.58 17.23
𝐸1 = = 0.9538 𝐸2 = = 0.9535
19.48 18.07

FOR TABLE 4
19.91 17.90
𝐸1 = = 0.9765 𝐸2 = = 0.9803
20.39 18.26

FOR TABLE 5
17.36 18.43
𝐸1 = = 0.9644 𝐸2 = = 0.9574
18.00 19.25

(b) Average separation size for each experiment

0.0003659 + 0.00037685
𝐸𝑥𝑝1 = = 0.000371375
2
𝑬𝒙𝒑𝟏 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟕𝟏𝟒𝒎𝒎

0.00024989 + 0.00025431
𝐸𝑥𝑝2 = = 0.0002521
2
𝑬𝒙𝒑𝟐 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟓𝟐𝟏𝒎𝒎

12
 0.00020313 + 0.00020584
𝐸𝑥𝑝3 = = 0.0002045
2
𝑬𝒙𝒑𝟑 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟎𝟒𝟓𝒎𝒎

0.00016966 + 0.00017591
𝐸𝑥𝑝4 = = 0.0001728
2
𝑬𝒙𝒑𝟒 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖𝒎𝒎

0.00015315 + 0.00015594
𝐸𝑥𝑝5 = = 0.0001545
2
𝑬𝒙𝒑𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟒𝟓𝒎𝒎

(c) CALCULATING FOR THE LOAD N FOR EACH EXPERIMENT.

EXPERIMENT 1
ṁ𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑁=
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 × ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 10 𝑚3 /ℎ
at room conditions of 20℃ and 1atm 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1.2041 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 1.2041 × 10 = 12.041 𝑘𝑔/ℎ
12.041 × 103 𝑔
= 3.3447 𝑔/𝑠
3600𝑠
1.0089
𝑁1 = = 0.3016
3.3447
0.78024
𝑁2 = = 0.2333
3.3447

EXPERIMENT 2
ṁ𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑁=
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 × ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 20.0 𝑚3 /ℎ
at room conditions of 20℃ and 1atm 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1.2041 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

13
 ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 1.2041 × 20 = 24.082 𝑘𝑔/ℎ
24.082 × 103 𝑔
= 6.6894 𝑔/𝑠
3600𝑠
0.9685
𝑁1 = = 0.14478
6.6894
0.9517
𝑁2 = = 0.14227
6.6894

EXPERIMENT 3
ṁ𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑁=
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 × ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 30 𝑚3 /ℎ
at room conditions of 20℃ and 1atm 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1.2041 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 1.2041 × 30 = 36.123 𝑘𝑔/ℎ
36.123 × 103 𝑔
= 10.0342 𝑔/𝑠
3600𝑠
0.974
𝑁1 = = 0.09707
10.0342
0.9838
𝑁2 = = 0.09804
10.0342

EXPERIMENT 4
ṁ𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑁=
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 × ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 40 𝑚3 /ℎ
at room conditions of 20℃ and 1atm 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1.2041 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 1.2041 × 40 = 48.164 𝑘𝑔/ℎ
48.164 × 103 𝑔
= 13.3789 𝑔/𝑠
3600𝑠
1.0422
𝑁1 = = 0.0779
13.3789
0.9942
𝑁2 = = 0.07431
13.3789
14
 EXPERIMENT 5
ṁ𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑁=
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 × ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠
ύ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 50 𝑚3 /ℎ
at room conditions of 20℃ and 1atm 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1.2041 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
ṁ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 1.2041 × 50 = 60.205 𝑘𝑔/ℎ
60.205 × 103 𝑔
= 16.7236 𝑔/𝑠
3600𝑠
0.900
𝑁1 = = 0.05382
16.7236
1.0481
𝑁2 = = 0.06267
16.7236

(d) AVERAGE LOAD (N) FOR EACH EXPERIMENT

0.3016 + 0.2333
𝐸𝑥𝑝1 = = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟔𝟕𝟒𝟓
2

0.1448 + 0.1423
𝐸𝑥𝑝2 = = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟑𝟓𝟓
2

0.09707 + 0.09804
𝐸𝑥𝑝3 = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟗𝟕𝟓𝟓𝟓
2

0.07790 + 0.07431
𝐸𝑥𝑝4 = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟔𝟏𝟎𝟓
2

0.05382 + 0.06267
𝐸𝑥𝑝5 = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓𝟖𝟐𝟒𝟓
2
Table 6:
EXPERIMENT EXP 1 EXP 2 EXP 3 EXP 4 EXP 5
Average SS XS 3.714 x 10- 2.521 x 10- 2.045 x 10- 1.728 x 10- 1.545 x 10-
4 4 4 4
(mm) 4

15
Average Load 0.2675 0.1436 0.0976 0.0761 0.0582
(N)
Vgas (m3/h) 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

16
6.0. DISCUSSION
The goal of this experiment was to determine how solid material content and airflow

volume affect efficiency (degree of separation), pressure loss and separation size. A

sample of very fine particle size was fed to the gas cyclone. The operating conditions

such as temperature and pressure for each trial were determined. Table 1 shows the

values for the operating conditions and parameters used in the experiment. For each set

of experiment conducted in a trial, it was observed that the flow rates were constant but

varied for every trail made. This was done to know the efficiency of the cyclone at

different operating conditions. The collection efficiencies were calculated using

equation 1 for the sample and summarized in the table. The calculated efficiencies for

silica were 0.95 and 0.91,0.98 and 0.98,0.95 and 0.95,0.98 and 0.98,0.96 and 0.96 for

the trials 1,2,3,4 and 5 respectively. The high efficiencies were as a result of particle

density. Theoretically, cyclone separator efficiency increases with particle density. This

is because an increase in the air-particle density difference results to higher resultant

centrifugal force in the cyclone separator. Another parameter other than particle density

which affects efficiency is volumetric flowrate. From the graph obtained by plotting

separation size against flowrate, it was observed that flowrate increased with a

decreasing separation size. Further study showed that particles of coarse sizes had very

high efficiency compared to fine particle sizes. This was due to the ability of the

separator to easily distinguish between the sizes of the two mixtures as compared to

when very fine particles are mixed with air. Another important parameter in the

operation of a gas cyclone is the pressure drop. Pressure drop is caused by the friction

between the fluid and the wall and the internal vortex flow. From literature, it is known

that the pressure drop increases linearly with inlet velocity. This is to say that when the

velocity of the particle going into the cyclone is increased, the pressure drop in the
17
cyclone also increases. Also, it was observed that as the flowrate was increased, the

pressure drop in the cyclone increased. Inferentially, we can say that pressure drop

depends on inlet velocity and flowrate. Literature study shows that higher inlet velocity

results in higher efficiency and pressure drop. This is however not desired since pressure

drop determines operating cost and a high-pressure drop will mean high operating costs.

Further study however shows that concepts have been made and practicalized to increase

efficiency and decrease pressure drop at the same time which in the process reduces

operating costs.Lastly,from our graph of separation size against load,a linear

relationship between the two parameters were obtained.An increase in load leads to an

increase in separation size.

18
7.0. PRECAUTION
• Earplugs were worn to reduce the high noise from the vacuum pump direct to

the ear.

• No human effort (weight) was added to the tamper to ensure that, the tamper

uses its own weight.

• Masks were worn to prevent inhalation of the silicate.

• The main switch on the trainer was turned off before the beginning of the

experiment.

19
8.0. ERROR ANALYSIS
• Error in feeding the sample into the equipment as some particles might have

splashed out.

• Operation time may not be enough for the cyclone separator to settle all the

particles in the bin.

• The suspended particles in the equipment were not removed completely after

every trial.

20
9.0. CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from our results and findings that, increasing the volumetric flowrate

increases efficiency and pressure drop whereas a decrease in inlet velocity will reduce

pressure drop but less efficiency will be attained.

21
10.0. REFERENCE
• C.J.Stairmand,1951,The design and performance of cyclone separators,

Transaction of the institution of Chemical Engineers,vol 29,pg 356-383.

• D.L.Ioza and D.Leith,1989, Effect of cyclone dimensions on gas flow pattern

and collection efficiency, Aerosol Science and Technology,vol 10,pg.491-500.

• Faulkner W.B and Shaw B.W, (2006), Efficiency and Pressure Drop of Cyclones

Across a Range of Inlet Velocities, American Society of Agriculture and

Biological Engineers.

• Gimbun J, Chuah T.G, Fakhr’ul-Razi A, Choong T.S.Y (2005), The

influence of temperature and entry velocity on cyclone pressure drop: a CFD

study, Chem. Eng. Process,pg. 7-12.

• Dirgo J and Leith D.(1985). Performance of theoretically optimized cyclones,

Filtration & Separation. pg.119

22