ENGINEERED SYSTEM FOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: SEPARATION OF

AIRPARTICULATES SUSPENSION (CYLONE SEPARATOR)

OLORODE Tioluwalafe Samson,

CHE/2017/093

E-mail: tsolorode@student.oauife.edu.ng

Department of Chemical Engineering

Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; Osun State.

ABSTRACT
This report was written in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the courses, Research Projects
I and II (CHE 507 and 508), for a research project on Engineered System for Air Pollution
Control: Separation of Air-Particulates Suspension (Cyclone Separator).
Due to the increasing environmental issues associated with Air pollution, particularly resulting
from various industrial activities, like particulate-air suspension release from cement plants;
some engineered systems have been designed to separate these particulates from the air. These
systems are designed to release cleaner air and recover process materials, one of such systems is
the Cyclone separator which has been studied in this work for optimum design and performance.
A Cyclone is a centrifugal separator that consist of an upper cylindrical part (Barrel) and a lower
conical part (Cone), this both are connected to a Collector that receives the separated particles.
They simply transform the inertia force of a particle in a gas that flows by centrifugal action
through a vortex generated in the cyclone body. As a result of action of forces (centrifugal, drag
and momentum forces) through the vortex, collisions occur and the particles fall and are
collected at the bottom of the cyclone while the cleaner stream return to the top through
formation of inner vortex. More details on the Cyclone Separator operations and theory are given
in this report. In this Study, I examined the effect of the inlet velocity of a particle-laden air inlet
stream on the pressure-drop across the Cyclone Separator, the effect of Cyclone body diameter
on the pressure drop; also, the effects of the pressure-drop across the cyclone and density of
particles entering the cyclone on the performance of the Cyclone Separator were examined.
ANSYS_2023R1_WINX64 workbench (Fluid flow fluent) was used to design and simulate the
Cyclone Separator model and MS Excel was used for the calculations and Visualizations of
results obtained in the study.

INTRODUCTION
Chemical processes have stages where reactions take place and/or where streams of the process
are separated and purified. These separations rely on physical principles that are based on
variations in the characteristics of the constituents in the stream. There are heterogeneous
mixtures that consist of two or more phases with distinct chemical makes up. These mixtures are
made up of components that do not interact chemically and have clearly visible boundaries
separating the various phases. The components of such mixture can be separated by utilizing the
variations in density between the phases, Centrifugal or Gravitational forces may be applied to
improve the separation. The main principal methods for the separation of those kinds of mixtures
include:
Cyclone separator, Gravity separator, Centrifugal separator, Electrostatic precipitator, Filters, etc.
The use of a Cyclone separator is one of the main techniques applied to separate these phases,
and the components within the phases, in some heterogeneous mixtures, and this is discussed in
details as we proceed.
Cyclone separators offer a low-cost and low-maintenance way of separating particulate matter
from air or other gas streams. Cyclones have a slightly more complex design than
straightforward gravity settling systems, and they offer far better removal efficiency when
compared with settling chambers. Cyclones are centrifugal separators that consist of an upper
cylindrical part referred to as the Barrel and a lower conical part referred to as the Cone, both are
connected to a Collector that received the separated particles; figure 1a. They simply transform
the inertia force of a particle in a gas that flows by centrifugal action through a vortex generated
in the cyclone body. Therefore, any particle is subject to two opposing forces acting in the radial
direction (shown in figure 1b): Centrifugal force, which tends to throw it against the walls, and
Fluid drag, which tends to carry the particle out through the gas outlet (Richardson et al., 2002).

(a) (b)
Figure 1: (a) A Typical Cyclone Separator in an industrial plant (Richardson et al., 2002); (b)
Geometry of a Cyclone Separator (Donggeun and Jeung, 2020)
When the air reaches the bottom of the cone it begins to flow radially inwards and out to the top
as clean air while the particulate fall into the dust collection chamber attached to the bottom of
the cyclone. Efficiencies of Cyclones can be above 90 percent for particles larger than 5µm, but
the efficiency drops rapidly for the small particle sizes that are of greater concern to human
health (Maters and Ela, 2014). Cyclone separators are relatively inexpensive and maintenance
free, which makes them ideal as pre-cleaners for more expensive and critical final control
devices.
There are three major types of cyclone designs; Tangential entry, Axial entry, and the larger
cyclonic separator with wet scrubbing. Also, there are three different cyclone models; 2D2D,
1D3D, 1D2D and the multi-cyclones models (arranged in series or parallel).
Statement of Research Problem
Due to the impact of increasing industrial activities on air pollution, primarily due to the release
of particulate matter into the atmosphere through processes like cement production and food
processing. To counter this, various engineered systems have been developed to reduce the
release of these particulates and improve the efficiency of cleaning and recovery processes. One
commonly used system is the Cyclone separator, known for its effectiveness and cost-efficiency
in separating particulate matter from vent mixtures. There is need for the comparative analysis of
different factors that can influence the performance of a Cyclone separator, for considerations in
the efficient and optimized design. The findings from the study would also serve as a basis for
future research aimed at designing even more efficient Cyclone separators.
Aim and Objectives of Research
In this study, I examined the effect of inlet velocity of a particle-laden process air stream and
diameter of the cyclone body on the pressure drop across a Cyclone separator and its overall
collection efficiency, also; the effect of particle density on the performance of a Cyclone
separator was examined. In order to achieve this aim, I carried out the following studies;
1. estimate the number of effective turns of the gas stream in traversing the Cyclone
Separator and the cut-point diameter (from cyclone dimensions), and determine the
resident time of the gas stream through it (calculated based on the number of effective
turns). Also, the theoretical pressure-drop across the Cyclone Separator and its fractional
efficiency.
2. develop Cyclone Separator model with specified design dimensions and parameters, and
simulate on ANSYS_2023R1_WINX64 workbench (Fluid flow fluent).
3. compare the theoretical pressure-drop with the simulated values from the model design
at different inlet velocities and Cyclone body diameters. This is to check the relationship
between the pressure-drop, the inlet velocities and the diameter of the Cyclone (whether
by direct or indirect variation). Also, compare the overall cyclone collection efficiencies
obtained from the design simulations to the theoretical fractional efficiencies.
 4. examine the effect of particle density on the Cyclone Separator performance from the
design.
Cyclone Separator Design Theory The number of effective turns (θ)
The number of turns the gas spins while moving through the cyclone's outer vortex is the number
of effective turns in the cyclone. The following is the Lapple model for calculating Ne:
2𝜋 𝐿𝑐
𝜃= (𝐿𝑏 + ) (1)
𝐻 2
Where: θ = number of turns inside the device (no units), H = height of inlet duct (m or ft), L b =
length of cyclone body (m or ft), and Lc = length (vertical) of cyclone cone (m or ft).
Cut point diameter
This is the aerodynamic equivalent diameter (AED) of the particle collected with 50% efficiency.
The collection efficiency declines with increasing cut-point diameter.
9𝜇𝑊
𝑑0.5 = [ ] (2)
𝑉𝑖 (𝜌𝑝 − 𝜌𝑔)θ
Where: d0.5 = diameter of the smallest particle that will be collected by the cyclone, µ = gas
viscosity (kg/m.s), W = width of inlet duct (m), θ = effective number of turns (given in equation
1), Vi = inlet gas velocity (m/s) = Q/WH, Q = volumetric inflow (m3/s), ρp = particle density, and
ρg = gas density; (kg/m3).
Gas residence time
For the particles of the inlet gas stream to be effectively collected, they must hit the wall about
the duration of time that the gas travels in the outer vortex. The gas residence time in the outer
vortex is calculated as:
𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝜋𝐷𝜃
∆𝑡 = = (3)
𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑖

Where: ∆t = time spent by gas during spiraling descent (sec), D = cyclone body diameter (m or
ft), Vi = gas inlet velocity (m/s or ft/s) = Q/WH, Q = volumetric inflow (m 3/s or ft3/s), H = height
of inlet (m or ft), and W = width of inlet (m or ft).
Fractional efficiency curve
Lapple afterwards formulated an empirical model for the estimation of the collection efficiency
for any particle size, and this is referred to as the Fractional efficiency curve; formulated using:
1

𝜂𝑝𝑗 = 1 + (𝑑0.5⁄𝑑𝑝𝑗)2 (4)

Where: ηpj = collection efficiency of particles in the jth size range (0 < nj < 1), d 0.5 = cut-point
diameter, and dpj = characteristic diameter of the jth particle size range (in microns).
Pressure-drop (∆P) and power requirements
The pressure drop implemented by the gas stream in navigating through the cyclone is an
essential characteristic in the evaluation of cyclone design and performance. The Power
requirement of the Cyclone Separator is the power which must be used up somewhere in the duct
system to subdue the pressure drop. According to Crawford (1976): for a cyclone of standard
proportions;
16𝐾𝜌𝑔𝑄2
∆𝑃 = 𝐷4 (5)
3
16𝐾𝜌𝑔𝑄
Ẇ= 𝐷4 (6)

Where: K = constant that depends on the cyclone configurations and operating conditions, D =
diameter of cyclone body, Q = gas stream inlet flowrate, ρ g = density of gas stream, and Ẇ =
power which must be expended to overcome the system pressure drop.

From an empirical method given Caplan (1968), based on the work of Alexander (1949); the

constant K is given by: 𝐾 = 4.62 𝐷𝑒 {[( 𝐷 2𝑛

) − 1] 1 − 𝑛 + 𝑓( 𝐷 )2𝑛} (7)
𝐷 𝐷𝑒 𝑛 𝐷𝑒

Where; De is the exit diameter, n is a constant and 𝑓 is given in terms of n.

Overall cyclone collection efficiency
Generally speaking, the most crucial factor in the industrial operation is the overall efficiency. By
considering the solid particle mass balance in a cyclone, the M 𝑓, Mc, and Me are the mass flow
rates of the inlet, particles collected, and ejected particles, respectively, as stated by Hoffmann
and
Stein in their book on gas cyclones (2008); we have: 𝑀𝑓 = 𝑀𝑐 + 𝑀 𝑒 (8)

The mass fraction of the feed which is collected effectively can be used to calculate the overall
separation efficiency of the cyclone.
𝑀𝑐 𝑀𝑒 𝑀𝑐
𝜂= =1− = (9)
𝑀𝑓 𝑀𝑓 𝑀𝑐 + 𝑀𝑒
 METHODOLOGY
For this project the ANSYS_2023R1_WINX64 workbench (Fluid flow fluent) was used to
design and simulate the Cyclone Separator model. A high efficiency tangential entry cyclone
separator design type was created and a kind of the 2D2D model design was used. The Stairmand
(1951) cyclone separator model dimensions were adopted, as shown in figure 2 below, and a
design diameter of 0.205m (205mm) was adopted according to Slack et al. (2000). The step-by-
step procedures followed for this work are outlined in the following sections.
ANSYS Work Procedures
The following are the summary procedures followed for the cyclone separator model design and
simulation. The sections include, Geometry creation, Meshing, Setup, Solution and Results.
Geometry generation
This was done using the ANSYS inbuilt CAD interface. The shapes of the various parts of the
Cyclone separator (cyclone body cylinder, lower body cone, stream inlet and the vortex finder)
were created and merged together as a Boolean. The dimensions used for the Cyclone separator
parts are given in table 1.
Table 1: Cyclone Separator Model
Dimensions
Stairmand Cyclone Separator Design (D = 0.205m
[205mm])
Property Dimen Ratio Value
sions (m)
Cyclone body
D D 0.2050
diameter
Cyclone body length Lb 1.5D 0.3075
Cone length Lc 2.5D 0.5125
Inlet height H 0.5D 0.1025
Inlet width W 0.2D 0.0410
Gas exit diameter De 0.5D 0.1025
Dust outlet diameter Dd 0.36D 0.0738
Vortex finder (Vf)
length S 0.5D 0.1025

Vf upward extension
Se 0.75D 0.1538
length
Total Length of
Lb + Lc 4D 0.8200
Cyclone
 Figure 2: Outline of Stairmand
Cyclone design showing nondimensionalized dimensions (Slack, 2000)

Meshing Named Selection creation

These were carried out on the ANSYS meshing interface, the physics method was set to [CFD];
other properties were set appropriately, and the [Tetrahedral] meshing method was set to improve
iteration accuracy. Then, the respective sections and whole body of the Cyclone separator were
named appropriately.
Physics Setup
In this section, the various components for the analysis and their properties were set; including
the discrete phase, materials, etc. The various parameters required for the analysis were set and
kept constant while new parameter was created for each case of study (inlet velocity, hydraulic
diameter – cyclone body diameter and particle density). The numerical solutions required were
set, initialization was done, and finally; iteration calculations were carried out.
Results
For the results, contour profiles were created to visualize the distribution of the velocity
magnitudes of the particles and static pressures at different points across the Cyclone separator,
also the 3D velocity vector profile for the particle stream was created. Lastly, the particle
pathlines profile across the Cyclone separator was created. All the work and data were saved
appropriately.

Parameters simulations
For each case study, all other Fluent interfaces were closed, except the workbench. The
[Parameters] icon on the workbench was opened to run the simulations for varied input
parameters in each case. The initial values were already set at (8m/s for inlet velocity analysis,
0.025m for hydraulic diameter analysis, and 3320kg/m3-Calciumoxide for density analysis) then
10, 18, 20 and 27 m/s; 0.045, 0.065, 0.085 and 0.105m; and 2710, 2540, 2210 and 1500Kg/m 3
were entered as the other values for simulation for each case study respectively. Then all design
points were updated to run the Simulations for all the set inlet parameters. This took a while to
run but eventually the values for all the set [Result Definitions] parameters were updated and
displayed.
For the density the analysis was carried out for lower velocity of 10m/s and 27m/s respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Calculations
All the calculations carried out on this project and for the different analysis were done using MS
Excel. Majority of the formular imputed to do the calculations were derived from the respective
equations given earlier and for hydraulic diameter, DH (for the analysis of Cyclone body
diameter)

for rectangular channels (Equation 10 below). 𝐷𝐻 = 2 𝐻

2𝐻𝑊
+𝑊 (10)

Where; H = length of the inlet channel = 0.5D, W = width of the inlet channel = 0.2D, thus by
substituting the Cyclone body diameter (D) into the equations, the equation becomes:
𝐷𝐻
𝐷= (11)
0.3333
If DH is in meters, then D would be in meters too, but if D H is in millimeters, then D would also
be in millimeters. The following steps were followed for the calculations:
From ANSYS simulation
For the Diameters of the Cyclone body, they were calculated using eqn. (11) of hydraulic
diameter for rectangular channels. The pressure drops for each case were calculated by
subtracting the outlets pressures from the inlet pressures in each analysis. The collection
efficiencies were also calculated for each case by imputing the formular specified in eqn. (9) for
Overall Cyclone Separator Efficiency in each analysis.
From cyclone separator design theory
The number of effective turns of the gas stream were calculated by imputed a formular derived
from the eqn. (1) specified in chapter two of this report and the design dimensions. Then the
cutpoint diameters and resident time of the gas in the cyclone were also calculated by imputing
formulars derived from eqn. (2) and (3) respectively. The pressure-drops across the Cyclone
Separator were also calculated using eqn. (5) and getting all necessary parameters.
Finally, the fractional efficiencies of the Cyclone Separator were calculated using equation (4)
specified earlier in chapter two.
Graphs showing the responses of the pressure-drops and collection efficiencies responses for
each case analysis were also plotted using MS Excel. The findings and visualizations from the
analysis of the results obtained in line with the aim and objectives of this study are presented
here.
Model Design Results
Figure (3) shows the graphical representation of the iteration for the residuals of the Cyclone
separator, the iteration converged after 96 iterations. In figure (4) a contour profile for the
velocity distribution of the stream flowing through the cyclone volume is shown. As the air
mixture enters the volume, the magnitude of its velocity is highest at the inlet and then the
outlets, the rapid decrease in velocity is due to collision with the walls of the cyclone and vortex
formation, with the velocity magnitude being the lowest around the walls of the cyclone. Figure
(5) shows the 3-D velocity vector distribution across the cyclone. Figure (6) shows the static
pressure contour profile across the cyclone. The magnitude of the static pressure is observed to
be highest at the inlet, since the maximum velocity is at the inlet and there will be more
collisions occurring between the particles in the stream and the walls at the inlet; this magnitude
gradually decreases as the stream flows down the cyclone, but higher at the walls of the cyclone
body because of actions of collision with the walls, and finally, the magnitudes are lowest at the
outlets (up and down).

Figure 3: Scaled Residuals Graph Figure 4: Velocity Contour Profile

Figure 5: 3D Velocity Vector Distribution Figure 6: Static Pressure Contour Profile

Also shown in figure (7) are the path-lines followed by the particles as they flow across the
cyclone due to actions of forces (Centrifugal force, Drag force and force due to momentum). The
particles hit the walls of the cyclone and lose their momentum, majority of the particles thus fall
down through the bottom outlet and are deposited into the collector. It is observed that majority
of the larger particles fall down to the bottom while only those particles of much smaller sizes
escape to the top outlet.

Figure 7: Particle Pathline Profile

Simulations and Analysis
In this section, the simulated data extracted, from the ANSYS software by an inbuilt function;
were analyzed on MS Excel and other necessary calculations on the cyclone theory were done
and analyzed. All the analysis were done in line with the objective of this study.
Inlet velocity analysis
The graphs obtained from the simulated results are shown in figures (8-11). From figures (8 and
10) we can see that as the inlet velocities were increased the pressure drops across the cyclone
also increased, thus indicating a direct relationship between the two properties. In the case of
efficiency, the increase in the inlet velocities and thus the pressure drops only contributed slightly
to increase the overall collection efficiency from the simulated data as shown in figure (9) but
more increasing impact can be observed in the fractional efficiency of the theoretical result,
figure (11).

Simulated ∆P against Inlet Overall efficiency against ∆P

velocity 53.150

Overall efficiency [%]

450 53.100
400
]
Pressure drop Pa

53.050
350
[

300 53.000
250 52.950
200 52.900
150 52.850
100
50 52.800
0 52.750
0 10 20 30 0 100 200 300 400 500
Inlet velocity [m/s] Pressure drop [Pa]

Figure 8: Graph of Simulated Pressure Figure 9: Graph of Overall Collection

Efficiency
Drop against Inlet velocity against Simulated Pressure drop

Cyclone body diameter analysis

The graphs obtained from the simulated results are also shown in figures (12-15). From figure
(12) we see that the response of the simulated pressure drops at constant velocity of (10m/s) was
quite minimal and not definite to the changes in the value of the cyclone body diameter. Slight
increase was seen until it peaked at around 0.2m then further increase in the values of the
diameter resulted in continuous slight decline in the pressure drop, while in figure (13) for the
theoretical results we see a very drastic decline from the reference value (lower diameter up to
0.075m) but about 0.2m diameter again it declined less steeply and eventually became somewhat
irresponsive at about diameter of 0.3m.
 Theoretical ∆P against Inlet Fractional efficiency ( η )
velocity against Inlet velocity pj
1000 94.000
900 92.000
Pressure drop [Pa]

800
700 90.000
600 88.000
500 86.000

]
ηpj[ %
400
300 84.000
200 82.000
100 80.000
0
0 10 20 30 78.000

Inlet velocity [m/s] 76.000

0 10 20 30
∆P_down [Pa] ∆P_up [Pa] Inlet velocity [m/s]

Figure 10: Graph of Theoretical Pressure Figure 11: Graph of Fractional Efficiency
Drop against Inlet velocity against Inlet velocity

Simulated ∆P against D Theoretical ∆P against D

55.3
6000
Pressure drop [Pa]

55.25
5000
Pressure drop [Pa]

55.2
55.15 4000
55.1 3000
55.05 2000
55 1000
54.95
0
54.9
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
54.85
54.8 Cyclone body diameter [m]
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
∆P_down [Pa] ∆P_up [Pa]
Cyclone body diameter, D [m]

Figure 12: Graph of Simulated Pressure Figure 13: Graph of Theoretical Pressure Drop
Drop against Cyclone body Diameter against Cyclone body Diameter

In the case of the overall collection efficiency, figure (14) showed a similar trend to that of figure
(12) except that no decline was seen until after the pressure drop value of 55.2598Pa
corresponding to the diameter of about 0.255m and this decline was even more minimal (about
0.001%) compared to the case of the pressure drop response. In figure (15) we see a more
continuous decline in the theoretical fractional efficiency (averagely about 5% decline for each
change).

Overall efficiency against Fractional efficiency ( η )

∆P against D pj
Overall cyclone efficiency [%]

53 100.000

52.95 80.000

52.9 60.000

]
ηpj[ %
52.85 40.000

52.8 20.000

52.75 0.000
54.8 54.9 55 55.1 55.2 55.3 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
Pressure drop [Pa] Cyclone body diameter [m]

Figure 14: Graph of Overall Collection Efficiency Figure 15: Graph of Fractional Efficiency
against Simulated Pressure Drop against Cyclone body Diameter

Particle density analysis (lower velocity of 10m/s)

The graphs obtained from the results are also shown in figures (16 and 17). For the pressure drop
across the Cyclone separator there was slight impact by varying the particle density at the
constant velocity (10m/s), in fact; for the density values below 2710kg/m3; there was no change
at all on the pressure drop. There was only slight increase from the density value of 2710 to 3320
kg/m3. The exact same trend was observed for the overall collection efficiency shown in figure
(16), then for the theoretical fractional efficiency in figure (17) we see a gradual but continuous
increase in the efficiency as the particle density increases.

Particle Density analysis (higher velocity of 27m/s)

The graphs obtained from the results are also shown in figures (18 and 19). In figure (18) we see
a contrary trend to that of the lower velocity (at 10m/s), for the results obtained from the
simulation. Contrarily, the trend of the theoretical fractional efficiency in figure (19) remained
similar to that of the first case (at 10m/s); although the magnitude of changes in the fractional
efficiencies as the particle densities changed was observed to also reduce, but the same slight
upward trend is seen.
 Overall efficiency against Particle Fractional efficiency ( η )
density against Particle density pj
52.9 90.000
80.000
Overall efficiency [%]

52.88
70.000
52.86
60.000
52.84

]
50.000

ηpj[ %
52.82 40.000
52.8 30.000
20.000
52.78 10.000
52.76 0.000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Particle density [kg/m 3
] Particle density [kg/m 3 ]

Figure 16 : Graph of Overall collection efficiency Figure 17 : Graph of Fractional Efficiency

against Particle density (at 10m/s) against Particle Density (at 10m/s)

Fractional efficiency ( η )
Overall efficiency against Particle pj

density
94.000
Overall efficiency [%]

52.775
92.000
52.77
90.000
]

52.765
ηpj[ %

88.000
52.76 86.000
52.755 84.000
52.75 82.000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Particle density [kg/m3] Particle density [kg/m3 ]

against Particle density

Figure 18: Graph of Overall collection efficiency Figure 19: Graph of Fractional efficiency
against Particle density (at 27m/s) against Particle density (at 27m/s)

Conclusion
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is an insightful tool for analyzing and predicting the
behavior of particles in motion within a cyclone separator and by using CFD simulations on
ANSYS, it is possible to accurately predict the flow patterns and separation efficiency of a
cyclone separator for a specified set of operating conditions. From the analysis carried out in this
study, the following conclusions could be made;
The magnitude of the inlet velocity of the process stream has a significant impact on the pressure
drop across a Cyclone separator and its overall collection efficiency. The pressure drop increases
with increasing magnitude of inlet velocity and the same effect would be implemented on the
overall collection efficiency.
The impact of cyclone body diameter on the pressure drop across the Cyclone separator and its
overall collection efficiency (at a constant velocity) is somewhat indefinite at much lower
diameter (about less than 0.2m) and would depend on several other conditions and parameters to
significantly influence the cyclone performance. Beyond that size the influence of cyclone body
diameter would be seen, though minimal; to reduce the pressure drop and overall collection
efficiency of the cyclone. At some point (possibly beyond 0.3m) the effect becomes negligible.
For the particle density, its impact on the pressure drops and overall collection efficiency is only
significant for particles of higher density and negligible for particles of lesser density. At lower
velocity (about 10m/s) the pressure drops and overall collection efficiency would increase
slightly as the particle sizes increase, but at higher velocity (about 30m/s) the pressure drop and
overall collection efficiency would tend to decrease slightly as the particle sizes increase. If the
mixture is a composite mixture, containing different kinds of particles; then a lower inlet velocity
would provide higher efficiency of the Cyclone separator to collect aggregates of the
components, but this is subject to further studies.
Generally, the results of the specific parameters for the theoretical model differ quite significantly
from those obtained from the simulation model (many times close to twice more or less) and the
former being more sensitive to the variation in the inlet parameters, although similar trends were
observed in most of the responses to the changes in the input parameters. Thus, none of the
analysis may be sufficient enough to neglect the need for analysis being carried out on a real
cyclone model. The magnitude of the inlet velocity should be considered primarily and then with
the best fit of cyclone body diameter, the density of the particle(s) to be separated may also be
taken into consideration for the actual Cyclone separator design, after further analysis have been
carried out on the real model.
Recommendation
Based on this study, some recommendations have been suggested for optimum Cyclone separator
design and as basis for further studies:
First, further study and analysis should be carried out on real Cyclone separator models.
This is to ascertain the conclusions made from this study of the theoretical model and the CFD
simulation model.
More system conditions and parameters (such as temperature, etc.) should be considered for
further CFD analysis for the Cyclone separator. Also, more variations in the input parameters
should be carried out for the different analysis to obtain more results for better observations,
inferences and further study the consistency of the results.
Possibly, the inlet velocity, cyclone body diameter, and particle density should be considered
simultaneously in the CFD analysis, to more effectively; study their influences on the pressure
drop across the Cyclone separator and its overall collection efficiency relative to each other.
Theoretical model and CFD simulation model results should not form the only basis for the
implementation of a Cyclone separator design, due to the inconsistency and low correlation of
the results relative to both models. Further analysis should be carried out on a real model before
finally implementing the actual design.

References
Alexander, R. McK. (1949): Fundamentalsof Cyclone Design and Operation, Proc. Australas.
Inst. Min. Metall., vol. 152/3, pp. 202-228.
Caplan. K.J. (1968): Source Control byCentrifugal Force and Gravity, in A.C. Stern, ed., “Air
Pollution,” vol. 3, chap. 43, pp. 366-377, Academic Press, Inc., New York.
Crawford, Martin (1976). Air Pollution Control Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, U.S.A.
Donggeun Park and Jeung Sang Go (2020). ‘Design of a Cyclone Separator Critical Diameter
Model, based on Machine Learning and CFD’. Research Gate.
Gilbert M. Masters and Wendell P. Ela (2014). Introduction to Environmental Engineering and
Science, 3rd ed. Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate Harlow.
Hoffmann, A. and Stein, L. (2008). Gas Cyclones and Swirl Tubes: Principles, Design, and
Operation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
J.F. Richardson, J.H. Harker and J.R. Backhurst (2002). Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical
Engineering, vol. 2, 5th ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Shepherd, C.B. and Lapple, C.E. (1939). ‘Flow Pattern and Pressure Drop in Cyclone Dust
Collectors.’ Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 31, 972-984.
Shepherd, C.B. and C.E. Lapple. (1940). ‘Flow Pattern and Pressure Drop in Cyclone Dust
Collectors.’ Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 32, 9, 1246–1248.
Slack, M. D., Prasad, R. O., Bakker, A. and Boysan, F. (2000). ‘Advances in cyclone modelling
using unstructured grids.’ Trans. I. Chem. E. 78 (Part A), 1098.
Stairmand, C. J. (1949). ‘Pressure Drop in cyclone separators.’ Engineering, 168: 409.
Stairmand, C. J. (1951). ‘The design and performance of cyclone separators.’ Trans IChemE,
29:356-383.