See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339217372

Studies on Separation Efficiency and Energy Conservation Through Novel

Finned Cyclone Separator

Article in Journal of Heat Transfer · February 2020

DOI: 10.1115/1.4046303

CITATIONS READS

8 231

2 authors, including:

Mahesh Dasar
Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani
5 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahesh Dasar on 16 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Studies on Separation Efficiency
and Energy Conservation
Through Novel Finned
Cyclone Separator

Mahesh Dasar
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
BITS PILANI—K K Birla Goa Campus,
NH-17(B), Air Port Road, Zuarinagar,
Goa 403726, India
e-mail: P20150015@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in
Ranjit S. Patil1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
BITS PILANI—K K Birla Goa Campus,
NH-17(B), Air Port Road, Zuarinagar,
Goa 403726, India
e-mail: ranjitp@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
In the present study, cylindrical portion of conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator
was reshaped by fixing triangular, semicircular, and rectangular cross section helical
fins in order to make it as water wall having fin size 7 mm with fin pitch of 40 mm to
improve its separation efficiency and to utilize the cyclone separator as heat exchanger.
Fluid dynamic characteristics like axial velocity, tangential velocity, pressure drops were
studied by varying the fin geometry (triangular/semicircular/rectangular). For the par-
ticles’ size less than 3 lm, proposed cyclone separator with triangular helical fin was giv-
ing comparatively improved collection efficiency than other selected cyclone separators.
Improvement in the collection efficiency of triangular fin-based cyclone separators was
perceived from 5% to 10% over the conventional cyclone separator. Hence, helical fins
with triangular in cross section were selected further for heat transfer and scale-up stud-
ies. It was observed that for the small barrel wall height (h ¼ 400 mm) water temperature
was enhanced by 4  C, and with scale-up (making h ¼ 800 mm) it was increased consider-
ably around 15  C. Thus based on improved separation efficiency to capture very-fine
particulate matter (PM 2.5, which otherwise causes serious health issues) and consider-
able temperature gain of water noted at lab level scale-up study, triangular helical fins
may be to fixed on the inner surface of barrel wall of conventional (nonfinned) cyclone
separators in order to use them as heat exchanger for energy conservation in industrial
applications. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4046303]

Keywords: finned cyclone separator, heat transfer, helical fins, scale-up, separation
efficiency

1 Background separation efficiency a mathematical model was established by

Avci and Karagoz [12].
Cyclone separators are useful devices to separate the particles
The heat transfer increases with the inlet rate at all surfaces and
from the gases mainly employed in electricity generating units
decreases to the cone apex as reported by Karagoz and Kaya [13].
having fluidized bed boilers and in other industries such as cement
Few researchers [14,15] has reported the effects of adding the fins
industries. This is very important function in order to collect the
on heat transfer characteristics. Various parameters such as par-
very-fine particles to reduce the environmental pollution also to
ticles and gas velocity which influences on the heat transfer rate
circulate the uncombusted coal particles back to the riser in case
by suspending the fins inside the barrel drum of the cyclone sepa-
of circulating fluidized bed boilers. Conventional cyclone separa-
rators’ were reported by Nag and Gupta [14]. Exterior fins fitted at
tors’ wall temperature remains very high due to hot gases, causing
the gas-outlet region in order to increase the heat transfer rate in
heat losses from their wall. In the cyclone separator, a higher
the cyclone separators were reported by Bodo [15]. Cyclone sepa-
percentage of this heat loss can be recovered and used for water
rators’ separation efficiency improvement was reported by
heating as reported by Nwokolo et al. [1]. In this way, energy con-
Mariani et al. [16] by changing the conicity angle and length of
servation increases boiler efficiency [2]. Therefore, to make the
vortex finder. By changing the structural designs of the conven-
cyclone separators as energy conservation device, proper arrange-
tional cyclone separator to improve the repeatedly sinking permit-
ments are needed which affects their fluid mechanics characteris-
ted limits of suspended fine particles in atmosphere were reported
tics and subsequently heat transfer performance [3]. Fluid
by Wasilewski [17], and they have presented total of 57 different
dynamic characteristics like axial velocity, pressure drop, tangen-
geometric configurations of cyclone separators. Variation in heat
tial velocity, etc., are reported in detail through the computational
transfer frequency with air inlet velocity. It has been found that
study which influences the collection efficiency of the cyclone
the heat transfer rate increases with the air inlet frequency as
separators [4–8]. Literature reports the two-phase flow simulations
reported by Thulasiraman and Pitchandi [18]. Particles’ concen-
on the cyclone separator in order to study the behavior of two-
tration, drop in pressure, and heat transfer characteristics for the
phase flow and its influence on the collection efficiency [9–11]. It
cement cyclone was reported by Mikulcic et al. [19]. Structural
was reported that the separation efficiency of cyclone separators
changes made to improve the separation efficiency and around 57
sinks by increasing cylinder diameter, mixture inlet area, and size
geometrical configurations have been proposed by Wasilewski
of top gas-outlet [9–11]. In order to predict cyclone separators’
and Duda [20].
1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL
OF HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received July 10, 2019; final manuscript received 1.1 Research Gap (Scope for Present Work). Thus, litera-
December 7, 2019; published online February 27, 2020. Assoc. Editor: Guihua Tang. ture review [2–20] gives lots of data on the separation/collection

Journal of Heat Transfer Copyright V

C 2020 by ASME APRIL 2020, Vol. 142 / 042104-1
efficiency, heat-transfer and fluid mechanics properties of conven- Dij is diffusive transport term
tional (nonfinned) cyclone separators through experimental or !
numerical studies. Studies on turbulent behavior and heat transfer @ lt @u0i u0j
performance were also reported in the literature [14,15] for the Dij ¼  (3a)
@xk rk @xk
fin-based cyclone separators. Such fins were either suspended in
the barrel or fixed on the vortex finder of the cyclone separator. Pij is generation of stress term
However, the effects of helical fins of different cross section  
(such as triangular, semicircular, and rectangular) mounted on the @uj @ui
Pij ¼ q u0i u0k þ u0j u0k (3b)
inner surface of cylindrical portion of the cyclone separators on @xk @xk
the heat transfer and various fluid dynamic characteristics such as
axial and tangential velocities, axial pressure drops, and separa- /ij is pressure-strain correlation term:

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
tion efficiency have not been reported yet either by experimental !
study or by numerical study. However, while making cyclone sep- @u0i @u0j
/ij ¼ P þ (3c)
arator as heat exchanger via helical fins for possible heat loss @xj @xi
reduction from its hot wall, it is important to understand its fluid-
dynamic characteristics, since heat transfer characteristics are the eij is dissipative term:
function of them and also one should not forget main function of
separating particles from gases, which should not be altered or @u0i @u0j
affected (separation efficiency should not be decreased). eij ¼ 2l (3d)
Hence, this paper is investigating the best (optimal) helical fin’s @xk @xk
cross section out of triangular, rectangular, and semicircular
which were fixed on the inner surface of the conventional (non-
finned) cyclone separators’ barrel wall, which results in compara- 2.1 Discrete Phase Model. As the particles hit cyclone wall
tively improved collection/separation efficiency than conventional soon after entering through the gas-inlet, the particles affected by
(nonfinned) cyclone separator. It also compares fluid dynamic the centrifugal force having the higher inward drag force are
characteristics of three selected fin-based cyclone separators with forced to move downward, similarly the particles’ having the
nonfinned cyclone separator. It also investigates the effect of opti- lower inward drag force than the centrifugal force starts moving
mal fin-based cyclone separator on its heat transfer characteristics in upward direction. The particles affected by centrifugal force
such as gain in temperature of water flowing inside the optimal having the equal inward drag force to centrifugal force, they start
fin. Also, effects of scale-up of optimal fin-based cyclone separa- rotating in equilibrium and starts moving down and hits the slant
tor on its separation efficiency and temperature gain were edge of the cyclone separator and are collected at the bottom
predicted. (solid-outlet) of cyclone separator. Two-phase flow was modeled
with discrete phase model which is Eulerian–Lagrangian approach
2 Numerical Method in ANSYS-FLUENT 15.0.
Isolated particles’ flow simulation is performed with the help of
Two-phase flow simulations for the novel fin-based cyclone particle tracking method. Separation efficiency was obtained using
separators’ were accomplished with the help of ANSYS-FLUENT 15 Eulerian–Lagrangian approach [28]. Particle motion equation
research code. Turbulent flow was considered in the present study used was
since Reynolds number was calculated as 72,189 based on the
flow inlet criteria as reported by Elsayed and Lacor [21]. Reynolds dupi gi ðqp  qÞ
¼ FD ðui  upi Þ þ (4)
stress model was used in the present study since it is the most dt qp
opted turbulence model [4,5,7,8,21–23] over the k–e turbulence
models for the simulations of the complex swirling flows in the dxpi
¼ upi (5)
cyclone separator. dt
Most of the industries for the turbulent flow simulations uses
Reynolds stress model [24]. Reynolds stress model is best suitable where FD ðui  upi Þ is the drag force per unit particle mass
turbulence model for the complex three-dimensional simulations 18l CD Rep
which are having strong streamline curvature, swirling motion FD ¼ (6)
with rotational flow [25]. qp dp2 24
Three-dimensional conservation equation for the steady, incom-
pressible, and isothermal flow as described by Safikhani et al. [26] qp dp ju  up j
Rep ¼ (7)
and Hesham [27] l
@u i
¼0 (1) Drag coefficient CD is a function of relative Reynolds numbers,
@xj which is in the form of
   CD ¼ 24=Rep For 0 < Rep  1
@ ðu i Þ @P @ @u i @u j @sij (8)
quj ¼ þ l þ þ (2) CD ¼ 24=Rep ð1 þ 0:15Re0:687 Þ For 0 < Rep  1000
@xj @xi @xj @xj @xi @xj p

where u i and u j are mean velocity in i and j directions, respec- 2.2 Modeling. When the barrel height and conical length are
tively, xj is the position, P is the mean pressure, q is the constant double the barrel diameter; Lapple proposed it as a 2D2D type
gas density, and sij is the Reynolds stress tensor given by cyclone separators[29]. The 2D2D type cyclone separator was
sij ¼ qu0i u0j . witnessed as highly performable and highly preferable in many
industries among all other types of cyclone separator available
The Reynolds stress model transport equation [27,28] can be [30]. In the present study, 2D2D type conventional (nonfinned)
written as cyclone separator (Fig. 1) was used with geometrical dimensions
shown in Table 1. Three geometries were proposed: triangular,
@  
uk quk u0i u0j ¼ Dij þ Pij þ /ij  eij (3) semicircular, and rectangular geometries as shown in Fig. 2 which
@xk are fixed on the inner surface of barrel wall (cylindrical portion)

042104-2 / Vol. 142, APRIL 2020 Transactions of the ASME


Fig. 1 Conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator (all dimen-
sions are in mm)
Table 1 The 2D2D type cyclone separators’ geometrical
dimensions ratio
D H/D h/D De/D B/D S/D a/D b/D
200 mm 4 2 0.5 0.25 0.625 0.25 0.5
of conventional (nonfinned) 2D2D Lapple type cyclone separator.
These fins are having the solid rectangular base on which fins
were fitted. Each fin has solid base width 5 mm and 10 mm height
as shown in Fig. 2. Fin has the hollow helical pathway in which
water flows to extract the heat from hot gas flowing inside the
cyclone separator. Triangular fin has hollow triangular portion of
size 7 mm to carry water (Fig. 2), similarly 7 mm in size for rec-
tangular fin and circular fin as shown in Fig. 2. The main aim of
changing the fin geometry is to find the optimal fin in term of sep-
aration efficiency with supporting fluid-dynamic characteristics
which helps in improving the overall performance of cyclone
separator which subsequently will be used as heat exchanger.
2.3 Meshing. Meshing was accomplished with the help of
ANSYS-ICEMCFD 15.0 meshing tool. Unstructured hybrid mesh was
created with hexahedral cells at core regime of cyclone separator
and three-layered prismatic cells to capture boundary layer
Journal of Heat Transfer
physics near the wall. Tetrahedral cells were used to connect pris-
matic and hexahedral cells. Mesh quality above 0.2 was achieved
for all sets (3) of proposed fin-based cyclone separators and over-
all around 80% mesh quality having the range from 0.9 to 1.
2.4 Computational Details. In the present work, Reynolds
stress model was enabled. Near wall treatment was carried out
using the scalable-wall function with standard constants.
Simulation parameter settings used in the simulation of three sets
of fin-based (triangular/semicircular/rectangular) cyclone separa-
tors and conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separators are given in
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
Table 2. Mixture inlet (as shown in Fig. 1) through which
gas þ solid mixture enters the cyclone separator was given as
velocity-inlet boundary conditions with 20 m/s velocity magnitude
constant with 3% turbulence intensity and hydraulic diameter as
0.06 m was used [8,31].
Pressure-outlet boundary condition was applied at gas-outlet
with 3% turbulent intensity and hydraulic diameter as 0.1 m. No-
slip wall boundary condition was chosen for the solid outlet and
cyclone body. Solution was controlled using 40 as flow courant
number, explicit relaxation factor as 0.6 for the pressure and 0.08
for the momentum.
In the present study, steady-state solver with Reynolds stress
model was utilized by setting the convergence criteria as 105
since many researchers [8,18,31,32] have implemented it. Study
on the flow behavior by changing the outflow length was proposed
by Wang et al.[8]. They have conducted steady and unsteady-state
simulations on the cyclone separator and observed that the
unsteady-state solver may affect slightly on the flow-field
behavior. However, qualitatively and quantitatively, axial and
tangential-velocity profiles were noted to be very close for the
steady and unsteady-state solver.
2.5 Mesh Dependency and Validation. Dependency of
mesh volume variations on the results was carried out for the con-
ventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator. Meshing was performed
in ICEM 15.0 research code from Ansys using the same meshing
parameters used during the simulation of fin-based cyclone sepa-
rators. Simulations were started with 337 K nodes and did the
mesh independence study by almost doubling the mesh density
such as 617 K nodes, 1200 K nodes. Simulations were performed
in the ANSYS FLUENT 15.0 research code with the same solver set-
ting which were used while simulating the fin-based cyclone sepa-
rator simulation. The simulation work was performed on the
617 K grids for the conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator.
As observed, the tangential-velocity profiles obtained at distance
650 mm from the solid outlet with 617 K and 1200 K nodes were
almost close while computational time was nearly doubling with
1200 K nodes when compared to 617 K nodes. Therefore, without
compromising the accuracy of the results and also to be with
lower computational time, 617 K nodes were chosen to validate
the results with experimental results of Wang et al. [8].
Validation of the simulation settings used while performing the
computational work for conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separa-
tor was carried out using experimental data of Wang et al. [8] as
shown in the Fig. 3. As observed that, less than 10% difference
was observed between experimental tangential-velocity profile by
Wang et al. [8] and computational tangential-velocity data for
conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator carried out in the
present study.
2.6 Mesh Dependency Study for Triangular, Semicircular,
and Rectangular Fin-Based Cyclone Separators. Grid inde-
pendence study and other procedures described in Secs. 2.3–2.6
are also reported by Siddique et al. [33,34]; however, Reynolds
stress model was used as the turbulence model in the present study
since it is most suitable model as reported in the literature
[4,5,7,8,21,22] for the cyclone separators’ simulation. As the geo-
metrical section will change between triangular, semicircular, and
APRIL 2020, Vol. 142 / 042104-3
 Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
Fig. 2 Geometry of triangular, semicircular, and rectangular helical fin fixed on the inner surface of conventional cyclone
separator’s barrel wall

Table 2 Parameter setting used in the simulation

Name Condition Parameter Quantity

Medium Air Density 1.225 kg/m3

Viscosity 1.7894  105 kg/m s
Boundary Condition Inlet Velocity 20 m/s
Outlet Pressure 101325 Pa
Wall Stationary and no-slip —
Initialization Standard Turbulent kinetic energy 0.45 m2/s2
Turbulent dissipation rate 12.61 m2/s3
Calculation Steady-state Gravitational acceleration 9.81 m/s2

rectangular cross section, the mesh dependency on the results was

carried out with the same procedure as explained in Sec. 2.5.
Three different mesh volumes were created for triangular, circu-
lar, and rectangular fin geometries, respectively. For triangular
fin-based cyclone separator, numbers of nodes used were 376,707
(377 K), 584,898 (584 K), and 1,298,572 (1298 K), for semicircu-
lar fin-based cyclone separator, the numbers of nodes used were
332,624 (332 K), 584,773 (584 K), and 1,285,647 (1285 K), and
for rectangular fin-based cyclone separator, the numbers of nodes
used were 346,551(346 K), 605,024 (605 K), and 1,303,368
(1303 K).
Tangential-velocity data was taken along the radial direction
located at 650 mm measured from the solid outlet of the cyclone
separator for all three sets of fin-based cyclones separators. Three
tangential-velocity profiles were compared for each fin-based
(triangular, circular, and rectangular) cyclone separators, in each
of the cases; the nodes close to 600 K and nodes close to 1200 K
gave very close results for a particular geometry. Hence, to save
computational time without compromising the accuracy the mesh
closer to 600 K nodes in each case was chosen for the further
study as shown in the Table 3. Also, the Yþ value reported in
Fig. 3 Computational data validation Table 3 were suitable for Reynold’s stress model [35,36].

042104-4 / Vol. 142, APRIL 2020 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 3 Mesh volume used in simulations of fin-based cyclone separators
Fin shape Pitch size (mm) Fin size (mm)
Triangular 40 7 584
Circular 40 7 584
Rectangular 40 7 605
3 Results and Discussion—Part-I: Fluid Dynamics
Study
In this section, the output of triangular, semicircular, and rec-
tangular fin-based cyclone separators in terms of fluid dynamics
characteristics influencing the separation efficiency were dis-
cussed in detail. Also results of the fin-based cyclone separators
were compared with conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator.
3.1 Axial Velocity. Collection efficiency of cyclone separa-
tors is strongly influenced by axial velocity. Figure 4(a) shows the
comparison of axial-velocity profiles of triangular fin-based
cyclone separator with conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator
at various locations 300 mm, 500 mm, and 700 measured from the
bottom of cyclone separator. The different locations along the
Fig. 4 (a) Comparisons of axial-velocity profiles between trian-
gular fin-based cyclone separator and nonfinned cyclone sepa-
rator; (b) comparisons of axial-velocity profiles for three
different fin-based cyclone separators’
Journal of Heat Transfer
Chosen number of nodes (K) Yþ value measured
23.33
28.20
29.36
height of cyclone separator from where the axial-velocity data
were extracted are, 300 mm which is in cone region, 500 mm
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
which is at the end of cylindrical drum portion where helical fins
turn ends, and 700 mm which is just below the vortex finder in the
cylindrical region of cyclone separators. The axial-velocity pro-
files proposed by Wang et al. [8,37–40] are qualitatively similar to
those presented in the current study for fin-based cyclone separa-
tors and conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator.
As observed from Fig. 4(a) at 700 mm location because of the
swirling flow and centrifugal force inside the cyclone separators,
high self-weight particles were pushed toward wall and particles
within the region measured 40 mm from the wall were moving
downward as the axial velocity is observed to be negative, means
the axial velocity’s direction was in downward direction. In this
regime due to friction, axial velocity continuously decreases till
the end of barrel wall length of the cyclone separator and then
increases due to sloping edges of the conical regime.
Effects of fins’ shape variations at 700 mm location on axial-
velocity profile of fin-based cyclone separators is as shown in
Fig. 4(b). Influence of fins’ shape variations on axial velocity was
observed to be very minute as realized from Fig. 4(b). However,
as shown in Fig. 4(b), fins with triangular cross section were hav-
ing higher axial velocity in the upward direction at the core region
of cyclone separator. Hence, separation efficiency (Sec. 3.4) for
fins with triangular cross section was noted to be higher than that
of semicircular and rectangular fin-based cyclone separators.
3.2 Pressure Field: Axial Pressure Drop. Axial pressure
drop (DP) measured for all three sets of fin-based cyclone separa-
tors and conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator. Axial pres-
sure drop is the difference between the pressure measured at the
start of helical fin and the end of helical fins which is 208 mm and
493 mm, respectively. With the same locations (208 mm and
493 mm pressure measuring points) pressure difference was calcu-
lated for conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator. It should be
noted that pressure drop measured for triangular (320 Pa), semicir-
cular (341 Pa), and rectangular (372 Pa) fin-based cyclone separa-
tors varies with geometry and fin-based cyclone separator with
triangular fin geometry is lowest compared to semicircular and
rectangular fin-based cyclone separators. Pressure drop noted for
fin-based cyclone separator is higher when compared to conven-
tional (nonfinned) cyclone separator (176 Pa). Increase in the pres-
sure drop for fin-based cyclone separators is observed because of
additional frictional losses for the highly swirling flow inside the
cyclone separators with modification made with barrel wall (cylin-
drical portion) by fixing the helical fins. However, this loss can be
compensated through improvement noted in separation/collection
efficiency (Sec. 3.4).
3.3 Tangential Velocity. Solid þ air mixture flow inside the
cyclone separators will be dominated by tangential velocity creat-
ing sturdy shear in radial direction and that creates centrifugal
force which in-turn decides the particle separation [41]. Figure
5(a) shows the comparison of tangential-velocity profiles of trian-
gular fin-based cyclone separator with conventional (nonfinned)
cyclone separator at various locations (300 mm, 500 mm, and
700 mm) measured from the solid outlet along the height of the
cyclone separator. The different locations along the height
cyclone separators from where the tangential-velocity data was
extracted are, 300 mm which is in cone region, 500 mm which is
APRIL 2020, Vol. 142 / 042104-5
at the end of cylindrical drum portion where helical fin-turns ends
and 700 mm which is just below the vortex finder in the cylindri-
cal region of cyclone separators. The tangential-velocity profiles
trends were observed qualitatively same trend as investigated by
many researchers [42–47].
It is observed that tangential velocity in the region between
20 mm and 80 mm from the center of cyclone separator (both left
and right sides) is slightly higher compare to conventional (non-
finned) cyclone separator at 700 mm where the solid particles’
concentration was high, this in-turn helps in improved collection/
separation efficiency for the fin-based cyclone separators. It is
also observed from Fig. 5(a), as the tangential velocity of mixture
flow decreases as flow moves downward along the wall of cyclone
separator and becomes zero at 100 mm radial distance from the
center due to available friction between fluid and wall and no-slip
boundary condition, which helps solid particles’ stick to wall till it
reaches collection point (solid outlet at the bottom of the cyclone
separator).
Comparisons of tangential-velocity profile for three different
fin-based cyclone separators is shown in Fig. 5(b) which repre-
sents the effects of different fin geometry variations made at
500 mm measured from the solid-outlet. Influence of geometry
variations on tangential velocity was observed to be very minute
as realized from Fig. 5(b). However, tangential velocity for
Fig. 5 (a) Comparisons of tangential-velocity profiles between
triangular fin-based cyclone separator with nonfinned cyclone
separator; (b) comparisons of tangential-velocity profiles for
three different fin-based cyclone seoparators
042104-6 / Vol. 142, APRIL 2020
triangular fin-based cyclone separator is slightly higher than other
two fin-based cyclone separators, and the same was experienced
with higher collection/separation efficiency.
3.4 Separation/Collection Efficiency. Figure 6 reveals the
collection/separation efficiency comparisons between triangular/
semicircular/rectangular fin-based cyclone separators and conven-
tional (nonfinned) cyclone separator. The improvement in the col-
lection efficiency was noted for the triangular and other fin-based
cyclone separators over the conventional (nonfinned) cyclone sep-
arator because of the improved tangential velocity (as shown in
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
Fig. 5(a)) in the higher particle concentration region (close to inlet
of cyclone separator, i.e., about 700 mm measured from the bot-
tom of cyclone separator) where tangential velocity forces the par-
ticles toward wall. Hence, more particles were pushed toward
wall in fin-based cyclone separators than conventional (nonfinned)
cyclone separator. Subsequently, improved axial velocity
(Fig. 4(a)) which helps to push these particles in the downward
direction toward bottom solid-outlet.
Additionally, helical path formed between the subsequent turns
of the fin help to provide the space for the particles to gather and
to move downward toward following helical path. These particles
experiences additional frictional force due to fin other than fric-
tion caused due to cyclone separator’s wall which helps to avoid
their movement toward the central core of air jet moving in the
upward direction toward gas-outlet at the top.
Hence, the number of particles collected at the bottom of fin-
based cyclone separator was more than those with conventional
(nonfinned) cyclone separator. Also reversal of air jet takes place
close to the bottom solid outlet for the fin-based cyclone separa-
tors (341 mm above solid outlet for triangular fin, 347 mm for
semicircular fin, 377 mm for rectangular fin, and 454 mm for non-
fined cyclone separator), hence due to close reversal to solid outlet
chances of more particles’ separation were increased for triangular
fin-based cyclone separator having fin size 7 mm with 40 mm
pitch (Fig. 6). In this way, the triangular fin-based cyclone separa-
tor used in Secs. 4 and 5 to make the cyclone separators as heat
exchanger.
Important conclusions can be made from the fluid dynamic
study.
 Axial pressure drop was increased because of the helical fin
fixed on the inner surface of the cylindrical portion of the
cyclone separator. Axial pressure drop for the nonfinned
cyclone separator was 0.18 kPa, while it was observed in the
range of 0.32–0.37 kPa for the fin-based cyclone spectators.
Fig. 6 Comparisons of separation efficiency between fin-
based cyclone separator and cyclone separator without fin
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 7 Triangular fin-based geometry with heat transfer
arrangements
 Tangential velocity for the fin-based cyclone separators was
more than that observed for the conventional (nonfinned)
cyclone separator hence around 10% improvement in the col-
lection efficiency was observed for the fin-based cyclone sep-
arators for the very-fine particles of sizes varying in the
range of 1–2 lm.
 Large numbers of very-fine particles below 3.2 lm were sep-
arated in case of fin-based cyclone separators when com-
pared with conventional (nonfinned) cyclone separator which
subsequently helps to minimize environmental-pollution due
to very-fine particulate matter.
 Triangular fin-based cyclone separator gives comparatively
less axial pressure drop (0.32 kPa) than semicircular and rec-
tangular fin-based cyclone separators.
 For the particles below 3.2 lm, collection efficiency for the
triangular fin-based cyclone separator was observed to be
Fig. 8 Mass flow rate comparison along the cyclone separator barrel wall
Journal of Heat Transfer
more than that observed for the other selected (semicircular
and rectangular) fin-based cyclone separators.
 Therefore, in Secs. 4 and 5, triangular fined cyclone separator
is selected for the heat transfer study in view of utilizing it as
heat exchanger.
4 Heat Transfer Study
The triangular fined cyclone separator (Fig. 2) which was the
optimal fin-based cyclone separator was modeled further for the
heat transfer study as shown in Fig. 7. The same triangular fin
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
geometry which was used for the fluid dynamics study (Secs.
3.1–3.4) with additional water inlet and water outlet arrangements
as shown in Fig. 7.
4.1 Meshing. Meshing was accomplished with the help of
ANSYS-ICEMCFD 15.0 meshing tool. Unstructured hybrid mesh was
created with hexahedral cells at core regime of cyclone separator
and three-layered prismatic cells to capture boundary layer
physics near the wall. Tetrahedral cells were used to connect pris-
matic and hexahedral cells. Mesh quality above 0.2 was achieved
for all sets (six) of the proposed triangular fin-based cyclone sepa-
rators and overall around 80% mesh quality having the range from
0.9 to 1. The hollow helical triangular fin path way through which
water flows was filled with tetrahedral elements. The solid fin
base (rectangular size 10 mm  5 mm) on which the fins were fit-
ted was kept open, since it does not affect on the heat transfer
study. This rectangular helical slot will be useful during the manu-
facturing purpose to fix the triangular cross section helical fin
on it.
4.2 Simulation Methodology and Boundary Conditions.
Energy equation was kept on in addition to simulation methodol-
ogy and boundary conditions used during fluid dynamic study
(Secs. 3.1–3.4). Gas and solid mixture were entered at a 900  C
temperature constant with the velocity magnitude of 20 m/s and
turbulence specification method as intensity percentage (5%) with
a hydraulic diameter 0.06 m. Wall motion was kept stationary
with no-slip shear condition for cyclone wall and water flow wall
APRIL 2020, Vol. 142 / 042104-7
 Sh includes the heat of chemical reaction and any other volu-
metric heat sources you have defined.
Energy E for unit mass is defined as

p v2
E¼h þ (12)
q 2

where sensible enthalpy h is defined for ideal gases as

X
h¼ Yj hj (13)
j

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
and for incompressible flows as
X p
h¼ Yj hj þ (14)
j
q

In Eqs. (13) and (14), Yj is the mass fraction of species j and

Fig. 9 Contours of total temperature measured on the two
opposite sides of fin
(helical fin pathway) was kept with momentum boundary condi-
tion. Thermal boundary condition for water flow wall was chosen
with coupled heat transfer condition which is applicable only to
this helical fin wall having the thickness of 1.5 mm as steel mate-
rial which act as interface between two regions (inside water and
outside hot gasþsolid regions).
Fluent solves the energy equation (Energy transport equation)
in the following form:
ðT
hj ¼ cp;j dT (15)
Tref;j
were Tref is 298.15 K.
Water inlet boundary condition was taken as mass flowrate
with water entering at water inlet with 30  C temperature at
0.5 kg/s, 1 kg/s, 1.5 kg/s, 2 kg/s, 2.5 kg/s, and 3 kg/s mas flowrate
and turbulence intensity percentage (5%) with hydraulic diameter
(0.0044 m). Water outlet boundary condition were specified as
pressure-outlet with turbulence specification method as intensity
percentage (back flow turbulent intensity 5%) and hydraulic diam-
eter (0.0044 m).

@  X 
ðqEÞ þ r:ðmðqE þ pÞÞ ¼ r: keff rT  hj Jj þ ðs eff :vÞ þ Sh 4.3 Grid Independence Test. Grid independency test were
@t
carried out to check the dependency of grid on performance of tri-
(11) angular fined cyclone separator. Three different mesh volume
were created for triangular fin-based cyclone separator, for the
where keff is the effective conductivity (k þ kt where kt is the tur-
bulent thermal conductivity, defined according to the turbulence
model being used) Jj is the diffusion flux of species j.
The first three terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (11) represent
energy transfer due to conduction, species diffusion, and viscous
dissipation, respectively.

Fig. 10 Scale-up of fin-based cyclone separator by doubling Fig. 11 Contours of total temperature measured along the
the size (mm) length of helical fin for scaled-up fin-based cyclone separator

042104-8 / Vol. 142, APRIL 2020 Transactions of the ASME


Fig. 12 Comparison of collection efficiency for scaled-up tri-
angular fin-based and scaled-up nonfinned cyclone separators
first set numbers of nodes were 5,65,868 (565 K), for the second
set number of nodes were 7,58,088 (758 K), and for the third set
number of nodes were 12,51,461 (1251 K). Temperature of water
flowing inside the triangular fin was measured along the helical
path way of fin attached on the barrel wall for all three sets of
nodes. Temperature measured for all three sets of triangular fined
cyclone separator were compared, and it is observed that the tem-
perature measured for the 758 K nodes and 1251 K nodes were
close to each other. Hence, the mesh closer to 758 K nodes with
Fig. 13 Comparison of temperature measured along fin length for normal triangular fin-based
cyclone (Fig. 10) separator and scaled-up triangular fin-based cyclone separator (Fig. 10)
Journal of Heat Transfer
the Yþ value 22.33 was chosen for further heat transfer study in
the present paper.
5 Results and Discussion—Part-II: Energy
Conservation Through Temperature Gain
Conjugate heat transfer was observed while extracting heat
from the novel triangular fin-based cyclone separator which is
proposed in the present study. The convection heat transfer was
observed between the high temperature gas–solid mixture and
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
fins, then conduction heat transfer in the triangular helical fin
which is having thickness of 1.5 mm and again convection heat
transfer between the water flowing inside the triangular fin and
surface of the triangular fin. The heat will be transferred into the
cyclone separator body as the gas and solid mixture enters through
the inlet at 900  C temperature. The novel fin-based cyclone sepa-
rator having barrel wall with helical triangular fins attached in
which the water will be entering at a 30  C temperature as shown
in Fig. 7. Optimized water mass flow is necessary to extract the
maximum heat from the hot gas þ solid mixture flowing outside
the fin. Therefore, simulations were carried out in order to investi-
gate the optimized mass flowrate (kg/s) of water entering the heli-
cal fin triangular in cross section. Accordingly, six various mas
flow rates such as 0.5 kg/s, 1 kg/s, 1.5 kg/s, 2 kg/s, 2.5 kg/s, and
3 kg/s were tested. Results obtained on increase in temperature of
water are presented as shown in Fig. 8.
Water enters the helical pathway of triangular fin at 30  C
through the water inlet port, flows through 9 turns of helical fin
and finally reaches the water outlet port as shown in Fig. 7. As
shown in Fig. 9, per turn, temperature was measured at two points
separated by a distance approximately equal to diameter of
APRIL 2020, Vol. 142 / 042104-9
cylindrical portion (drum) of the cyclone separator. Thus, temper-
ature of water at 18 points along the helical fin is presented in
Fig. 8.
It was observed that temperature gain was increased with
decrease in mass flowrate of water. Temperature gain is the differ-
ence of water temperature measured at outlet and inlet of helical
fin. As shown in Fig. 8, maximum temperature gas was observed
as 3.77  C for the lowest mass flowrate 0.5 kg/s of water. Simi-
larly, minimum temperature gain was observed as 0.62  C for the
highest flowrate as 3 kg/s.
Scale-up study was also performed by doubling the size of fin-
based cyclone separator as shown in Fig. 10. As shown in Fig. 11,
reduction in temperature of gas–solid mixture is observed as it
moves downward since the water flowing inside the fin extracting
the heat from the gas–solid mixture hitting the fin.
As observed from Fig. 12, it was noted that even after scale-up,
fined cyclone separator gives comparatively more separation
efficiency than its corresponding nonfinned cyclone separator of
same size although it was observed that axial pressure drop calcu-
lated along the height of the barrel was observed to more for
scaled-up fin-based cyclone separator (320 Pa) than its scaled-up
nonfinned cyclone separator (172 Pa). This clearly indicates that
there was energy loss due to pressure drop in the scale-up fin-
based cyclone separator. However, it was compensated by
improved separation efficiency (Fig. 12) and considerable
improvement in the temperature gain of water due to scale-up as
shown in Figs. 10 and 13.
As shown in Fig. 13, at optimal mass flowrate of water—0.5 kg/s,
normal (without scale-up) fin-based cyclone separator (as shown in
Fig. 10) gives temperature gain of 3.77  C for the nine turns of
helical fin while its scaled-up version (as shown in Fig. 10) gives
considerable improvement in temperature gain as 14.5  C due to
increase in helical turns from 9 to 19 at lab-scale study. Hence, based
on improved separation efficiency and considerable gain in water
temperature, it is worth to attach helical fins with triangular cross
section on the inner wall of the cyclone separator considered under
scale-up in view of industrial applications.
Conclusions
 Three different geometrical cross-sections of helical fins
namely triangular, semicircular, and rectangular were fixed
on the inside surface of barrel wall of conventional cyclone
separator and tested.
 Under the same operating conditions, all three fin-based
cyclone separators were studied for fluid dynamic character-
istics in order to find out the optimized fin geometry in terms
of separation efficiency. Triangular fin gives comparatively
less axial pressure drop (0.32 kPa) and more separation effi-
ciency than other selected fin-based cyclone separators.
 Hence, triangular fin was recommended to use in the cyclone
separator for heat exchange purpose. Pressure drop was
observed around 0.18 kPa for nonfinned cyclone separator
was less than that for triangular fin-based cyclone separator
however separation efficiency was improved by 5–10% in
case of fin-based cyclone separator for the particle’s sizes
below 3 lm. This helps to reduce serious pollution and health
issues caused due to very-fine particulate matter (PM 2.5).
 Heat transfer study was carried out using optimized triangu-
lar fin-based cyclone separator with six different mass flow
rates was (water) in order to find the optimized water mass
flow rate in terms of highest water temperature gain.
 0.5 kg/s water mass flow rate was observed to be giving high-
est water temperature gain, which was 3.77  C with normal
(without scale-up) fin-based cyclone separator.
 Scale-up study was carried out on the triangular fin-based
cyclone separator in order to test the gain in water tempera-
ture. It is observed that with scale-up of triangular fin-based
cyclone separator, its separation efficiency remains higher
042104-10 / Vol. 142, APRIL 2020
than its corresponding nonfinned cyclone separator of same
size.
 Also, at lab-scale study, it was observed that due to scale-up
of triangular fin-based cyclone separator, its temperature
gain was considerably improved from 3.77  C to 14.5  C at
the same mass flow rate of water (0.5 kg/s).
 Hence, it is recommended to fix the helical triangular fin on
the inner surface of conventional cyclone separator barrel
wall in order improve the performance of cyclone separator
and use cyclone separator as heat exchanger for industrial
applications.
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
References
[1] Nwokolo, N., Mamphweli, S., and Makaka, G., 2016, “An Investigation
Into Heat Recovery From the Surface of a Cyclone Dust Collector
Attached to a Downdraft Biomass Gasifier,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 98, pp.
1158–1164.
[2] Gupta, A. V. S. S. K. S., and Nag, P. K., 2000, “Prediction of Heat Transfer
Coefficient in the Cyclone Separator of a CFB,” Int. J. Energy Res., 24(12),
pp. 1065–1079.
[3] Nag, P. K., and Singh, N. K., 1996, “Heat Transfer in the Cyclone Separator of
a Circulating Fluidized Bed,” Preprints of CFB-5, 5th International Conference
on Circulating Fluidized Beds, Beijing, China, Paper No. HM 11.
[4] Azadi, M., Azadi, M., and Ali, M., 2010, “A CFD Study of the Effect of
Cyclone Size on Its Performance Parameters,” J. Hazard. Mater., 182(1–3),
pp. 835–841.
[5] Hoekstra, A. J., Derksen, J. J., and Van Den Akker, H. E. A., 1999, “An Experi-
mental and Numerical Study of Turbulent Swirling Flow in Gas Cyclones,”
Chem. Eng. Sci., 54(13–14), pp. 2055–2065.
[6] Shi, L., and Bayless, D. J., 2007, “Comparison of Boundary Conditions for
Predicting the Collection Efficiency of Cyclones,” Powder Technol., 173(1),
pp. 29–37.
[7] Wan, G., Sun, G., Xue, X., and Shi, M., 2008, “Solids Concentration Simulation
of Different Size Particles in a Cyclone Separator,” Powder Technol., 183(1),
pp. 94–104.
[8] Wang, B., Xu, D. L., Chu, K. W., and Yu, A. B., 2006, “Numerical Study of
Gas–Solid Flow in a Cyclone Separator,” Appl. Math. Modell., 30(11),
pp. 1326–1342.
[9] Dietz, P. W., 1981, “Collection Efficiency of Cyclone Separator,” AIchE J.,
27(6), pp. 888–892.
[10] Trefz, M., and Muschelknautz, E., 1993, “Extended Cyclone Theory for Gas
Flows With High Solid Concentrations,” Chem. Eng. Technol., 16(3),
pp. 153–160.
[11] Zhou, L. X., and Soo, S. L., 1990, “Gas-Solid Flow and Collection of Solids in
a Cyclone Separator,” Powder Technol., 63(1), pp. 45–53.
[12] Avci, A., and Karagoz, I., 2003, “Effects of Flow and Geometrical Parameters
on the Collection Efficiency in Cyclone Separators,” J. Aerosol Sci., 34(7), pp.
937–955.
[13] Karagoz, I., and Kaya, F., 2007, “CFD Investigation of the Flow and Heat
Transfer Characteristics in a Tangential Inlet Cyclone,” Int. Commun. Heat
Mass Transfer., 34(9–10), pp. 1119–1126.
[14] Nag, P. K., and Gupta, A. V. S. S. K. S., 1999, “Fin Heat Transfer Studies in a
Cyclone Separator of a Circulating Fluidized Bed,” Heat Transfer Eng., 20(2),
pp. 28–34.
[15] Bodo, K., 1977, “Cyclone Separator Vortex Finder With Exterior Heat Fins,”
Canadian Patent File, Patent No. 780525.
[16] Mariani, F., Risi, F., and Grimaldi, C. N., 2017, “Separation Efficiency and
Heat Exchange Optimization in a Cyclone,” Sep. Purif. Technol., 179, pp.
393–402.
[17] Wasilewski, M., 2016, “Analysis of the Effects of Temperature and the Share
of Solid and Gas Phases on the Process of Separation in a Cyclone Suspension
Preheater,” Sep. Purif. Technol., 168, pp. 114–123.
[18] Thulasiraman, M., and Pitchandi, K., 2015, “Influence of Inlet Velocity
of Air and Solid Particle Feed Rate on Holdup Mass and Heat Transfer
Characteristics in Cyclone Heat Exchanger,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 29, pp.
4509–4518.
[19] Mikulcic, H., Vujanovic, M., Ashhab, M. A., and Duic, N., 2014, “Large Eddy
Simulation of a Two-Phase Reacting Swirl Flow Inside a Cement Cyclone,”
Energy., 75, pp. 89–96.
[20] Wasilewski, M., and Duda, J., 2016, “Multicriteria Optimisation of First-stage
Cyclones in the Clinker Burning System by Means of Numerical Modelling and
Experimental Research,” Powder Technol., 289, pp. 143–158.
[21] Elsayed, K., and Lacor, C., 2011, “The Effect of Cyclone Inlet Dimensions on
the Flow Pattern and Performance,” Appl. Math. Modell., 35(4),
pp. 1952–1968.
[22] Hanjalic, K., and Launder, B. E., 1972, “A Reynolds Stress Model of
Turbulence and Its Application to Thin Shear Flows,” J. Fluid Mech., 52(4), pp.
609–638.
[23] Parekh, J., and Rzehak, R., 2018, “Euler–Euler Multiphase CFD-Simulation
With Full Reynolds Stress Model and Anisotropic Bubble-Induced
Turbulence,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 99, pp. 231–245.
Transactions of the ASME
 [24] Slack, M., D., Prasad, R. O., Bakker, A., and Boysan, F., 2000, “Advances in
Cyclone Modelling Using Unstructured Grids,” Trans IChemE, 78(8),
pp. 1098–1104.
[25] ANSYS, 2018, “Modeling Turbulent Flow, Introductory Fluent Training,” ANSYS
Inc., Canonsburg, PA, Accessed Oct. 7, 2018, http://www.southampton.ac.uk/
~nwb/lectures/GoodPracticeCFD/Articles/Turbulence_Notes_Fluent-v6.3.06.pdf
[26] Safikhani, H., Akhavan-Behabadi, M. A., Shams, M., and Rahimyan, M. H.,
2010, “Numerical Simulation of Flow Field in Three Types of Standard
Cyclone Separators,” Adv. Powder Technol., 21(4), pp. 435–442.
[27] El-Batsh, H. M., 2013, “Improving Cyclone Performance by Proper Selection
of the Exit Pipe,” Appl. Math. Modell., 37(7), pp. 5286–5303.
[28] Zhao, B., Su, Y., and Zhang, J., 2006, “Simulation of Gas Flow Pattern and
Separation Efficiency in Cyclone With Conventional Single and Spiral Double
Inlet Configuration,” Trans IChemE, Part A, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 84(12),
pp. 1158–1165.
[29] Lapple, C. E., 1951, “Processes Use Many Collector Types,” Chem. Eng., 58,
pp. 144–151.
[30] Mothilal, T., Pitchandi, K., Velukumar, V., and Parthiban, K., 2018, “CFD and
Statistical Approach for Optimization of Operating Parameters in a Tangential
Cyclone Heat Exchanger,” J. Appl. Fluid Mech., 11(2), pp. 459–466.
[31] Udaya Bhaskar, K., Rama Murthy, Y., Ravi Raju, M., Tiwari, S., Srivastava, J.
K., and Ramakrishnan, N., 2007, “CFD Simulation and Experimental Valida-
tion Studies on Hydrocyclone,” Miner. Eng., 20(1), pp. 60–71.
[32] Rama Murthy, Y., and Udaya Bhaskar, K., 2012, “Parametric CFD Studies on
Hydrocyclone,” Powder Technol., 230, pp. 36–47.
[33] Siddique, W., Shevchuk, I. V., El-Gabry, L., Hushmandi, N. B., and Fransson,
T. H., 2013, “On Flow Structure, Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in Varying
Aspect Ratio Two-Pass Rectangular Channel With Ribs at 45 ,” Heat Mass
Transfer., 49(5), pp. 679–694.
[34] Siddique, W., El-Gabry, L., Shevchuk, I. V., Hushmandi, N. B., and Fransson,
T. H., 2012, “Flow Structure, Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in Varying
Aspect Ratio Two-Pass Rectangular Smooth Channels,” Heat Mass Transfer,
48(5), pp. 735–748.
[35] Ansys, Inc., 2017, ANSYS Workbench Help, Release 17.0, ANSYS, Canons-
burg, PA.
Journal of Heat Transfer
View publication stats
[36] Jihe, C., Zhong-An, J., and Jushi, C., 2018, “Effect of Inlet Air Volumetric
Flow Rate on the Performance of a Two-Stage Cyclone Separator,” ACS
Omega, 3, pp. 13219–13226.
[37] M’Bouana, N. L. P., Lia, D.,Tanga, Y., Yang, T., and Lu, H., 2013, “Numerical
Simulation of Gas and Particle Flow in Cyclone Separators,” AIP Conf. Proc.,
1547, pp. 545–554.
[38] Farzad, P., Seyyed, H. H., Goodarz, A., and Khairy, E., 2017, “Impacts of the
Vortex Finder Eccentricity on the Flow Pattern and Performance of a Gas
Cyclone,” Sep. Purif. Technol., 187, pp. 1–13.
[39] Dzmitry, M., Anders, G. A., and Tord, S. L., 2015, “Effects of the Inlet Angle
on the Flow Pattern and Pressure Drop of a Cyclone With Helical-Roof Inlet,”
Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 102, pp. 307–321.
[40] Sakura, G. B., and Andrew, Y. T. L., 2015, “CFD Simulation of
Cyclone Separators to Reduce Air Pollution,” Powder Technol., 286, pp.
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/heattransfer/article-pdf/142/4/042104/6488482/ht_142_04_042104.pdf by Birla Institute of Tech & Science-Pilani user on 10 May 2020
488–506.
[41] Cortes, C., and Gil, A., 2007, “Modeling the Gas and Particle Flow Inside
Cyclone Separators,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 33(5), pp. 409–452.
[42] Faqi, Z., Guogang, S., Yuming, Z., Hui, C., and Qing, W., 2018, “Experimental
and CFD Study on the Effects of Surface Roughness on Cyclone Performance,”
Sep. Purif. Technol., 193, pp. 175–183.
[43] Kumar, V., and Jha, K., 2018, “Numerical Investigations of the Cone-Shaped
Vortex Finders on the Performance of Cyclone Separators,” J. Mech. Sci.
Technol., 32(11), pp. 5293–5303.
[44] Bunyawanichakul, P., Kirkpatrick, M. P., Sargison, J. E., and Walker, G. J.,
2006, “Numerical and Experimental Studies of the Flow Field in a Cyclone
Dryer,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128(6), pp. 1240–1250.
[45] Akiyama, O., and Kato, C., 2017, “Numerical Investigations of Unsteady Flows
and Particle Behavior in a Cyclone Separator,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 139(9),
p. 091302.
[46] Jafari, P. H., Misiulia, D., Hellstrom, J. G. I., and Gebart, B. R., 2019,
“Modeling of Particle-Laden Cold Flow in a Cyclone Gasifier,” ASME J. Fluids
Eng., 141(2), p. 021302.
[47] Zhou, H., Hu, Z., Zang, Q., Wang, Q., and Lv, W., 2019, “Numerical Study on
Gas-Solid Flow Characteristics of Ultra-Light Particles in a Cyclone Separa-
tor,” Powder Technol., 3441, pp. 784–796.
APRIL 2020, Vol. 142 / 042104-11