Professional Documents
Culture Documents
00
# 2006 Institution of Chemical Engineers
www.icheme.org/cherd Trans IChemE, Part A, June 2006
doi: 10.1205/cherd.05111 Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 84(A6): 495 505
C
FD simulations of the 75 mm hydrocyclone of Hsieh (1988) have been conducted
using FluentTM. The simulations used 3-dimensional body fitted grids. The simu-
lations were two phase simulations where the air core was resolved using the mixture
(Manninen et al., 1996) and VOF (Hirt and Nichols, 1981) models. Velocity predictions
from large eddy simulations (LES), using the Smagorinsky Lilly sub grid scale model
(Smagorinsky, 1963; Lilly, 1966) and RANS simulations using the differential Reynolds
stress turbulence model (Launder et al., 1975) were compared with Hsiehs experimental vel-
ocity data. The LES simulations gave very good agreement with Hsiehs data but required
very fine grids to predict the velocities correctly in the bottom of the apex. The DRSM/
RANS simulations under predicted tangential velocities, and there was little difference
between the velocity predictions using the linear (Launder, 1989) and quadratic (Speziale
et al., 1991) pressure strain models. Velocity predictions using the DRSM turbulence
model and the linear pressure strain model could be improved by adjusting the pressure
strain model constants.
495
496 BRENNAN
simulations (LES) and the differential Reynolds stress model (Manninnen et al., 1996) was used to simulate
turbulence model (DRSM) are compared Hsiehs (1988) medium segregation (Brennan, 2003), but it was apparent
LDA data. that medium segregation was over predicted.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE 497
containing the six unknown stresses which must be equations for the shear components of the Reynolds stres-
modelled: ses. Modelling Pij has been the subject of much research
and most workers have taken the approach where Pij is
@ r @ rui the sum of slow and fast terms (Wilcox, 1996):
0 (1)
@t @xi
@ @ @uk
( rui ) (rui uj ) Pij Aij Mijkl (6)
@t @xj @xl
@ @ Both the slow pressure strain term Aij and the fast pressure
p (tmij tij ) rgi (2)
@xi @xj strain term Mijkl are assumed to be functions of the magni-
tude of what is commonly called the Reynolds stress aniso-
The Differential Reynolds Stress Turbulence Model tropy tensor bij:
(DRSM)
u0i u0j 2=3kdij
The RANS simulations in this study have used the FluentTM bij (7)
implementation of the DRSM which is based on the Launder 2k
et al. (1975) second moment closure and solves a transport
equation for each of the six unique Reynolds stresses:
The slow pressure strain term Aij redistributes the Reynolds
tij tji ru0i u0j (3) stresses based on their magnitude and is also called the
return to isotropy term, whilst the fast pressure strain
The exact DRSM transport equations contain a number of term Mijkl is multiplied by the velocity gradients and this
unknown correlations which must be modelled. These sensitises the pressure strain model (and redistributes the
unknowns are; the dissipation tensor 1ij, the pressure strain Reynolds stresses according to) to flow strain, flow rotation,
correlation tensor Pij, and the turbulent diffusion of the Reynolds stress production and convection of the Reynolds
Reynolds stresses expressed by the tensor Cijk. The Launder stresses. Most models for Aij and Mijkl are truncated taylor
et al. (1975) model assumes that dissipation occurs only in series expansions in bij. However, the higher order expan-
the transport equations for the normal stresses and solves a sions generate a large number of additional terms contain-
transport equation for a scalar dissipation rate 1 (i.e., isotropic ing adjustable constants and much of the research work
dissipation). The Launder et al. (1975) model models Cijk seems to attend to reducing these terms to a manageable
using a generalized gradient diffusion hypothesis; however level.
the FluentTM implementation uses a simpler turbulent vis- FluentTM has a number of options for Pij and in this
cosity for stability reasons. The DRSM transport equations work the linear pressure strain (LPS) model of Launder
that are thus solved in FluentTM are et al. (1989) with the wall reflection term and the quadratic
pressure strain (QPS) model of Speziale et al. (1991) were
D used. The LPS model is linear in bij whilst the QPS is a
(ru0i u0j ) rPij r1ij rPij quadratic expansion in bij and the QPS allows for strained
Dt
flows where Reynolds stress redistribution would be non-
@ @ 0 0 linear. In particular the QPS does not need the LPS wall
m u u rCijk
@xk @xk i j reflection term, which introduces a non linear function
into the LPS in the vicinity of a boundary, to model the cor-
@uj @ui
Pij u0i u0k u0j u0k rect flow behaviour in wall bounded regions.
@xk @xk (4)
m @ 0 0
rCijk t uu
s k @xk i j
2 Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
r1ij dij r1
3 In a LES, tij in equation (2) contains the sub grid scale
s k 0:82 stresses, which in this work are modelled with the
SmagorinskyLilly (Smagorinsky, 1963; Lilly, 1966) model:
1
D @ m @ tij tkk dij 2mt,s Sij (8)
(r1) m t 1 3
Dt @xj se @xj
1 1 12 (5) The SmagorinskyLilly model calculates the SGS eddy vis-
C11 Pii C21 r cosity algebraically from a length scale Ls and the mean local
2 k k
strain rate
s1 1:09, C11 1:44, C21 1:92
mt,s rLs jSj (9)
The pressure strain correlation tensor Pij acts to redistribute
the individual Reynolds stresses. In the case of the Launder Ls is normally equal to a third power of the finite volume
et al. (1975) DRSM model, which assumes isotropic dissi- size at each grid point in regions of high turbulence but the
pation, Pij also provides the only sink in the transport FluentTM implementation also makes Ls a function of the
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
498 BRENNAN
@
ak r (ak um ) r (ak ukm ) 0
@t (11)
ukm uk um
X
n
ak r k continuous air phase and in the context of hydro-cyclones
ukm ukc ulc
l1
rm (12) can treat a case where air is present both as a dispersed
phase in the feed, and as a continuous phase in the air core.
ukc uk uc
ukc is the slip velocity of the dispersed phase k relative to Grid, Boundary Conditions and Problem Set Up
the continuous fluid phase c and is calculated from the The simulations used FluentTM V6. Initial work was
equilibrium drag assumption. done using V6.1.22 and more recent work used 6.2.15.
A further simplification of the mixture model is the VOF Three dimensional body fitted grids were used with an
(Hirt and Nichols, 1981). The VOF model is designed to accurate geometric model of the Hsieh cyclone body con-
model multiphase flows where the phases segregate totally. sisting of the feed port, main body and vortex finder. The
It solves the equations of motion for the mixture and an grids were generated using GambitTM using the Cooper
additional transport equation for each additional phase meshing facility; however the grids have been set up so
which is essentially identical to equation (11) except that that in the main body they were essentially a cylindrical
the drift velocity ukm is not calculated. O grid. The feed port used a velocity inlet boundary con-
In this work the air core has been simulated with both the dition, whilst the underflow and overflow were pressure
mixture and VOF models and the results are compared because
both models have applications in solving CFD of the multi-
phase flows encountered in mineral processing. The VOF Table 1. Grids used in simulations showing number of grid points in each
model is best suited to model CFD problems where there is coordinate. Radial is the number of points between the vortex finder and
a clear air/water free surface between a continuous air and a outer wall. Total is the total number of volume elements
continuous water phase. By comparison the primary purpose Pars 1 2 3 4
of the mixture model is to model dispersed phases and
should be suitable for modelling many mineral slurries Axial 102 112 204 224
because the slurry particles are often less than 1 mm in diam- Radial 30 40 60 80
Tangential 44 44 88 88
eter, and accelerate to their terminal slip velocity quickly. Total 2.31 105 3.14 105 18.5 105 25.1 105
However, the mixture model can be still be used to model a
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE 499
outlet boundary conditions. Figure 1 shows an outline of a split and velocities and hence the predictions should be
typical grid and two features of the grid should be noted. independent on how the case was first evolved.
Firstly a circular inlet port was used and this was meshed The simulations were run on Silcon Graphics Altix ser-
and merged with the main grid by projecting the face vers which are part of the Queensland Parallel Supercom-
meshes from the port inlet and a surrounding section of puting Foundation. PRESTO discretization was used for
the cyclone wall in to the outer wall face of the vortex pressure. HRIC discretization was used for the air volume
finder. Secondly the grid was graded radially near the fraction with the VOF model and QUICK was used with
underflow so that a fairly coarse grid existed in the the air volume fraction with the mixture model. All other
region expected to be occupied by the air-core. equations used QUICK. HRIC and QUICK discretization
Four grids are reported here and the grid parameters have been compared using the VOF model and predict
are shown in Table 1. The number of axial mesh points essentially the same velocities, but the HRIC option gave
is the total number including the upper body and apex. a sharper resolution of the air/water free surface.
The number of radial mesh points is the number between The simulations were time consuming. In the case of the
the wall and the vortex finder, whilst 10 points were used DRSM simulations, a velocity data set could be generated
radially inside the vortex finder. after a week of simulations. The LES on the finer grids
Grids 1 and 2, which are the coarser grids, were gener- took considerably longer even though parallel processing
ated directly using Gambit. However grid 3 and grid 4 was used.
which are the finer grids were generated using grid adap-
tation where grid 3 was generated from grid 1 and grid 4
Results
was generated from grid 2. The standard FluentTM grid
adaptation algorithm was used where the entire grid in a Hsieh (1988) reported time averaged velocities. LES is
steady case study was adapted. intrinsically a dynamic simulation and will resolve the
The y in wall bounded grid points was between 50 and large scale turbulent fluctuations plus any periodic effects,
100 for grid 1 and was between 20 and 40 for grid 4, so even when the simulation has reached a time-averaged
standard wall functions were used for the DRSM simu- steady state. To compare LES predictions with time averaged
lations. In the cases of simulations using LES, these velocity data the LES instantaneous velocities must be aver-
values of the wall bounded y imply that the log layer aged over a sufficiently long sample time. In this work each
was being resolved but the viscous sub layer and transition LES was run at time averaged steady flow and a set of instan-
region were being modelled. taneous velocity predictions were generated from the LES at
Hsieh (1988) conducted measurements on a cyclone fixed 1023 s intervals. This set of instantaneous velocity pre-
where the air core was fully developed and the flow and tur- dictions was then averaged externally. Over 200 sets of
bulence have reached a time averaged steady state. The instantaneous data from the LES were found to be sufficient
simulations reported here are for similar steady operation. to give good predictions of the mean velocities.
The following strategy was evolved because it could The DRSM simulations reached a true steady state with no
obtain, with reasonable reliability, a case study with fluctuations in the computed velocities. Hence the predicted
steady flow and a stable air core. Other approaches were velocities for the DRSM simulations presented in this work
tried but the cases invariably diverged: are also an average of between four and 10 sets of instan-
taneous velocities as calculated by the solver, generated at
1. The case was initialised with a cyclone full of water
0.1 s intervals, after the simulation reached steady flow.
with the backflow air volume fraction set to zero on
All simulations were conducted using a water feed rate of
overflow and underflow boundary conditions.
1.1165 kg s21 which is equivalent to Hsiehs (1988) series 1
2. The case was run using the steady solver and the stan-
data. Hsieh (1988) measured axial velocities at four tangen-
dard k-1 model for approximately 200 iterations.
tial positions of 08, 908, 1808 and 2708 and measured tangen-
3. The DRSM model with the LPS option was then enabled
tial velocities at 0 and 1808 where the 0 1808 plane was
and the case ran for about 25 iterations using the steady
normal to the feed port. In this work, axial velocity predic-
solver and then the unsteady solver (fixed time step) was
tions are reported in the 90 2708 plane and tangential vel-
enabled and the simulation was ran as a time integration
ocity predictions are reported in the 0 1808 plane at 60,
till a central axial core of negative pressure formed,
120, 180 and 240 below the top of the cyclone.
which led to a reversed flow on the overflow and under-
Figure 2 shows a comparison between the axial vel-
flow boundary conditions.
ocities measured by Hsieh (1988) in the 90 2708 plane
4. The back flow air volume fraction on both the overflow
and those predicted by the CFD using the DRSM turbu-
and underflow boundary conditions was then set to 1 and
lence model with the linear pressure strain correlation
the simulation was run using the unsteady solver until
and the VOF model whilst Figure 3 compares tangential
the air core was fully developed and overflow and
velocities in the 0 1808 plane for the same simulations.
underflow mass flow rates matched the feed flow rate.
The simulations are compared at 60 mm, 120 mm and
The steady case study using DRSM/LPS/VOF was saved 180 mm, for grids 1, 2 and 3.
as a base case and was used as the starting case for other The results for the axial velocities in Figure 2 show that
case studies using other model options. the DRSM turbulence model predicts the axial velocities
The methodology [steps (1) (4)] does not realistically well at 60 mm, but under predicts the axial velocities at
represent the actual dynamics of air core development, lower levels. Further the DRSM turbulence model does not
because in reality the back flow air volume fraction is 1 predict correctly the asymmetry in the measured axial velo-
from start up. However, perturbations of the final steady cities. Figure 3 shows that the DRSM model consistently
cases always saw the case stabilise back to the same flow under predicts the tangential velocities at all levels and
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
500 BRENNAN
that this under prediction of the tangential velocities is located and this will have the effect of driving the air inwards
actually worse with grids 2 and 3, which are the finer grids. under the centrifugal forces, resulting in a sharper numerical
Figure 4 shows a comparison between Hsiehs (1988) prediction of the phase boundary. This will feed back into the
measured velocities at 120 mm and DRSM predictions momentum equation through the density gradient across the
using; the LPS option with the VOF model, the QPS free surface, but the density gradient is much the same with
option with the VOF model and the LPS option with the both models and is in the same location.
mixture model. The simulations with the mixture model Figure 4 shows that the QPS model predicts marginally
treated the air as a dispersed phase with a notional particle better axial velocities than the LPS model near the air/
size of 1.0 1024 m. water phase boundary but in the main part of the flow the
The simulations with the Mixture model treated the air LPS and QPS axial velocity predictions are essentially the
as a dispersed phase with a notional particle size of same. Figure 4 also shows that tangential velocity predictions
1.0 1024 m. Figure 4 shows that the VOF and mixture from the LPS and QPS are almost identical with both models
models predict essentially the same velocities. This is to be under predicting the tangential velocities to the same extent.
expected as the only difference between the two models is The fact that the DRSM turbulence model as used here
that the mixture model calculates a drift velocity in the air under predicts the tangential velocities in Hsiehs cyclone,
phase transport equation. This will only be non-zero in the irrespective of grid refinement, implies that there is a pro-
region of the domain where the air/water free surface is blem with the DRSM turbulence model for this flow.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE 501
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
502 BRENNAN
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE 503
DRSM simulation could then be used in engineering simu- adjustable constants and this simplifies the task. The Laun-
lations at other conditions with some confidence at con- der et al. (1989) linear model is
siderably less computational cost than an LES.
Calibration of the existing model is also a useful first step 1 0 0 2
Pij C1 r ui uj dij k
to identifying what might be needed in terms of model k 3
modifications.
The DRSM model used in this study implements dissipa- 1
C2 Pij Dij dij (Pkk Dkk )
tion only in the transport equations for the Reynolds normal 3
stresses, which are the diagonal components of the Reynolds
@uj @ui
stress tensor. Apart from convection and turbulent diffusion, 0
Pij ui uk 0 0
uj uk0 , (13)
the only sink in each transport equation for the Reynolds @xk @xk
shear stresses is the associated shear component of the
@uk @uk
pressure strain tensor. This implies calibration could be Dij u0i u0k u0j u0k
@xj @xi
accomplished by adjusting the pressure strain model con-
stants with the aim of damping the Reynolds shear stresses, 1
which act on the tangential velocity. k u0k u0k , C1 1:8, C2 0:6 (default)
2
Calibration of the linear pressure strain model has been
considered here because the linear model has only two The first constant C1 adjusts the slow, or return to isotropy,
Figure 8. Comparison between axial velocities measured by Hsieh (1988, Figure 9. Comparison between tangential velocities measured by Hsieh
Series 1) with axial velocities predicted by CFD using RSM/LPS with (1988, Series 1) with tangential velocities predicted by CFD using
VOF, but with changes in C1 and C2 in the LPS model (C1 1.8, RSM/LPS with VOF, but with changes in C1 and C2 in the LPS model
C2 0.6 are default values). (C1 1.8, C2 0.6 are default).
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
504 BRENNAN
component of the pressure strain tensor which redistributes However, simulations at other feed rates and other cyclone
the stresses based on their magnitude and acts as a sink for geometries with these adjusted constants have not been
the Reynolds shear stresses. Increasing C1 will reduce the conducted.
magnitude of the Reynolds shear stresses but will also
make Reynolds normal stresses more equal to each other
(i.e., make the turbulence more isotropic), which would NOMENCLATURE
seem to be undesirable. Ak particle cross-sectional area of phase k
The second constant C2 adjusts the fast pressure strain Aij slow pressure strain tensor
bij dimensionless Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor
term which redistributes the stresses based on the magni- Cd drag coefficient
tude of production and convection. Increasing C2 will Cij convective transport tensor
reduce the production and convection of the Reynolds Cijk turbulent transport tensor
shear stresses but will also make the production of the Rey- Cs Smagorinsky Lilly constant
C1 Slow linear pressure strain model constant
nolds normal stresses more isotropic, which would also C2 Fast linear pressure strain model constant
seem to be undesirable. d distance from wall
Figures 8 and 9 show the effect of adjustments to C1 and g gravity vector
C2 on the predicted velocities. Increasing C2 to 0.9 gi i component of gravity vector
improves both the axial and tangential velocity predictions. k turbulent kinetic energy
Ls length scale of the sub grid scale stresses
However, the peak in the tangential velocities is somewhat Mp0 fluctuating component of interphase momentum transfer
broader than measured. Reducing C1 to 1 seems to have a Mijkl fast pressure strain tensor
limited effect except that it makes the tangential velocity Pij turbulent production tensor
peak at 120 mm somewhat broader. Increasing C2 much Sij mean strain rate
t time
above 0.9 resulted in a satisfactory prediction of the tangen- ukc velocity vector of phase k relative to continuous phase
tial velocities but had the effect of damping the Reynolds ukm velocity vector of phase k relative to mixture velocity
stress components in the axial direction so significantly um mixture velocity vector
that the predicted axial velocities started to fluctuate ui0 i component of velocity vector
time-wise. ui0 i component of fluctuating velocity
Vg volume of grid finite volume
It is likely that the non-linear constants in the fast Vk particle volume of phase k
pressure strain term of the quadratic pressure strain model xi i co-ordinate
could be adjusted to achieve a satisfactory velocity predic- y dimensionless distance from wall
tion as well and investigating this option would be a useful
next step. Greek Symbols
ak volume fraction of dispersed phase k
dij Kronecker delta
CONCLUSIONS 1ij dissipation tensor
Pij pressure strain correlation tensor
CFD predictions of the 75 mm hydrocyclone of Hsieh r density
(1988) have been conducted in FluentTM using 3 D body tij turbulent or sub grid scale stress tensor
fitted grids where the air core is resolved with the VOF tmij viscous stress tensor
m molecular viscosity
(Hirt and Nichols, 1981) and mixture (Manninen et al., mt eddy viscosity
1996) models and have been compared to Hsiehs mt,s sub-grid scale eddy viscosity
measured LDA data. It has been found that simulations
using the differential Reynolds stress turbulence model
under predict the axial velocities in the apex and consist-
ently under predict the tangential velocities. There is rela- REFERENCES
tively little difference between the predictions from the Brennan, M.S., Holtham, P.N., Rong, R. and Lyman, G.J., 2002, Compu-
standard LPS model (Launder et al., 1975) and the QPS tational fluid dynamic simulation of dense medium cyclones, Proceed-
model (Speziale et al., 1991). Velocity predictions using ings 9th Australian Coal Preparation Conference, Yeppoon Australia,
the VOF and mixture models are essentially the same. 1317 October 2002, Paper B3.
Brennan, M.S., 2003, Multiphase CFD simulations of dense medium and
The results are independent of the grid with grids of classifying hydrocyclones, Third International Conference on CFD in
between 2.2 105 and 2.4 106 nodes giving essentially the Minerals and Process Industries, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia,
the same velocity predictions. 1012 December, 59 63.
LES using the basic Smagorinsky Lilly (Smagorinsky, Boysan, F., Ayers, W.H. and Swithenbank, J., 1982, Trans IChemE, 60:
222230.
1963; Lilly, 1996) sub-grid scale model give good agree- Cullivan, J.C., Williams, R.A. and Cross, C.R., 2003, Understanding the
ment with Hsiehs velocity data, however the best agree- hydrocyclone separator through computational fluid dynamics, Trans
ment is obtained using a grid of 2.4 106 nodes. IChemE, 81A: 455466.
Under prediction of the tangential velocities by the Devulapalli, B. and Rajamani, R.K., 1994, Application of LDV to the
DRSM model implies that with the both pressure strain modelling of particle size classification in industrial hydrocyclones,
ASME FED, 191: 41 48.
options, the model is over predicting the Reynolds shear Devulapalli, B. and Rajamani, R.K., 1996, A comprehensive CFD model
stresses. DRSM simulations where the constants in the for particle-size classification in industrial hydrocyclones, Hydrocy-
LPS model have been adjusted from the default values clones 96, Cambridge, UK, 83 104.
of C1 1.8 and C2 0.6 have been conducted. It has Fraser, S.M., Abdel Rasek, A.M. and Abdullah, M.Z., 1997, Compu-
tational and experimental investigations in a cyclone dust separator,
been found that increasing the fast pressure strain constant Proc Instn Mech Engrs, 211E: 247 257.
C2 to 0.9 improves the velocity predictions. These adjust- He, P., Salcudean, M. and Gartshore I.S., 1999, A numerical simulation of
ments also reduce the predicted Reynolds stresses. hydrocyclones, Trans IChemE, 77(A): 429441.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE 505
Hirt, C.W. and Nichols, B.D., 1981, Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the Smagorinsky, J., 1963, General circulation experiments with the primitive
dynamics of free boundaries, Journal of Computational Physics, 39: equation. I. The basic experiment, Monthly Weather Review, 91:
201 225. 99164.
Hsieh, K.T., 1988, A phenomenological model of the hydrocyclone, PhD Speziale, C.G., Sarkar, S. and Gatski, T.B., 1991, Modeling the pressure
Thesis, University of Utah. strain correlation of turbulence, J Fluid Mech, 227: 245272.
Hsieh, K.T. and Rajamani, R.K., 1991, Mathematical model of the hydro- Suasnabar, D.J., 2000, Dense medium cyclone performance, enhancements
cyclone based on the physics of fluid flow, AIChE J, 37: 735. via computational modeling of the physical process, PhD Thesis, Uni-
Launder, B.E., 1989, Second-moment closure: present . . . and future?, versity of New South Wales.
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 10: 282 300. Subramanian, V.S., 2002, Measuring medium segregation in the dense
Launder, B.E., Reece, G.J. and Rodi, W., 1975, Progress in the develop- medium cyclone using gamma ray tomography, PhD Thesis, JKMRC,
ment of a Reynolds-stress turbulence closure, J Fluid Mech, 68: University of Queensland.
537 566. Wilcox, D.C., 1998, Turbulence Modelling for CFD (DCW Industries, La
Lilly, D.K., 1966, On the application of the eddy viscosity concept in the Canada California).
inertial subrange of turbulence, NCAR manuscript 123.
Malhotra, A., Branion R.M.R. and Hauptmann, E.G., 1994, Modeling the
flow in a hydrocyclone, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineer- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ing, 72: 953 960.
Manninen, M., Taivassalo, V. and Kallio, S., 1996, On the Mixture Model The computational resources that were used in this work are part of the
for Multiphase Flow (Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus, Espoo, Queensland Parallel Supercomputing Foundation. The author would also
Finland). like to thank Prof. Klaus Bremhorst, Mechanical Engineering UQ and
Monredon, T.C., Hsieh, K.T. and Rajamani, R.K., 1992, Fluid flow of the Dr Peter Holtham JKMRC UQ for their assistance in preparing this paper.
hydrocyclones: An investigation of the device dimensions, International
Journal of Mineral Processing, 35: 65 83.
Slack, M.D., Prasad, R.O., Bakker, A. and Boysan, F., 2000, Advances in NOTES
cyclone modeling using unstructured grids, Trans IChemE, 78(A):
10981104. Fluent and Gambit are trademarks and software of Fluent Inc.
Slack, M.D. and Wraith, A.E., 1997, Modelling the velocity distribution in
a hydrocyclone, 4th International Colloquium on Process Simulation, The Manuscript was received 9 May 2005 and accepted for publication
1113 June, Espoo, Finland, 6583. after revision 10 March 2006.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505