Could cyclone performance improve with reduced inlet velocity?

Emission abatement cyclone performance is improved by increasing collection effectiveness or decreasing energy consumption. The object of this study was to quantify the pressure drop and fine particulate (PM2.5) collection of 1D3D cyclones (H=4Dc, h=1Dc) at inlet velocities from 8 to 18ms−1 (Stk=0.7...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Powder technology 2015-08, Vol.280, p.211-218
Hauptverfasser: Funk, P.A., Elsayed, K., Yeater, K.M., Holt, G.A., Whitelock, D.P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 218
container_issue
container_start_page 211
container_title Powder technology
container_volume 280
creator Funk, P.A.
Elsayed, K.
Yeater, K.M.
Holt, G.A.
Whitelock, D.P.
description Emission abatement cyclone performance is improved by increasing collection effectiveness or decreasing energy consumption. The object of this study was to quantify the pressure drop and fine particulate (PM2.5) collection of 1D3D cyclones (H=4Dc, h=1Dc) at inlet velocities from 8 to 18ms−1 (Stk=0.7–1.5) using heterogeneous particulate as a test material at inlet concentrations from 3 to 75gm−3. Cyclone exhaust was passed through filters. Laser diffraction particle size distribution analysis was used to estimate PM2.5 emissions. Response surface models showed a strong correlation between cyclone pressure loss (Euler number) and inlet velocity and predicted a 46% reduction in pressure loss for a 25% reduction in inlet velocity (Stokes number). The model for PM2.5 emissions was less definitive and, surprisingly, predicted a 31% decrease in PM2.5 emissions when operating 25% below the design inlet velocity. Operating below the design inlet velocity (at a lower Stokes number) to reduce pressure losses (Euler number) would reduce both the financial and the environmental cost of procuring electricity. The unexpected co-benefit suggested by these trials was that emission abatement may improve at the same time, though other empirical trials have shown emissions to be independent of inlet velocity and Stokes number. [Display omitted] •The significance of these results comes from the nexus of emissions and energy.•Producing electricity to power abatement devices results in air pollution.•Reducing inlet velocity reduced pressure drop and hence energy required.•Empirical PM2.5 emissions also appeared to decrease at lower inlet velocities.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.powtec.2015.04.026
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2000167060</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0032591015003009</els_id><sourcerecordid>2000167060</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-430f272ca2e4798bba08ae339f60189aac2459f6853fb4e416e04dbc60d5c9ad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKw0AUhgdRsFbfQDBLN4lnLpkkm4oUb1BwoQV3w2RyolOSTp1JW_r2TolrV4cD338uHyHXFDIKVN6tso3bD2gyBjTPQGTA5AmZ0LLgKWfl5ymZAHCW5hWFc3IRwgoAJKcwIbO523ZNYg6mc2tMNuhb53u9NpjYfuPdDpO9Hb4Tj83WYJPYdYdDssPOGTsc7i_JWau7gFd_dUqWT48f85d08fb8On9YpEbkMKSCQ8sKZjRDUVRlXWsoNXJetRJoWWltmMhjU-a8rQUKKhFEUxsJTW4q3fApuR3nxpN-thgG1dtgsOv0Gt02KBYforIACREVI2q8C8Fjqzbe9tofFAV11KVWatSljroUCBV1xdjNGGu1U_rL26CW7xGQx8lFSfNIzEYC46M7i14FYzGaaqxHM6jG2f9X_AJZb37F</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2000167060</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Could cyclone performance improve with reduced inlet velocity?</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Funk, P.A. ; Elsayed, K. ; Yeater, K.M. ; Holt, G.A. ; Whitelock, D.P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Funk, P.A. ; Elsayed, K. ; Yeater, K.M. ; Holt, G.A. ; Whitelock, D.P.</creatorcontrib><description>Emission abatement cyclone performance is improved by increasing collection effectiveness or decreasing energy consumption. The object of this study was to quantify the pressure drop and fine particulate (PM2.5) collection of 1D3D cyclones (H=4Dc, h=1Dc) at inlet velocities from 8 to 18ms−1 (Stk=0.7–1.5) using heterogeneous particulate as a test material at inlet concentrations from 3 to 75gm−3. Cyclone exhaust was passed through filters. Laser diffraction particle size distribution analysis was used to estimate PM2.5 emissions. Response surface models showed a strong correlation between cyclone pressure loss (Euler number) and inlet velocity and predicted a 46% reduction in pressure loss for a 25% reduction in inlet velocity (Stokes number). The model for PM2.5 emissions was less definitive and, surprisingly, predicted a 31% decrease in PM2.5 emissions when operating 25% below the design inlet velocity. Operating below the design inlet velocity (at a lower Stokes number) to reduce pressure losses (Euler number) would reduce both the financial and the environmental cost of procuring electricity. The unexpected co-benefit suggested by these trials was that emission abatement may improve at the same time, though other empirical trials have shown emissions to be independent of inlet velocity and Stokes number. [Display omitted] •The significance of these results comes from the nexus of emissions and energy.•Producing electricity to power abatement devices results in air pollution.•Reducing inlet velocity reduced pressure drop and hence energy required.•Empirical PM2.5 emissions also appeared to decrease at lower inlet velocities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-5910</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-328X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2015.04.026</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Cyclones ; electricity ; Emissions ; Energy consumption ; energy use and consumption ; filters ; Fine particulate ; particle size distribution ; particulate emissions ; PM2.5 ; pollution control ; powders ; velocity</subject><ispartof>Powder technology, 2015-08, Vol.280, p.211-218</ispartof><rights>2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-430f272ca2e4798bba08ae339f60189aac2459f6853fb4e416e04dbc60d5c9ad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-430f272ca2e4798bba08ae339f60189aac2459f6853fb4e416e04dbc60d5c9ad3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3157-327X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032591015003009$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Funk, P.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elsayed, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeater, K.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holt, G.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitelock, D.P.</creatorcontrib><title>Could cyclone performance improve with reduced inlet velocity?</title><title>Powder technology</title><description>Emission abatement cyclone performance is improved by increasing collection effectiveness or decreasing energy consumption. The object of this study was to quantify the pressure drop and fine particulate (PM2.5) collection of 1D3D cyclones (H=4Dc, h=1Dc) at inlet velocities from 8 to 18ms−1 (Stk=0.7–1.5) using heterogeneous particulate as a test material at inlet concentrations from 3 to 75gm−3. Cyclone exhaust was passed through filters. Laser diffraction particle size distribution analysis was used to estimate PM2.5 emissions. Response surface models showed a strong correlation between cyclone pressure loss (Euler number) and inlet velocity and predicted a 46% reduction in pressure loss for a 25% reduction in inlet velocity (Stokes number). The model for PM2.5 emissions was less definitive and, surprisingly, predicted a 31% decrease in PM2.5 emissions when operating 25% below the design inlet velocity. Operating below the design inlet velocity (at a lower Stokes number) to reduce pressure losses (Euler number) would reduce both the financial and the environmental cost of procuring electricity. The unexpected co-benefit suggested by these trials was that emission abatement may improve at the same time, though other empirical trials have shown emissions to be independent of inlet velocity and Stokes number. [Display omitted] •The significance of these results comes from the nexus of emissions and energy.•Producing electricity to power abatement devices results in air pollution.•Reducing inlet velocity reduced pressure drop and hence energy required.•Empirical PM2.5 emissions also appeared to decrease at lower inlet velocities.</description><subject>Cyclones</subject><subject>electricity</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Energy consumption</subject><subject>energy use and consumption</subject><subject>filters</subject><subject>Fine particulate</subject><subject>particle size distribution</subject><subject>particulate emissions</subject><subject>PM2.5</subject><subject>pollution control</subject><subject>powders</subject><subject>velocity</subject><issn>0032-5910</issn><issn>1873-328X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtKw0AUhgdRsFbfQDBLN4lnLpkkm4oUb1BwoQV3w2RyolOSTp1JW_r2TolrV4cD338uHyHXFDIKVN6tso3bD2gyBjTPQGTA5AmZ0LLgKWfl5ymZAHCW5hWFc3IRwgoAJKcwIbO523ZNYg6mc2tMNuhb53u9NpjYfuPdDpO9Hb4Tj83WYJPYdYdDssPOGTsc7i_JWau7gFd_dUqWT48f85d08fb8On9YpEbkMKSCQ8sKZjRDUVRlXWsoNXJetRJoWWltmMhjU-a8rQUKKhFEUxsJTW4q3fApuR3nxpN-thgG1dtgsOv0Gt02KBYforIACREVI2q8C8Fjqzbe9tofFAV11KVWatSljroUCBV1xdjNGGu1U_rL26CW7xGQx8lFSfNIzEYC46M7i14FYzGaaqxHM6jG2f9X_AJZb37F</recordid><startdate>20150801</startdate><enddate>20150801</enddate><creator>Funk, P.A.</creator><creator>Elsayed, K.</creator><creator>Yeater, K.M.</creator><creator>Holt, G.A.</creator><creator>Whitelock, D.P.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3157-327X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20150801</creationdate><title>Could cyclone performance improve with reduced inlet velocity?</title><author>Funk, P.A. ; Elsayed, K. ; Yeater, K.M. ; Holt, G.A. ; Whitelock, D.P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-430f272ca2e4798bba08ae339f60189aac2459f6853fb4e416e04dbc60d5c9ad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Cyclones</topic><topic>electricity</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Energy consumption</topic><topic>energy use and consumption</topic><topic>filters</topic><topic>Fine particulate</topic><topic>particle size distribution</topic><topic>particulate emissions</topic><topic>PM2.5</topic><topic>pollution control</topic><topic>powders</topic><topic>velocity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Funk, P.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elsayed, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeater, K.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holt, G.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitelock, D.P.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Powder technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Funk, P.A.</au><au>Elsayed, K.</au><au>Yeater, K.M.</au><au>Holt, G.A.</au><au>Whitelock, D.P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Could cyclone performance improve with reduced inlet velocity?</atitle><jtitle>Powder technology</jtitle><date>2015-08-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>280</volume><spage>211</spage><epage>218</epage><pages>211-218</pages><issn>0032-5910</issn><eissn>1873-328X</eissn><abstract>Emission abatement cyclone performance is improved by increasing collection effectiveness or decreasing energy consumption. The object of this study was to quantify the pressure drop and fine particulate (PM2.5) collection of 1D3D cyclones (H=4Dc, h=1Dc) at inlet velocities from 8 to 18ms−1 (Stk=0.7–1.5) using heterogeneous particulate as a test material at inlet concentrations from 3 to 75gm−3. Cyclone exhaust was passed through filters. Laser diffraction particle size distribution analysis was used to estimate PM2.5 emissions. Response surface models showed a strong correlation between cyclone pressure loss (Euler number) and inlet velocity and predicted a 46% reduction in pressure loss for a 25% reduction in inlet velocity (Stokes number). The model for PM2.5 emissions was less definitive and, surprisingly, predicted a 31% decrease in PM2.5 emissions when operating 25% below the design inlet velocity. Operating below the design inlet velocity (at a lower Stokes number) to reduce pressure losses (Euler number) would reduce both the financial and the environmental cost of procuring electricity. The unexpected co-benefit suggested by these trials was that emission abatement may improve at the same time, though other empirical trials have shown emissions to be independent of inlet velocity and Stokes number. [Display omitted] •The significance of these results comes from the nexus of emissions and energy.•Producing electricity to power abatement devices results in air pollution.•Reducing inlet velocity reduced pressure drop and hence energy required.•Empirical PM2.5 emissions also appeared to decrease at lower inlet velocities.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.powtec.2015.04.026</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3157-327X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0032-5910
ispartof Powder technology, 2015-08, Vol.280, p.211-218
issn 0032-5910
1873-328X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2000167060
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Cyclones
electricity
Emissions
Energy consumption
energy use and consumption
filters
Fine particulate
particle size distribution
particulate emissions
PM2.5
pollution control
powders
velocity
title Could cyclone performance improve with reduced inlet velocity?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T18%3A59%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Could%20cyclone%20performance%20improve%20with%20reduced%20inlet%20velocity?&rft.jtitle=Powder%20technology&rft.au=Funk,%20P.A.&rft.date=2015-08-01&rft.volume=280&rft.spage=211&rft.epage=218&rft.pages=211-218&rft.issn=0032-5910&rft.eissn=1873-328X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.powtec.2015.04.026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2000167060%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2000167060&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0032591015003009&rfr_iscdi=true