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

net/publication/268297763

Flow Pattern in Hydrocyclones

Article in KONA Powder and Particle Journal · January 2007

DOI: 10.14356/kona.2007011

CITATIONS READS
28 4,826

1 author:

Fernando Concha
University of Concepción
196 PUBLICATIONS 2,707 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando Concha on 05 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flow Pattern in Hydrocyclones†

F. Concha
Department of Metallurgical Engineering
University of Concepción１

Abstract
This paper presents a review of the flow pattern in hydrocyclones from a fluid dynamics perspec-
tive. Measurements attempt to establish the velocity and pressure distribution inside the equipment.
With the experimental values of the velocity distributions, mass and linear momentum equations
were solved using different approximations. The review starts with discussion of the principal ex-
perimental measurements in hydrocyclones and continues obtaining theoretical solutions to the
equations with the simplest inviscid approach combining a free vortex with a sink, with rotational
inviscid models, with models based on the exact solution of the Reynolds equation for highly ideal-
ized conditions and ends with solutions using different mathematical techniques such as asymptotic
expansions, similarity solutions and boundary layer flows. When developments of the models can be
found in the original papers they were not reproduced here, but in some cases they were include to
relate them to a given fluid dynamic solution type.
Keywords: Hydrocyclone, Modeling, Cyclone, Flow pattern, Fluid dynamics

Introduction

A hydrocyclone is a classification devise consisting of a cylindrical or a cylindrical-conical body with a tangential

Fig. 1 Commercial type of a hydrocyclone and its interior parts. (1) Involuted entrance, (2) Vortex finder,
(3) Inlet head casting, (4) Cylindrical section, (5) Mounting flanges, (6) Cone casting, (7) Liners, (8)
Apex valve, (9) Pneumatically operated apex orifice, (10) Feed and overflow adaptor. Courtesy Krebs
Engineering.

† Accepted : June 25, 2007

1
Edmundo, Larenas 285, Concepcion, Chile
* E-mail: [email protected]

KONA No.25 (2007) 97

entrance and two opposite axial exits. The top exit is called vortex which consists of a tube, called vortex finder, ex-
tending into the cylindrical section of the vessel. At the bottom of the cone, the exit is called apex. Fig. 1 shows a
commercial hydrocyclone.
The feeding tube, which is of circular or rectangular cross-section, joins tangentially to the body of the hydrocy-
clone. Since the flow enters at the periphery and top of the equipment and leaves through the cyclone core, at the
top and the bottom of the vessel, a three-dimensional fluid motion, called vortex motion must exist, with a tangen-
tial, axial and radial velocity. The vortex motion produces a zone of low pressure in the center of the equipment that
sucks air from outside forming an air core of unknown nature. The shape of this air column has been described as
cylindrical and conical but by simple observation these descriptions do not fit the real shape.
While in normal operation a hydrocyclone has axial and tangential velocities of the order of several meters per
second, the radial velocity is one order of magnitude smaller. This very fact is the reason why the radial velocity
distribution in the equipment is not very well known. In the presence of highly turbulent tangential and axial veloci-
ties, the fluctuations of these velocities are of the same order of magnitude as the radial velocity making it difficult
to measure.
Flow patterns in hydrocyclones have been studied by many authors (Kelsall 1952, 1963; Ohasi and Maeda 1958;
Knowles et al. 1973; Dabir and Petty 1984; Bhattacharyya 1880a, 1980b, 1984; Gu and Li 1987; Hsieh and Rajamani
1988a, 1988b, 1991; Rajamani and Hsieh 1988; Quian et al. 1989; Xu et al. 1990; Hwang et al. 1993). In this review we
will analyze three of the most notable measurements.
The first and most cited velocity measurement was studied by Kelsall (1952, 1963) using small cyclones with
diluted feeds containing fine aluminum particles. With proper illumination the motion of the particle were followed
with a microscope having rotating objectives. The following figure shows the tangential, axial and radial velocity
distribution obtained by Kelsall.
Kelsall (1963) describes his finding in the form: “Beneath the bottom of the vortex finder, envelopes of constant
tangential velocity are cylinders coaxial with the cyclone, and, at any horizontal level, starting from near the coni-
cal wall, this component of velocity increases with decrease in radius according to the relationship vrn＝K, with
0<n<1, where K is a constant”. This holds in the region near the center of the cyclone, where the velocity reaches
a maximum value at a radius somewhat smaller than that of the inside of the vortex finder. As the radius is further
decreased the tangential velocity decreases such that v r.
The two most significant features of the vertical velocity distribution are the approximately conical envelope de-
fining regions of zero vertical velocity. In regions between the conical wall and the zero velocity envelope, all liquid
flows downwards towards the apex and between the envelope and the central axis, or wall of the air core column if
present, all liquid flows upwards towards the vortex finder.
“The limited information about the inward radial velocity component tends to indicate that, at any horizontal
level, near the conical wall the following expression is valid: vr＝vz tanθ，where θ is the half angle of the cone.”
Twenty years past since Kelsall’s measurements until other measurements were made. During this time, the

Fig. 2 Tangential, axial and radial velocity components according to Kelsall (1963).

98 KONA No.25 (2007)

development laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) improved significantly velocity measurements. Very accurate mea-
surements of the tangential and axial velocity distribution were made by Hsieh and Rajamani (1984a, 1988). Fig.
3 shows a schematic view of the laser Doppler velocimeter system and hydrocyclone used by Hsieh and Rajamani
(1988).
The glass hydrocyclone was 75 mm inside diameter with an inlet diameter of 23 mm, vortex-finder of 23 mm,
apex of 11 mm and total height of 244 mm. Over 200 hundred measurements were taken of the two velocity com-
ponents, tangential and axial, at each location, 1mm radial direction and 10 mm axial direction. The fluid medium
was water with small silicon carbide powder to enhance the data collection ability of the receiving optics. Due to
the magnitude of the fluctuating component of the velocities (turbulence), which are of the order of 20 to 50 cm/s,
as seen in Fig. 4 for the tangential velocity, measurement of the radial velocity was not possible, since it was of the
same order of magnitude as the turbulence. Therefore the radial velocity component was calculated from the conti-
nuity equation.
Fig. 5 shows the axial velocity measurements in the vortex-finder region. The asymmetry of the axial velocity
predominates near the region of the inflow and gradually becomes almost symmetric in the lower part of the cone.
Further, there is more than one reversal in the flow direction in the region between the vortex-finder and the hy-
drocyclone wall.
Fig. 6 shows the distribution for the three components of the velocity along the hydrocylone as measured and
calculated by Hsieh and Rajamani (1988a).
Quian et al. (1989) also used LDV to measure the velocity distribution in a conventional and a water-sealed hy-
drocyclone, both of 82 mm diameter body, 12 mm internal diameter vortex finder and 6 mm internal diameter apex
and a feed pressure of 0.9 kg/cm2.
In the cylindrical section the tangential and radial velocities are very small while the axial velocity is in the range
of 0.5 m/s. In the conical section the value of the tangential velocity varied from 2 m/s, close to the wall, to ap-
proximately 4 m/s at its maximum value. They confirmed Kelsall’s expression vθrn＝K and gave the values of the
parameter n＝0.432 and the constant K＝7.95. They noted an air core of 8mm diameter rotating at 10300 rpm. For
the axial velocity they obtained values around 1.5 m/s, which they approximated with the following expression vz
＝ln(r/(a+br)), where a and b are constant depending on the distance from the vortex finder, as seen in table 1.
Finally, the radial velocity increased from close to zero near the hydrocyclone wall to around -4 m/s close to the air
core. We must note that this result is opposite to that of Kelsall’s and different to that of Hsieh and Rajamani.
The measurement of the velocity distribution in a hydrocyclone is the first step in predicting the flow pattern
from a fluid mechanic point of view. The simplest approach is to use inviscid isochoric flows. The three dimensional
nature of the flow produces a secondary an-isotropic flow near the entry region. Since the classification action of
the equipment is performed below the level of the bottom of the vortex finder tube, an axial-symmetric simplifica-

Fig. 3 laser Doppler velocimeter system and hydrocyclone.

KONA No.25 (2007) 99

 Fig. 4 Turbulent fluctuation of the tangential component, ac-
Fig. 5 Axial velocity profile in the inlet region, according to Hsieh and
cording to Hsieh and Rajamani (1988).
Rajamani (1988).

Table 1. Values of parameters of the axial velocity

Distance from the

a b
vortex finder in mm
45 -6.906 1.429
75 -7.579 1.506
105 -6.924 1.670
135 -5.142 1.745
165 -3.482 1.733

Fig. 6. Tangential, axial and radial velocity components according to

Hsieh and Rajamani (1988a).

tion of the flow is possible without loosing the main features of the vortex motion. To model the feeding of the
hydrocyclone in an axial-symmetric model, a feeding ring substitutes the actual shape of the feeding tube. This
imaginary device has a certain height that, in combination with the radial entry velocity, yields the volumetric flow
into the equipment. The flow enters with a combination of a tangential and radial velocity, the ratio of which is de-
pendent on the geometry of the real entry.
The fast inlet velocity, of the order of several meters per second, produces a highly turbulent flow in the equip-
ment. The modeling of the turbulence is crucial in obtaining reasonable results of the flow patterns.

100 KONA No.25 (2007)

Fluid Dynamic Equations

The Navier Stokes equations have been for many years the starting point to solve fluid dynamic problems involv-
ing simple fluids, like liquids and gases at moderate temperature and pressure. For laminar incompressible flows
they may be represented by the equations:
 

 




(1)


whereρand v are the density and velocity of the fluid and T and b are the tensor and external force field respec-
tively. To study specific problems it is necessary to set a boundary value problem stipulating boundary conditions.
The turbulent flow of a Newtonian fluid is modeled with the instantaneous and the time averaged velocity, stress
and external force fields of the Navier-Stokes equations v＝v＋v’, T＝T＋T’ and b＝b＋b’. Integrating the resulting
equations for a short time, Reynolds Equations are obtained:






  

 
 
  (2)


where v, T and b are the mean velocity, mean stress tensor and mean body force fields, while v’ is the fluctuating
velocity field,ρis the constant fluid density and −ρv’v’ are the Reynolds stresses. In most cases, research work-
ers have used Reynolds equations to model the hydrocyclone. The choice of constitutive equations for the stress
tensor and Reynolds stresses and the mathematical tools used to solve the equations will be reviewed in this paper.
Unfortunately the Navier Stokes equations or the Reynolds equations, depending on the case, are non-linear and,
therefore, difficult to solve. There are three approaches to solve these boundary-value problems:
(1)Exact solutions. The first and most common approach to solve these equations is to find exact solutions for
highly idealized situations for which the non-linear terms vanish due to the geometry or symmetry of the flow.
These solutions are rarely valid for real configurations, but often give an indication of the flow and pressure dis-
tribution to be expected in the real problem.
(2)Extreme solutions. The difficulties encountered in obtaining general solutions to the flow equations have
shown that it is advantageous to divide the flow into categories depending on the relative value of the several
terms of the equations and to neglect the terms of lower order of magnitude. To perform this task the Navier
Stokes equations are written in dimensionless form:


  

     
(3)

   

Fig. 7 Tangential, axial and radial velocity components according to Quian et al (1989).

KONA No.25 (2007) 101






with    
 
  

where the stress tensor T was expressed as the sum of a pressure p and an extra stress modeled as a Newtonian
fluid, L, t0, u0 and p0 are characteristic parameters of the flow and St, Ru, Re and Fr are the Strouhal, Ruark, Reyn-
olds and Froude dimensionless numbers and the asterisk indicates dimensionless field variables. The Reynolds
number is the ratio of the convective to the diffusive forces in the flow and therefore, it is a good parameter to di-
vide the flow into three categories:

(a) Euler’s isochoric flows

Euler’s isochoric flows, or inviscid flows, are obtained if the convective forces are much greater than the diffu-
sive, or viscous, forces. In this case the Reynolds number is infinite, making the second term in the right hand side
of (3) vanish:



  

 
(4)


(b) Stokes flow

Stokes flow is obtained if the convective forces are much smaller than the viscous forces. In this case the Reyn-
olds number is very small (Re→0), making the second term in the left hand side of (3) negligible:



     
 
(5)


(c) Prandtl’s flow

Prandtl’s flow, or boundary layer flow, is obtained when the Reynolds number is high but convective forces are of
the same order of magnitude as the diffusive forces.

Inviscid Isochoric Models

Many research workers have suggested an inviscid isochoric flow for the hydrocyclone, that is, the flow of an
ideal fluid. The reason for this is that, for hydrocyclones, the tangential velocity shape is very close to a free vortex,
as can be seen from the experimental observations. Within ideal flows, we can distinguish rotational and irrotation-
al flows. The field equations for inviscid isochoric flows are:
 
 
  

  (6)


where v, w and p are the velocity, vorticity and pressure fields and B is the Bernouilli. Body forces have been ne-
glected.

1. Irrotational inviscid isochoric flow (Potential flow model)

For potential flow the field equations become:







Combining these equations we get:

1 2 p


 2
0

constant (7)
2

where φ is the velocity potential. For cylindrical plane flows the Laplace equation is valid:
 
       
  
     
  


 
 (8)
     
 

102 KONA No.25 (2007)

 




 
(9)
 

All measurements of the flow patterns in hydrocyclones (Kelsall 1952, Hsieh and Rajamani 1988a, Quian et al.
1989) have shown that the tangential velocity has the form of a free vortex from the cyclone wall in the direction of
the axis. Near the axis, the tangential velocity resembles that of a solid body rotation. For the radial velocity, there
is no agreement between the different measurements, as can be seen in figures 1 to 3. The best assumption that
can be made, from Hsieh and Rajamani’s measurement, is that the radial flow is similar to a sink close to the cy-
clone wall but is proportional to the radius closer to the cyclone axis. Taking these observations into consideration,
the simplest model for the hydrocyclone is a combination of a free vortex and a rigid motion with a sink. This com-
bination is also called a forced vortex with a sink.
Consider the flow in a hydrocyclone, working without an air core, divided into two regions, the vortex core for 0
＜r＜Rc, where the flow is a rigid body motion with constant angular velocity w＝vθ(Rc)/Rc and the exterior region
Rc＜r＜R, where the flow is a free vortex with a constant circulation ¡＝2πRvθR. The total flow rate into the cy-
^
clone per unit length is Q＝2πRvR.
Region Rc”U”5
The solution of equations (8) and (9) in this region yields a free vortex and a sink for the tangential and radial
velocity respectively:
Q̂


r (10)
2
r 2
r

From Bernouilli’s equation:

1 2 2


p r
p R
 R
r

2

Since v2＝v2θ＋v2r, substituting the values of (10) at r and R, yields

2 
2  
2 
 Q̂ R
p r
 p R
1 1 (11)
2 2
R r

5HJLRQ”U”5c
In this region a forced vortex and a sink represent the tangential and the radial velocity respectively:



Q̂ Q̂ R

 r
  r
r   (12)
2
r r

where w is the angular velocity of the rigid motion. At r＝Rc, the velocity fields of both regions intersect, that is,
wRc＝¡/2πRc, from which Rc can be calculated as:

1/2
Rc (13)
2


Fig. 8 shows the tangential and radial velocity profiles for the forced vortex with a sink model.
For a rigid body motion the pressure can be calculated from, rB=(2½!2r)er, where er is the unit vector in the di-
rection of the radius pointing outwards. Integrating from Rc to r yields:
 r
p 
 12
2 

 2 2 r
, p r
 p Rc
 12 2 Rc
1
2
2 r

2 r2
2 R2c
 Rc Rc

Replacing v from (12) gives:

      

 
  
 
  

   
 

 (14)
   

Fig. 9 shows the pressure distribution.

Several authors, for example Fontain and Dijsman (1953), suggested models of this type.

KONA No.25 (2007) 103

 Fig. 8 Tangential and radial velocity profiles for a potential flow model of a hydrocyclone for ¡=7.065, Q=0.1413 and !=50.

Fig. 9 Pressure distribution for a potential flow model of a hydrocyclone for ¡=7.065, Q=0.1413 and !=50.

2. Rotational inviscid isochoric model

4 4

For steady flow B=rB・v, therefore, from equation (6) B=v × w・v´0, which indicates that Bernouilli is con-
stant along streamlines. Then, in spherical coordinates (»,Á,θ) we can write:

 
   sin

    sin

 0 (15)

therefore, »sinÁvθ=f (ψ) is constant along a streamline, where f (ψ) is the vorticity function, which must be a
constant at the wall. Bloor and Ingham (1973, 1974, 1975, 1984) assumed that the tangential velocity was a free vor-
tex everywhere, that is, vθ=f (ψ)/»sinÁ. Using the stream function to satisfy the continuity equation the velocity
components may be written in the form:


 


   

(16)

Assuming a vorticity function of the form f(ψ)=Fψ−5/3, Bloor and Ingham obtained the following velocity distri-
butions:

3/2 k
r A rz2 r z  12 Ar 1/2
3 r r/z
 (17)

104 KONA No.25 (2007)

  
where

 






(18)

and Q is the volume flow rate to the hydrocyclone, Ai is the feed inlet area, dv is the external diameter of the vortex
finder tube and ℓis the distance form the apex to the lower part of the vortex finder tube. Fig. 10 shows the tan-
gential and radial velocity, while Fig. 11 shows the axial velocity distribution, according to Bloor and Ingham.
Bryshaw (1978) explored other vorticity functions for equation (16). Using cylindrical coordinates, he derived the
following boundary conditions for the stream function f(ψ) at the entry section, at the underflow and at the over-
flow respectively:






(19)

 , 
 

 , 
 



 
  
 

He found that a gamma function and an exponential function were suitable for f(ψ) and gave rise to different
particle selectivity curves, with the gamma function showing a sharper separation. Fig. 12 shows a plot of differ-
ent vorticity function as given by Bryshaw (1978).

Models Based on the Exact Solutions of Reynolds Equation

In general, the turbulent velocity distribution in a hydrocyclone is three dimensional, as we have already dis-
cussed, but the flow can be approximated, except for the region close to the entrance, as an axial-symmetric mo-

Fig. 10 Velocity distribution for the isochoric rotational flow model of a hydrocyclone according to Bloor and Ingham (1974).

Fig. 11 Dimensionless axial velocity distributions for the isochoric rotational

flow model of a hydrocyclone according to Bloor and Ingham (1974).

KONA No.25 (2007) 105

 Fig. 12 Three different vorticity functions according to Brayshaw (1978).

tion. Kelsall (1952) was the first author to determine the essential features of the flow pattern in the hydrocyclone.
With a fair degree of approximation, his work shows that the radial and tangential velocities depend on the r coor-
dinate only. Then, neglecting the body forces, Reynolds equations in cylindrical coordinates, with the turbulence
represented by a constant eddy viscosity vε much greater than the kinematical shear viscosity vt, can be written in
the form:

r r r
 z r z
 0 (20)
2

 r  1 p  1 
r r r   r 
r r r r r
(21)


r   1 
r r r 

r r r r 
(22)



z
z 1

z z
2
r z
r e (23)

r
z r
r
r
z2
The approach followed by the different authors to solve this set of equations depends on the assumptions made
by them with respect to the form and dependence of these equations. Their guideline was the experimental veloc-
ity distribution obtained by authors such as Kellsal (1952), Knowles et al (1973), Hsieh and Rajamani (1988a) and
Quian et al (1989). We will organize this section based on these assumptions.

1. Models with vr=vr (r), vθ=vθ (r) and vz=0

All early authors (Rietema and Krajenbrink 1958, Rietema 1961, Van Dujin and Rietema 1983 and Upadrashta
1987) considered a cylindrical hydrocyclone with the feed entering through the entire cylindrical mantel at r=R
and having a radial velocity vR and a tangential velocity vθR at the entrance, see Fig. 13.
Thus, the flowrate into the hydrocyclone is given by Q=2πRLvR and the circulation at r=R is ¡(R)=2πRvθR,
where L is the height of the cylinder. The boundary conditions for a hydrocyclone with and without an air core
were respectively:

With air core:

R

R
r R

R
r 0
 0 (24)

Without air core:

106 KONA No.25 (2007)

 Fig. 13 Physical model of a cylindrical hydrocyclone.

R

R
r R

R
r Ra  Ro
 0 (25)

where Ra is the radius of the air core and R0 is the radius of the overflow opening.
Rietema and Krajenbrink (1958) analyzed two cases, the hydrocyclone with and without an air core. Since the
feed to the hydrocyclone entered through the whole cylindrical mantle they assumed no axial velocity. This is
equivalent to assume that a linear sink evacuates the fluid at the cylinder axis. Then, from the continuity equation
(20) and boundary condition (25) for r=R, the radial velocity becomes:

r R R r (26)

Introducing equations (25) and (26) into equation (22), they solved for vθ(r) with the radial Reynolds number,
defined by Re=RvR/ve, as a parameter. Their solutions are given in equations (27) and (28) and also in fig. 14 and
15. For a cylindrical hydrocyclone with an air core the size of the overflow Ro:
Re R
2 Re 2r
2 Re

 o
for Re 0 2

 Re R
2
o
Re
2

1 2 ln R
o /r



1 2 ln R
o for Re = 2 (27)





1 for Re =

For a cylindrical hydrocyclone without an air core:


 R
2 Re 2 Re 2 exp Re 2

Re exp Re 2
r
2 Re
/ /


o

2 Re for Re
0  2 , 1
r

R
o

 Ro 2 Re 2 exp Re/2

Re exp Re/2



 12 ln R
o /r

exp 1



 12 ln R
o exp 1
for Re = 2 , 1
r

R
o



2

 R
2 r
R
0
Re/2

Re 2 Re
 1 exp
o
for Re
0  2 , R
o
r

0 (28)

 R
2 Re

 o 2 Re 2 exp Re/2

Re exp Re/2



 exp 1 r
/R
o

exp 1



 12 ln R
o exp 1
for Re = 2 , R
o
r

0



1 for Re 
1
r

0

Comparing their result with experimental information, Rietema and Krajenbrink concluded that the correct ra-
dial Reynolds number for this problem is close to Re≈3. In other words, that the turbulent eddy viscosity should be
a constant of the order of ve≈3×10−4 m/s. In a further analysis, these authors indicate that, if wall effect were taken
into account, the tangential velocity would depend on the z coordinate.
In 1961, Rietema published a study assuming that the radial velocity was constant vr=vR in the whole flow field.
He claimed that this assumption was based on Kelsall s measurements. (As a matter of fact Kelsall s experiments
show that the radial velocity is proportional to the radial distance from the axis). With vr=vR, Rietema solved equa-

KONA No.25 (2007) 107

tion (21) and pointed out that these results were valid for a conical hydrocyclone with a Reynolds number of Re≈
10 (turbulent kinematical eddy viscosity of ºe=10−4m2/s). His solution, for a dimensionless air core of R *a=0.15, is
given in equations (29) to (31) and in Fig. 14.


r
1


 C2 Re
C1 Re R
a
exp Re r

 (29)
Re Re2

Re2
with C1 Re Ra
 

(30)
1  Re
exp Re
 R
2
a 2  R
a Re 1 exp Re R
a

1 1
and C2 Re
 1 C1 Re R
a
exp Re
 (31)
Re Re2

In 1962, Rietema solved the same set of equations and boundary conditions (8) for vr=(vR/R)r, in accordance to
Kelsall s measurements. His solution was (see Fig. 17):
1 C3 Re R
a
  
  



  exp 1 2 Re exp 1 2 Re r
2 (32)
r
r

1
with C3 Re Ra
  
  
 (33)
1  1 2 Re R
2
a exp Re R
2
a
exp 1 2 Re

In a final work Van Duijin and Rietema (1983) went back to their 1958 solution, but now using the equations for a
mixture of a solid and a fluid.
One additional work was done on the same line as Rietema s. Upadrashta and Venkateswarlu (1983) and Upa-
drashta et al. (1983) analyzed the flow of a non-Newtonian pseudo-plastic fluid in a hydrocyclone. His analysis was
justified since concentrated suspensions, such as those used in the mineral industries, are of this type. Based on
the measurements of Kelsall (1952), (which were made with water) they assumed that the radial velocity had the
form vr=(vR/R)r. Introducing this term and a constitutive equation for the non-Newtonian fluid, they obtained the
following expression for the dimensionless tangential velocity and the dimensionless air core radius respectively:

 2
n    2n

1 1 2 1 n 1 (34)
1  1 
r
Rem n r





 



 




 (35)
 







For the case of a Newtonian fluid, n =1, and (34) reduces to a free vortex.

Fig. 14 Tangential velocity profile according to Rietema and Krajen- Fig. 15 Tangential velocity profile according to Rietema and Krajen-
brink (1958) for a cylindrical hydrocyclone with a dimension- brink (1958) for hydrocyclone without air core and a dimen-
less air core the size equal to the overflow Ra*=Ro*=0.15. sionless overflow opening of R*0=0.15.

108 KONA No.25 (2007)

Fig. 16 Tangential velocity profile according to Rietema with R*a= 0.15 Fig. 17. Tangential velocity profile according to Rietema with R*o=0.15
(1961). (1962).

2. Models with vr=vr (r), vθ (r) and vz(r,z)

The problem with the previous models is that they do not consider explicitly the axial velocity. Furthermore,
their solutions serve only to calculate the centrifugal force, but give no clue as to how the particles are separated
and how the particles and fluid are evacuated from the equipment. Furthermore, the authors were not concerned
if their models satisfy the continuity equation. The conclusion is that, if the velocity distributions are to be used in
hydrocyclone modeling, it is essential to incorporate the axial component of the Reynolds equation in the dynamic
process.
Integrating the continuity equation (20) yields:
r
z r z

r
r r
 rdr  K (36)
z

Since, by assumption, the radial component of the velocity is a function or r only, it is clear from (36) that the
axial velocity gradient @vz/@z must be independent of z, that is, the most general form of the axial velocity should
be (Donald and Sullivan 1960):

z  f r
z  g r
(37)

Case 1.: f=0; vz=g(r)

Consider first the case when the axial velocity is an arbitrary function of r independent of z, than:

z R
R

z  g r
 0 and
r  (38)
z r
Equation (38) implies that the radial flow becomes infinite at the cylinder axis; therefore a singularity is intro-
duced into the equations if the axis of symmetry is included in the domain. In that case, no solution exists for which
the tangential velocity diminishes as the radius diminishes, reaching a finite value at the axis. On the other hand,
for a hydrocyclone with an air core of radius Ra, the tangential velocity distribution has the following form:


Ra 2


1 2 Re r Ra 1


(39)
r 2 Re Ra R
Ra 2
1
Since the function g(r) is arbitrary, assume the following form for the dimensionless axial velocity, which com-
pares favorably with experimental data:



6 r 05

z 1 1 8sin (40)
R
Fig. 19 shows the tangential and axial velocity distributions given by equations (39) and (40).
Consider the case of an axial velocity as a linear function of z, with g(r) an arbitrary function of r. The problems
analyzed by Rietema (1961) and Upadrashta et al (1987) correspond to this case. Rietema assumed a constant ra-
dial velocity (vr=vR), which implies that f(r)=vr/r. For this case, g(r) can be an arbitrary function of r. Then,

KONA No.25 (2007) 109

 Fig. 18 Tangential velocity profile according to equation (34) for a
power law fluid with n =0.5 and R *α=0.15.

7 1.25
Re=100
6
Dimensionless axial velocity
0.75
Tangential velocity m/s

Re=10
5

Re=5 0.25
4
Re=4
3 –0.25 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Re=3
2
Re=2 –0.75
1
Re=1
0 –1.25
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Dimensionless radius
Dimensionless radius
a) Tangential velocity b) Axial velocity

Fig.19 Tangential and axial velocity profile with v*z given by (40).

r  R
   r
and z  rR z 1 8sin 6r R0 5 (41)

Their axial velocity distribution is given in Fig. 20.

Collantes et. al. (2000) applied this case to a flat bottom hydrocyclone, with f and g as arbitrary functions of r to
be determined. Introducing the general form of the axial velocity into the field equations and eliminating the pres-
sure, the following set of equations is obtained for f(r) and g(r):


d d f r
1 d df
r r
 f 2 r

r 0
dr dr r dr dr

 (42)
d dg r
1 d dg
r r
 f r
g r

r 0
dr dr r dr dr

To satisfy the continuity equation a stream function ψ was defined, such that:

1
q r
1
1 dq (43)
r r
 r
z
r and z  r
r
r dr z  g r

Defining the dimensionless variable ´=(r/R)2, and introducing these expressions into (42) the following equa-
tions were obtained for q(´) and g(´):

110 KONA No.25 (2007)

 Fig.20 Axial velocity profile according to equation (41).

dq
d 2 q
d3q

2
q
0
d d d 3


(44)
d dg
d dq

q
g
0
d d d d
The viscous terms were neglected in equation (42). This is the same assumption made by Bloor and Ingham
(1976), which gave good results for the axial velocity (see previous section). A solution to this ordinary differential
equation system, compatible with the boundary conditions for a flat bottom hydrocyclone, where the feed enters
the equipment through a ring of height LA in the upper part of the cylinder, see Fig. 21, is:
Finally, the velocity distributions for zone I and II are:
Zone I
    2   
Q Qo r r
2

r r
 1 exp 56 sin (45)
2
rLA Q Ro R
         
Q r
2 Qo R 2 r
2 r
2 z
z r
z
 cos  56 exp 56 (46)

R2 R Q Ro R R LA

Fig. 21 Schematic representation of the flat-bottom hydrocyclone according to Collantes at all (2000).

KONA No.25 (2007) 111

  2


1 exp 1
2 Re
Rr

 r
 R (47)
2 r 1 exp 1 Re


2

where β=π+arcsin(Qu/Q), and where Q, Qu and Q0 are the volume feed and the overflow rate respectively, and
R is the hydrocyclone radius. All the volume flowrates are taken positive. Note that in (45) the factor −Q/2πLAr´
vRR/r and in (46) and (47) Q/πR2´2vRLA/R and ¡R/2πr=vθRR/r.
Zone II
     
Q r
2 Qu r
2

r r
 sin  1 exp 56 (48)
2
L LA
r R Q R
  
   
R 2
Qu r
2 r
2
56 exp 56 cos
Q QRu R R
z r
z
  2 
 (49)

R2  Qu R r 2 z
5 6 exp 56
Q Ru R L LA

 

Re LA r 2
R
1 exp 2
L LA R
 r
     (50)
2 r Re LA
1 exp 2
L LA

In (48) Q/2π(L−LA)r= vRRLA/r(L−LA) and in (49) Q/πR2´2vRLA/R. In both zones the pressure distribution
can be calculated from:

 2


1 2
p r z
 p0
r r
f
r
 f 2 r
z2



r r
g r
 f r
g r
z 
dr
r
(51)
2 r 2 r

From the exact solutions of the Reynolds equations, as given in this section, and from the conclusions of the sev-
eral research workers that have modeled the hydrocyclone in this manner, we can conclude that the radial velocity
depends strongly on the shape of the axial velocity. One can obtain completely different radial velocities distribu-
tions by choosing appropriate axial flows. Nevertheless, the shape of the tangential velocity, as a combination of a
free vortex and a rigid motion, is insensible to the form of these axial and radial velocities. Only the maximum val-
ue of the tangential velocity and its position varies as the radial velocity changes. It is important to note that none of
the radial velocities chosen by Rietema or Upadrashta have associated axial velocities that resemble the experimen-
tal ones.
For the axial velocity to be a consequence of the radial velocity, it must be a function of r and at least a linear
function of z. Finally, we can indicate that, in modeling the hydrocyclone, the selection from several solutions to the
field equations by comparing the size of the maximum of the tangential velocity with experimental values is not the
proper way to go. The three, or at least two, velocity components must be compared and especially the axial veloc-
ity must be reasonable.
Case 3.: Models with vθ=vθ (r), vr=vr (r, z) and vz=vz(r,z)
The more recent experimental data of Hsieh and Rajamani (1988) and Quian et al (1989) confirm that the radial
and axial velocities are functions of the radial and axial coordinates.
Bloor and Ingham (1974, 1983) analyzed the inviscid isochoric flow within a hydrocyclone, as we already saw.
Assuming a free vortex for the tangential velocity, they obtained the radial and axial component as functions of the
radial and axial coordinates. Since these velocities compared favorably with Kelsall s experimental information,
Bloor and Ingham used the resulting axial and radial velocities to recalculate the tangential velocity from Reynolds
s equations with variable eddy viscosity.
Consider the tangential component of Reynolds s equation:

 
r   z 1      z
r 
 z  2
r3 
(52)
r r z r r r r z z

112 KONA No.25 (2007)

Fig 22 Simulated tangential velocity distribution according to
Collantes et al (2000). Comparison with experimental data
from Chiné and Concha (2000).

Fig. 23 Simulated axial velocity distribution, according to Collantes

et al. (2000).

3/2
Using dimensionless coordinates: r*=r/R, v* θ=vθ/v θR, radial and axial velocities given by r A rz2 and
vz=(1/2)A(1/r )(3a −5(r/z)), and assuming that the eddy viscosity has the following form: v"=vt/z (necessary
1/2 2

for the tangential velocity to be independent of z), Bloor and Ingham obtained from (15) with boundary conditions
v*θ(1)=1 and v*θ(0)=0:




 r
1 4 2
5 5 r 5/2
Re 4 2
5 5
Re (53)

where r is the incomplete gamma function, ¸Re is a type of Reynolds number defined by ¸Re=AR5/2/vt and where
vt is fluid kinematical viscosity. The assumption that v"=vt/z2 implies that the length scale ℓ of the turbulence in the

KONA No.25 (2007) 113


 
Prandtl s mixing length theory,


  , varies as ℓ=h(r)/z (Bloor and Ingham 1983). Fig. 25
gives the new tangential velocity distribution.
In 1987 Bloor and Ingham made a further analysis of the swirling flow in hydrocyclones without underflow in
terms of the vorticity function. They started from the continuity equation in spherical coordinates and the Ber-
nouilli equation:

0, B w (54)

where B is the Bernouilli and w is the vorticity defined by w=r×v w=rxv. In component form:








2
sin 
sin
0 (55)

 
1  1  1 
 
w 
sin
; w  

; w
  (56)
 sin      

To satisfy the continuity equation a stream function was used with components:

Fig. 24 Radial velocity distribution for zone I and II, according to Collantes et al. (2000).

Fig. 25 Tangential velocity distribution according to Bloor and Ingahm (1976).

114 KONA No.25 (2007)

 1  1 

and (57)

2 sin 
sin 

The θ,ξ and θ component of vorticity were obtained from the Á and θ component of equation (56). The solu-
tion to the stream function led to the following velocity distributions:

1/2
R 2

r R
1 R2 (58)
z

 


 
 r2 cos
cos2
cos2 sin2

r  2 sin
cosec2  ln tan 2 cosec cot cos
cos
ln tan 2  2 (59)
sin
1 5 cos2


  

z  2 sin
cosec2  ln tan 2
cosec cot cos
cos
ln tan 2
 
 
cosec2  ln tan 2 cosec cot sin2


 
r2 cos
cos2
cos2 sin2
2

(60)
  2 sin
ln tan
2  cos
1
sin2
1 5 cos2

 
cos2
cos2
2r2 2
1 5 cos

where  R2 v2
R Q z (61)

Bloor and Ingham (1987a, 1987b) show that their solution compared well with experimental values of Kelsall
(1952) and of Knowles et al (1973). They indicate that the way the entry conditions are modeled has a profound ef-
fect on the nature of the flow. See Fig. 26.
Hwang et al (1993) extended the work of Bloor and Ingham (1987a) to include underflow through the apex. To
do this, they use a stream function for the sink in the form:

Q cos
cos
1  2 1Qo /Qu
1 cos
(62)

With this modification the velocity distributions become: (see Fig. 27):

1/2
R 2

r R 1 R2 z
(63)

   

D


cos  1 cos  ln tan  2
Q sin  1 1 sin2
 
r   2
2 R2 2 1 cos
Q cos  D

D


 sin 
2 R2 sin2
sin 
  
Q cos  1  1 D

 

z  2 cos  1 cos  ln tan  2
2 R2 2 1 cos
sin2

   (64)
Q sin  D

D


2 sin 
2 R2 sin2
sin 
where Q is the feed volume flowrate, R is the radius of the cylindrical part of the hydrocyclone, σ is given by
(61), =Q0/Qu is the flow partition between overflow and under flow streams and where is the operator D(±)=1−
cos(±)＋sin2(±)In(tan(±)/2).

Similarity Solution of Reynolds Equations

Mikaylov and Romensky (1974) solved Reynolds equations for the flow within a hydrocyclone assuming axial
symmetry and self-similarity, with the similarity variable ´=z/r´z*/r*, independence of vθ from z and an air core
modeled given by the following equation:

KONA No.25 (2007) 115

 Fig. 26 Velocity distribution according to Bloor and Ingham (1987b) compared with experimental values by Kelsall (1952)
and by Knowles et al (1973).

Fig. 27 Simulated velocity distribution compared with measurements according to Hwang et al (1993).

116 KONA No.25 (2007)

 



  


(65)

Defining the dimensionless variables, r*=r/Rmax and v*θ=vθ/vθmax, where the characteristic variable Rmax is the
value of r where the tangential velocity has its maximum vθmax, they obtained the following set of field equations,
1 dp*
r 2 dr (66)

r d r

d



r
dr
r
v
r
z
z dr
 1 d
2r
2 dr

r
Tr
E (67)

r
dvz
1 d
r
dr
r

r
z
dr
0 (68)

They give the solutions to these equations in the form:

 1


2 05 (69)
1 12 r
r1


b

d

z d


z  C dr r   r05 r dr r Tr E  f r
z
(70)

2

 


r
r


C1 (71)
r  z
r
z
 g r

C2

p
2 r dr C3 (72)

The constants depend on the geometry of the hydrocyclone and on the boundary conditions. To obtain the solu-


tion they modeled the extra stress  empirically from measurements of the velocity distributions:

d


dr r 2 Tr E  C4 r h r
(73)

The authors claim good agreement with their own experimental information. However, in setting up the equa-
tions, they eliminate terms arbitrarily in the dimensionless field equations. It is not clear the reason for some elimi-
nation since, in the r and z components of the field equations they eliminated terms of the order of O(10−2), while in
the θ component they eliminated terms of the order of O(10−3). Furthermore, in the z component, they eliminate
the pressure gradient @p*/@z*, which is of the order of O(1). Their results are given in Fig. 28.
Nepomnyashchii and Pavlovskii (1977, 1980), made a dimensional analysis of the integral angular momentum
equations and, using the similarity theory, concluded that the velocity components and the pressure within a hy-
drocyclone could be expressed as an expansion in series of functions of the similarity variables:


  z
3/2
1
 Re 1
1
z
2
 (74)

z  z
3/2 f1
 Re 1
1
z f 2
 (75)

r  Re 1
1
z F1
 (76)


 



  
 



(77)

where



R

z 
z
zR

r 
r
rR and p
 p p0


2

In this case, the Reynolds number is defined in terms of the tangential characteristic velocity vθR. Inserting the
expressions for the velocities into the field equations yields as the first term in the expansion:

KONA No.25 (2007) 117

 Fig. 28 Velocities and pressure distributions according to Mikhailov and Romenskiy (1974).

      




 
 

   

   

 
 (78)




   


 
    
   
 
  (79)





 




  
 
(80)












 






    

 (81)

15C12C2  dr
 1/2 dz
2 Q 4C12 21C22 SI r1/2
C1
C2
o
 and D2
(82)
2I R3/2 R R Rv /
12 6  dr
2 v

R 1 C1 SI 1 2 dz
5 r/

where H1 and H2 are the height of the cylindrical and conical sections respectively, Rv is the outer radius of the
vortex finder tube and Ra is the radius of the air core. With these values the velocities distributions are:
R Ro 1/2 R 3/2
3/2

Q r R
r
RF Ro A1 R
z  2

1/2 2 , F 3 , r F (83)
1 RRo
R C2/3 Re r
1

3
1/3
1 2 RF RF v2F
p p0 3 F r , Ra  R 3 pmax po
(84)

In these equations pmax is the maximum pressure in the apparatus and RF is the eccentricity of the hydrocyclone
feed, that is, the distance from the axis to the center of the inlet pipe.
This model does not satisfy the boundary conditions at the cyclone s wall, therefore, it can be considered to be
valid far from wall only.
Davidson (1988) indicated that Boor and Ingahm s solution of equation (16) could be generalized in the form:


   
m

; with
= 2 2-m
(85)

Unfortunately, no analytical solution of this form could be obtained. Instead, Davidson (1988) proposed a similar-
ity solution, in cylindrical coordinates with the tangential velocity independent of the axial coordinate, of the form:

118 KONA No.25 (2007)


z  zn F r/z

r  zn G r/z
p  P r
 z2n p0 r/z
(86)

 zn2 H r/z
dH
d r/z
 F r/z
G r/z
 r/z
2 F n  1
H (87)

1/2
H 
1/2 r/z
2c
d 2 2 F  a
1/2 d2 2
(88)

where φ is a function obtained by solving the equation:






  
 

   

 
 (89)


Davidson solved these equations numerically obtaining excellent agreement for the velocity distributions with
n=0.5 (corresponding to m=3/2) compared to the experimental values of Knowles et al (1973) and Kelsall (1952).
In this case the axial velocity is:

z  Ar 1/2
1 5 2 5 r/z
 (90)

where A is a constant. Fig. 29 shows this axial velocity:

Asymptotic Solutions of The Reynolds s Equations

According to Collantes and Concha (1998, 2000), the most general axial-symmetric model of a hydrocyclone, hav-
ing the inflow through a cylindrical mantle, may be expressed in terms of a dimensionless axial-symmetric stream
function ª and a dimensionless circulation ¡:
1  ˆ 1  ˆ
r r z ; z r r ;
r (91)

with the radial Reynolds number Re=RvR/v", the dimensionless number R0=LvR/RvθR, representing the ratio
of the total flow Q to the hydrocyclone to the circulation ¡(R) at the cyclone s outer edge, and the characteristic
length α=(R/ℓ)2 as parameters. Appropriate values of ℓ are ℓ=LA in zone I and ℓ=L−LA in zone II. The follow-
^
ing two equations represent the flow field with ´=(r/R)2, »=z/ℓ, ¡=rvθ/RvθR, ª=ª/(Q/2π), L the length of the
hydrocyclone and LA the length of the hydrocyclone s feed:


    2  2
2
     
Re   2 2 Re   2 LA (92)

Fig. 29 Axial velocity for the isochoric rotational flow model of a hydrocyclone according to Davidson (1988),
compared with experimental data of Kelsall (1952). A) n=−0.5; b) n=−1.8.

KONA No.25 (2007) 119

  

  
  
  
 
 
 

 

  
     


(93)
    
  
  



  
 
     
     

In hydrocyclone flow, the tangential velocity is two orders of magnitude greater than the radial velocity, therefore
the dimensionless number R0 is always small (of the order of 10−2). For that reason it is convenient to solve equa-
tions (92) and (93) as a series expansion in R0:
 
  n

Rn0 and    n

Rn0 (94)
n0 n0

Replacing these terms into equations (93) yields:

 o
o 
R0o 
R1o  
R1o 
R2o  (95)

therefore: 0  0

(96)

Zero order approximation

Collantes and Concha (1998, 2000) show that as a zero order approximation:
 



(97)

   

0 exp Re LA 2 0t f01 s
s ds dt
0  1    
(98)
0 exp Re LA 2 0t f01 s
s ds dt
It is convenient to divide the hydrocyclone into two zones: the inlet zone, which will be called zone I, and zone
II below this, see Fig.21. Boundary conditions for equation (97) are obtained from the values of the stream func-
tions »=1 at zone I and »=0 at zone II. Physically this means that for small values of R0, the stream function is totally
specified by their boundary conditions. For a flat bottom hydrocyclone, such as shown in Fig. 21, the boundary
2
conditions equivalent to setting vr(R)=vR, vr(0)=0, vθ(R)=vθR,
z r 0
 Q 2 R2u and
z r L
 Q QD
2 Ru
were found to be:

In zone I: 
 



   


(99)


 
In zone II: 
    





    

(100)
 

    


Where: 

 
      
  
  
  
 (101)

In the zero order approximation, which is with n=0, the circulation and stream functions are independent of R0.
¡ is a function of ´ only and ª are a function of ´ and a linear function of ». This result coincides with the solution
analyzed previously, where vz=f(r)+g(r). The results for the zero order approximation of velocity distributions are
shown in Fig. 30 to 32 (Collantes 2000, Collantes and Concha 2000).

Boundar y Layer Models

In previous sections we have learned that the tangential and axial velocities have an order of magnitude of 1 m/s
and that the tangential velocity is insensitive to the axial coordinate while the axial velocity depends on z. The radial
velocity is two orders of magnitude smaller. Since the axial velocity is of the order of 1 m/s, the length of the hydro-
cyclone is of the order of 1 m and the kinematical viscosity is of the order of 10−4 m2/s, the axial Reynolds number

120 KONA No.25 (2007)

 Fig 30 Dimensionless tangential velocity distribution for several values of the Reynolds number in the zero order approximation.

Fig. 31 Predicted radial velocity profile in a flat bottom hydrocyclone for the zero order approximations in zones I and II. (Collantes 2000,
Collantes and Concha 2000).

is of the order of 104. With this high Reynolds number it is only natural to think of the flow inside the hydrocyclone
as divided into a viscous boundary layer close to the walls and an inviscid flow in the central region. The inviscid
flow was thoroughly analyzed by Bloor and Ingham in several papers (1973,1974,1975a,1975b, 1984a, 1984b) yield-
ing the velocity distribution. In later papers, Bloor and Ingham (1975b, 1976) studied the boundary layer along the
lateral walls and at the top wall of a conical hydrocyclone giving the velocity distribution and volume flow within the
boundary layer and the boundary layer thickness.
For equations (20) to (23), representing the Reynolds equations for the isotropic turbulent swirling flow in a
cone, characterized with a turbulent eddy viscosity v", consider:

KONA No.25 (2007) 121

 Fig. 32 Tangential and axial velocity distribution at several heights of the hydrocyclone for the
zero order approximation. Collantes (2000), Collantes and Concha (2000). Experimental
points are from Chiné and Concha (2000).

1. The boundar y layer at the lateral walls of a hydrocyclone

Since the length scale in the direction “y” perpendicular to the lateral wall is much smaller than in the direction “x”
along the wall, it is convenient to make a coordinate transformation from (z, r) to (x, y) by means of:


     
    


(102)

where α is the semi angle of the hydrocyclone. In addition, it is convenient to define dimensionless variables:
x y vx vy v p




x  y  v  v  v  p 

 Lx



 Ly

(103)
Lx L y x ux y uy ux p0
x
x
y
y
With these considerations the field equations become:
Continuity equation:
     



Lx uy




uy




Ly



x vx


x vy cot

y vy  y
v
x
 0 (104)

x Ly ux
y ux
y Lx
x

122 KONA No.25 (2007)

x* component:
       
 v
x Lx uy  v
x sin v
2 p0 p Lx uy  2 v
x 1 Ly  2 v
x
v
x v
y




 x
Ly ux  y
x
sin
Ly
y
cos  u
2
x  x
Ly ux  x
2 Re Lx  y
2
Lx


 v
x Ly  v
x ux
(105)
1 sin  x
cos Lx  y
1 sin cos uy vy 1 sin2 v
x


2 
2
Re x
sin Ly Re Ly Re Ly
Lx y
cos x
sin y
cos x
sin y
cos
Lx Lx

θ component:


  sin v


uy
cos v
y  
 v
Lx uy  v

u x 1  2 v

1 Lx  2 v


v
x

v
y




x Ly ux y x
sin
Ly
Re  x
2 Re Ly  y
2
Lx y cos



(106)
Lx
 v

Lx  v

1 cos Ly v
1 sin  x
cos Ly  y



2 
2
Re Ly Re
Ly
x
sin Lx y
cos x sin Lx y
cos

y* component:


  uy
cos v

  
 v
y Lx uy  v
y ux p0 Lx uy  p

v
x
v
y



x Ly ux y x
sin
Ly
 u2x Ly ux  y

Lx y cos
 v


 v

(107)
  y Lx y ux
v
x
1  2 v
y 1 Lx  2 v
y 1 sin  x
cos Ly  y
1 sin cos uy


2
Re  x
2 Re Ly  y
2 Re x
sin Ly
y
cos Re Ly
Lx x
sin Lx y
cos

A study of order of magnitude of the terms shows that:







(108)

Substituting into the previous equations and neglecting all terms with powers to the Re−1, the boundary layers
equations in dimensional form for the swirling flow in a cone are:






 
   (109)

    2 
x x y y

 y2
(110)

 x  x 1 p 2 x
x x y y
 x
 y2 (111)


(112)

Since the pressure is independent of y, the pressure gradient in equation (111) can be written in terms of the ve-
locity outside the boundary layer, according to Bernoulli s equation.
Bloor and Ingham (1976) used the velocities obtained for the inviscid flow (see previous analysis) as boundary
conditions at the boundary layer limit. These equations are:



1/2 4 2 Lr
x R

R
5 5 R5/2

x 
x R
x0

 4 2L
(113)
r
5 5

where x0=ℓ/tanα and R is the radius of the cylindrical portion of the hydrocyclone. They obtained solutions to
equations (109) to (112) with boundary conditions (113) using the approximate integral method of von Polhausen.
Defining the new similar variable ´=y/±(x), where ±(x) is the thickness of the boundary layer, they described the
velocity distributions in the form:

KONA No.25 (2007) 123


x



x R
 2
2 a x
1
2

R
 2
2 (114)

Substituting these expressions into the von Karman integrals of the field equations results in two ordinary differ-
ential equations, the result of which indicate that the dimensionless thickness of the boundary layer ±*(x*) increas-
es from x*=0 to x*=0.5, then stays constant and finally diminishes to 0 at x*=1. At the points of maximum thickness
the boundary layer has the form:





  (115)

where x0=ℓ/tanα.

2. Boundar y layer at the top wall of a hydrocyclone

Equations (109) to (112), but in the variables (r, θ, z) are:

r r r
 z r z
 0 (116)
2 E
 r  r 1 p 1  Trz
r r z z r

r
z (117)
E
r   1 T z
r r r
 z z 
z (118)




 (119)

with boundary conditions:

r r 0
 0

r 0
 0
(120)

r r r

 Vr

r r

 V

Since the pressure is independent of z, the pressure gradient in equation (117) can be written in terms of the
velocity outside the boundary layer, according to Bernoulli s equation: Vr@Vr/@r− r=−(1/½)@½/@r. Using the
method of von Karman integrals, Bloor and Ingham (1975b) approximated the velocity distribution with the follow-
ing functions of a similar variable ξ:



1/7 15 8 1
r  Vr  2   2 ;
 V
 1/7 8 
(121)
7 7 7
where ξ=z/±(r)
Smith (1962) analyzed the stability of the boundary layer in the vortex flow of a pneumatic cyclone. He explains
that the flow is naturally unstable close to the wall, since in this region the angular momentum diminishes with in-
creasing radius. The instability manifests itself with the intermittent burst of fluid from the boundary layer moving
radially inwards where it diffuses and loses identity. These burst makes the flow in the cyclone very turbulent even
if there is no turbulence convected into the equipment by the incoming fluid or produced by the interaction of the
incoming fluid with the flow in the cyclone. This turbulence, resulting from the unstable boundary layer is inherent
in any device employing a rotating flow within a stationary container. On a conical wall, the secondary flows and
the generation of turbulence occur in combination. During a burst, the heavy particles are left behind forming the
streaks that are observed commonly in dust separation cyclones. The lighter particles are dragged by the fluid and
re-mix into the main flow. This is a mechanism of re-dispersion of small particles trapped in the boundary layer. Al-
though these mechanisms were observed in pneumatic cyclones, they can also explain the high turbulent motion
in hydrocyclones and the re-dispersion of small particles.
Kumari and Nath (1985) studied the unsteady laminar motion in the boundary layer of nozzles, diffusers and
hydrocyclones. They concluded that the tangential velocity at the edge of the boundary layer is of a non-free vor-
tex type, in contrast to the steady flow. In the flow through hydrocyclones the swirl flow dominates the axial flow,
which increases approaching the apex.

124 KONA No.25 (2007)

 Fig. 33 Discharge volume flow rate QD versus total head H for axial or tangential inlet of water of 0.9×10−3 m3/s.
Also shown is the curve for a tangential inflow of 0.24×10−3 m3/s and axial inflow of 0.66×10−3 m3/s.

The Air Core

The role of the air core in the performance of a hydrocyclone was not recognized until 1987, when Plitt and co-
workers commented that it relates to the flow transition from a spray discharge to roping. That same year Davidson
et al (1987) indicated that as the slurry viscosity increased, the angular velocity dropped in the hydrocyclone and
the air core contracts. Castro (1990) found that the water split is mainly controlled by the air core size for an apex/
vortex ratio and, therefore, under such conditions the water split is governed by those operating conditions and
variables which affect the air core. Bustamante (1991) found that working a hydrocyclone with water only might be
used to predict roping conditions. He performed tests in which, for a fixed apex/vortex ratio, he measured the un-
derflow rate for increasing values of the feed rate. Those conditions for which no underflow was obtained because
the air core obstructed completely the apex, coincided with the onset of roping when the hydrocyclone was oper-
ated with pulp (Barrientos et al 1993, Concha et al 1996). This late recognition of the importance of the air core
in the operation of a hydrocyclone is strange, since research workers had developed models for the air core size in
vortex motions long before.
Binnie and Hookings (1957) analyzed the drainage of water from an open cylindrical tank with a controlled axial
and tangential inflow and a free discharge at the bottom and center of the tank. They observed a relationship be-
tween the total head and the discharge rate that depended on the ratio of tangential to radial inflow. They also ob-
served a critical pressure head that could maintain an air core. Fig. 32 shows such curves.
When a combination of tangential and axial inflow of constant ratio was used, they observed an interesting phe-
nomenon of surging. This effect was related to the forming and breaks down of the air core. Consider the tank
full up to a total head of 0.16 m with a tangential inflow rate of 0.24×10−3 m3/s and an axial inflow rate of 0.66×
10−3 m3/s. The total inflow was maintained at 0.9×10−3m3/s. The curve for the total head versus the discharge
flow rate is also given in Fig. 32. At H=0.16m, the ratio of tangential to axial inflow rates of 0.37 is not sufficient to
maintain an air core and the entire discharge leaves through the exit pipe with a flow rate of 2.3×10−3 m3/s. Since
this outflow is larger than the inflow of 0.90×10−3 m3/s, the container begins to loose water and the total head and
discharge rate diminish until H becomes H=0.06m. This is the lowest total head at which a coreless discharge is

KONA No.25 (2007) 125

possible with the given inflow ratio of 0.37 and, once again, an air core forms suddenly diminishing abruptly the
discharge rate to 0.57×10−3 m3/s. This outflow is now smaller then the inflow of 0.90×10−3 m3/s, and the water
level will rise until the discharge rates equate the inflow rate. At this point, with a total head is H=0.16m, the air
core again becomes unstable collapsing to a coreless outflow of 2.3×10−3 m3/s. Then, a new cycle begins.
Binnie and Hookings (1957) obtained an approximate expression  for the
discharge

rate in the above problem, by
B
p
1 2 v2 v2
considering a potential flow. With the Bernouilli given by z ，the total head is H=B/g, and

1 2
the axial velocity at the interface, where p=0, is given by vz 2gH v2 / . If the underflow and the air core radii
are denoted by Ru and Ra respectively, the outflow volume is given by:


Qu R2u R2a z (122)

and therefore:


1 2
Qu R2u R2a 2gH V
2 / (123)

For an inviscid flow, the tangential velocity is a free vortex of the form vθ=Vθu/r, where Vθu is the tangential ve-
locity at r=Ru, and therefore, for r=Ra:

 
2 1/2
Qu R2u R2a 2gH V
u Ra (124)

Binnie and Hookings argued that, for the stability of the flow, Ra should adjust itself so that the discharge is maxi-
mum, which means that @Qu/@R=0, and leads to the following condition:
4gHR4a V 2u R2a V 2u R2u 0 (125)

from which the radius of the air core is:

1/2
V 4u  V 4u 16gHV 2u R2u
/
12
Ra  8gH (126)

Equation (125) we can also be written in the form:

V 2u R2u
4gHR4a 2V 2u R2a
V 2u R2a V 2u R2u 2V 2u R2a
0 , 2gH V 2u  2R2a R2a
1
v2z Ra
(127)

This is the value of the axial velocity in the discharge tube. Introducing this value into equation (122), the flow
rate through the discharge can be found:

3
Ru 2
Q2u 12 R2aV
2u Ra 1 (128)

2
2 
2 3
Qu 1 Ra Ru
u 8 Ru Ra 1 (129)

where ¡u=2πRuVθu is the circulation at r=R. This equation was derived by Smith (1962) for the outflow of a hydro-
cyclone.
Davidson (1994) followed Binnie and Hookings approach to calculate the air core size, for one outlet at the un-
derflow and for two outlets at the underflow and overflow. For one outlet he described the tangential velocity with
the equation vθ=A/rn. The Bernouilli can now be written in the form B
p 2 A2 r 2n
z . At the air core inter-
face the pressure is zero, r=Ra and A=Vθu, then:

1/2
z 2B V 2u R2n a (130)

So that the volume flow results:


1/2
Qu R2u R2a 2B V
2u R2n
a (131)

Differentiating this expression with respect to Ra and equating the result to zero yields:






 

 (132)


126 KONA No.25 (2007)

For n=1, equation (129) derived by Smith (1962) is recovered:
For two outlets Davidson (1994) described the axial velocities with the following equations 
 


and 
 

 . The total flowrate is given by:


1/2

1/2
Q
R2u R2a 2B V
2u R2n
a R2o R2a 2B V
2o R2m
a (133)

After differentiating with respect to Ra , the radius of the air core becomes:

1/2
nR2uV 2uVzu mR2oV 2oVzo
Ra  2 nV 2
V  2V 2 mV 2
V
2Vzu (134)
u zo zo o zu

For large Vθu, Ra→Ru and for large Vθ0, Ra→Ro. Since Ru is smaller than Ro the apex will be blocked first.
Davidson (1994) indicates that, using inviscid flow to calculate the air core size, equation (134) gives correct re-
sults when the fluid is water. For a suspension he assumes that a correction factor proportional to the ratio of the
kinematical viscosity of the suspension vs to the kinematical viscosity of the water vw can be used for the air core
radius as follows:

0 3
Ra
suspension Ra
water s
w
(135)

Davidson (1994) further indicates that his equation for the air core size compares well with the experiments of
Petersen (1993) and those of Kelsall (1952), Hsieh and Rajamani (1991) and Svarovsky and Marasinghe (1980).
The agreement with the experiments of Steffens et al (1993) is only fair.
Mikhaylov and Romenskiy (1974) proposed the following equation for the air core in a conical hydrocyclone:




 
 
(136)

where 2αis the angle of the conical section of the hydrocyclone and ka is a constant.
Nepomnyashchii and Pavlobskii (1977) derived the following equation for the air core radius (see equation ):

1/3
RF
v2F
Ra R 3 p (137)

where RF and R are the eccentricity of the hydrocyclone feed and the hydrocyclone radius respectively, vF is the
inlet velocity of the feed.
Svarovsky (1984) presented this equation in dimensionless form:

1/3
da dF 1 dc 4
(138)
dc dc 3Eu dF
where da, dF and dc are the air core diameter, twice the inlet eccentricity and the hydrocyclone diameter respective-
ly and Eu=¢p/(1/2)½v2 is Euler s number.
Barrientos et al (1993) calculated the air core radius using the momentum jump balance for the normal stresses.
Across the interface, a jump of the normal stresses exists and is given by the Young-Laplace equation:

T n
n 2H (139)

where the square brackets represent the jump of a property across the interface, T is the stress tensor, n is the
normal unit vector to the interface, H is the main curvature of the air core and γ is the liquid surface tension. As-
suming the air behaves as an ideal fluid rotating as a rigid body with density ½a and angular velocity !a and that the
liquid is a Newtonian fluid with viscosity μ, equation (139) can be written in the form:


1 2 3  vr (140)
2 a a Ra 2  r r
R pa Ra

0
a

Introducing the dimensionless variables and making a study of order of magnitude of the resulting equation,
they found the following equation for the air core:

KONA No.25 (2007) 127

 

  (141)

Based on this equation Concha et al (1996) and Castro et al (1996) developed empirical equations for the air core
diameter in terms of the operating variables in a laboratory and industrial hydrocyclone respectively. Concha et al
(1996) obtained the following equation for the air core:
3 03
do
da  5


du 0 20 (142)
270 3w 1 1 18
10
2 61 do
1 38
10 3
P

In this equation γ is measured in N/m, μw is in kg/ms, ¢P is in Pa and da, do and du are in m. In this case ¢P is
the total pressure drop in the hydrocyclone.
Castro et al (1996) obtained the following relationship:
103 6 du /do
0 89
da 

(143)
6 3
/
w
1 0 19815 1 41
1 57
P P

where μ and μw are the viscosities of the pulp and the water respectively.
Ovalle and Concha (1955) studied the generation and propagation of waves at the air core-water interface of a
conical hydrocyclone. They show that inside the hydrocyclone the flow is sub-critical (Froude number less than
1) and therefore in a favorable condition for the existence of ondulatory motions in the fluid. Through a hydraulic
analogy consisting of a launder with a ramp where the water enters through the bottom at the left side, and over-
flows both at the left and the right of the upper part of the physical model, see fig. 34. The centrifugal force of the
hydrocyclone is substituted by the gravitational force in the hydraulic model.
The flow in this hydraulic analogy was modeled as inviscid and irrotational obtaining the form of the free surface
as:
  
 
    

 


where A is a constant, !(t) and k(x) represent the temporal and the spatial behavior respectively. Fig. 35 shows
some isobaric lines resulting from the calculations of the temporal evolution of the waves imposed over the free
surface.
The authors concluded that the form of the free surface depends mainly on the global geometrical characteris-
tics of the flow and possibly to a minor extent on physicochemical properties at the surface. They show that the
waves propagating through the water-air interface of the air core will increase their amplitude as the hydrocyclone
diameter becomes smaller (tsunami effect), so that the air core may become of the size of the apex, in which case
instability is induced in the underflow. The apex would intermittently become blocked by the air core, inducing
roping. Unfortunately the presence of waves in a conical hydrocyclone is inherent in the physics of the flow.

Conclusions

In spite of the fact that the experimental evidence on the flow pattern in hydrocyclones is based on studies with
water or a single phase fluid, it can be said that the flow pattern in a hydrocyclone is well understood. From the
known measurements that of Hsieh and Rajamani (1984a, 1988) is the most reliable one. From measurements and
hydrodynamic modeling, the shape of the three velocity component has been established and the early discrepan-

Fig. 34 Hydraulic analogy of a conical hydrocyclone.

128 KONA No.25 (2007)

 Fig. 35 Isobaric lines in the hydraulic model of a conical hydrocyclone.

cies solved. What is still not sufficiently clear is the shape of the air core and how it affects the flow pattern and the
fluctuating component of the velocities.
The problem with the early models is that they did not consider explicitly the axial velocity. Furthermore, their
solutions serve only to calculate the centrifugal force, but give no clue as to how the particles are separated and
how the particles and fluid are evacuated from the equipment. Those authors were not concerned if their models
satisfy the continuity equation. The conclusion is that it is essential to incorporate the axial velocity component to-
gether with the tangential and radial velocity, in the dynamic process.
From the exact solutions of the Reynolds equations and from the conclusions of the several research workers
that modeled the hydrocyclone in this manner, we conclude that the radial velocity depends strongly on the shape
of the axial velocity. One can obtain completely different radial velocities distributions by choosing appropriate
axial flows and, therefore, it is essential to choose an axial velocity that approximates the experimental one. Never-
theless, the shape of the tangential velocity, as a combination of a free vortex and a rigid motion, is insensible to the
form of these axial and radial velocities. Only the maximum value of the tangential velocity and its position varies
as the radial velocity changes.
The axial velocity must be a function of r and at least a linear function of z. Finally, we can indicate that, in mod-
eling the hydrocyclone, the selection from several solutions to the field equations by comparing the size of the
maximum of the tangential velocity with experimental values is not the proper way to go. The three, or at least two,
velocity components must be compared and especially the axial velocity must be reasonable.
The knowledge of the flow pattern in a hydrocyclone and the quantitative description of the velocity distributions
are sufficient at the present to develop classification models in the hydrocyclone. A review of this subject will be
presented in a future article.

Acknowledgments
Financial support for this work was provided by the University of Concepción and by Cettem Ltd., which is great-
ly acknowledged.

References
Barrientos, A., Sampaio, R. And Concha, F., Effect of the air core on the performance of a hydrocyclone, XVIII In-
ternational Mineral Processing Congress, Sydney, 23-28 May 1993, 267-270.
Bhattacharyya, P., Theoretical study of the flow field inside a hydrocyclone with vortex finder diameter greater
than the apex opening; I. Laminar case, Applied Scientific Research, 36, 1980a, 213-225.
Bhattacharyya, P., Theoretical study of the flow field inside a hydrocyclone with vortex finder diameter greater
than the apex opening; II. Turbulent case, Applied Scientific Research, 36, 1980b, 197-212.
Bhattacharyya, P., The flow field inside a conventional hydrocyclone, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Hydrocyclones, BATH,
Cranfield, Paper H2, 1984, 323-330.
Binnie, A.M. and Hookings, G.A., Laboratory experiments on whirlpools, Proc. Roy. Soc. A., 194, 1948, 5.
Bloor, M.I.G. and Ingham, D.B., The flow in industrial cyclones, J. Fluid Mech. 178, 1987a, 507-519.

KONA No.25 (2007) 129

Bloor, M.I.G. and Ingham, D.B., Theoretical investigation of the flow in a conical hydrocyclone, Trans. Inst. Chem.
Engrs. 51(1), 1973, 36-41.
Bloor, M.I.G. and Ingham, D.B., Theoretical analysis of the conical cyclone, First European Conference on Mixing
and Centrifugal Separation, Cambridge, September 1974, paper E-6, 95-106, BHRA, Cranfield, Bedford, England,
Bloor, M.I.G. and Ingham, D.B., Turbulent spin in a cyclone, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. 53, 1975a, 1-6.
Bloor, M.I.G. and Ingham, D.B., The leakage effect in the industrial cyclone, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. 53, 1975b,
7-11.
Bloor, M.I.G. and Ingham, D.B., Boundary layer flows on the side walls of conical cyclones, Trans. Instn. Chem.
Engrs. 54, 1976, 276.
Bloor, M.I.G. and Ingham, D.B., Theoretical aspects of hydrocyclone flow, in Prog. Filtr. and Sep., Part. 3, Ed. R.J.
Wakeman, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 57-148.
Bloor, M.I.G. and Ingham, D.B., The influence of vorticity on the efficiency of the hydrocyclone, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf.
Hydrocyclones, BATH, Cranfield, 1984a, Paper B2, 51-66.
Bloor, M.I.G. and Ingham, D.B., A theoretical investigation of the fluid mechanics of the hydrocyclone, Filtr. Sep.,
July/August 1984b, 266-269.
Bloor, M.I.G., On axially symmetric flow models for hydrocyclones, 3rd. International Conference on Hydrocy-
clones, Oxford, England, September 1987b, Paper D-2, 83-89.
Brayshaw, M.D., A numerical model for inviscid flow of fluid in a hydrocyclone, Int. J. mineral Process., 29, 1990,
51-75.
Bustamante, M.O., Effect of the hydrocyclone geometry on normal operation condition, M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Concepción, 1991, (in Spanish).
Castro, O., Pulp Rheology effects for hydrocyclone models, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Queensland, 1990.
Castro, O., Concha, F., Montero, J., Miranda, J., Castro J. and Urizar, D., Air core modelling for an industrial hydro-
cyclone, Hydrocyclones-96. Ed. D. Claxton, L. Svarovsky and M.T. Thew, MEP Ltd., London 1996.
Chiné, B. and Concha, F., Flow patterns in conical and flat bottom hydrocyclones, Chem. Eng. Journal, 80, 2000,
267-273.
Collantes, J., Modelación fenomenológica del flujo en vórtice, Tesis doctorado en Ingeniería Matemática, Universi-
dad de Concepción, 2000.
Collantes, J. and Concha, F., Asymptotic solutions of the Navier-Stokes equation for the swirling flow in a flat bot-
tom hydrocyclone, XXVI Congresso Brasileiro de Sistemas Particulados, Teresópolis, RJ, Brasil, 19-22 Outubro
1998.
Collantes, J. and Concha, F., Vortex flow in flat-bottomed hydrocyclones: Leading order steady solution, XXI IMPC,
Development in Mineral Processing 13, P. Massacci Ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000, A4-77, A4-86.
Collantes, J., Concha, F. and Chiné, B., Axial symmetric model for a flat bottom hydrocyclone, Chem. Eng. Journal,
80, 2000, 257-265.
Concha, F., Barrientos, A., Montero, J. and Sampaio, R., Air core and roping in hydrocyclones, Int. J. Miner. Pro-
cess., 44-45, 1996, 743-749.
Concha, F. and Collantes, J., Solution to the Navier-Stokes equation for the flow in a flat-bottom hydrocyclone with
the axial velocity dependent on the radial and axial coordinate,. Conference on Solid-liquid Separation, Hawaii,
April 1999.
Dabir, B. and Petty, C.A., Laser Doppler anemometry measurements of tangential and axial velocities in a hydrocy-
clone operating without an air core, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Hydrocyclones, BATH, Cranfield, Paper A2, 1984, 15-26.
Davidson, M.R., Similarity solutions for the flow in hydrocyclones, Chem. Eng. Sci., 43, (7), 1988, 1499-1505.
Davidson M.R., Numerical calculations of flow in a hydrocyclone operating without an air core, Appl. Math. Model-
ling, 12, 1988, 119-128.
Davidson, M.R., An adaptive method of predicting the air core diameter for numerical models of hydrocyclone flow,
CSIRO Division of Mineral and Process Engineering, 1994, 1-21.
Donaldson, C. And Sullivan, R.D., Behavior of solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for a complete class of
three-dimensional viscous vortices, Proceedings of the Heat transfer and Fluid mechanics Institute, June 1960,
16-30.
Fontain, F.J. and Dijksman, C., Recent developments in Mineral Dressing, Inst. Min. Met., London 1953, 229.
Gu, F. and Li, W., Measurement and study of velocity field in various cyclones by use of laser Doppler anemometry,

130 KONA No.25 (2007)

 Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Hydrocyclones, Oxford, BHRA, Paper C2, 1987, 65-74.
Hsieh, K.T. and Rajamani, K., (1988a). Phenomenological model of hydrocyclone: Model development and verifica-
tion for single phase flow, Int. J. Mineral process.,22, 223-310.
Hsieh, K.T. and Rajamani, K., Phenomenological model of hydrocyclone: Numerical solution and verification of par-
ticle movements, Proceedings of the XVI IMPC, Ed. E. Forssberg, Amsterdam, 1988b, 377-388.
Hsieh, K.T. and Rajamani, K., AIChE Journal, 37, 1991, 735.
Kelsall, D.F., A study of the motion of solid particles in a hydraulic cyclone, Recent development in Mineral Pro-
cessing, 1st IMPC, London, 1952, 209-228.
Kelsall, D.F., Some applications of hydraulic cyclones in hydrometallurgical processes, Trans. AIME, 226, 1963,
225-231.
Knowles, S.R., Woods, D.R. and Feurstein, I.A., The velocity distribution within a hydrocyclone operating without
an air core, Can.J. Chem. Engng.,51, 1973, 263-271.
Kumari, K. and Nath, G., Unsteady swirling boundary layer flow with heat and mass transfer in nozzles, diffusers
and hydrocyclones, Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 28 (7) 1985, 1377-1383.
Hwang, C.C., Shen, H.Q., Zhu, G. And Khonsari, M.M., On the main flow pattern in hydrocyclones, Journal of Flu-
ids Engineering, 155, March 1993, 21-25.
Knowles, S.R., Woods, D.R. and Fuerstein, I.A., The velocity distribution within a hydrocyclone operating without
an air core, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 51, 1973, 263.
Mikaylov, P.M. and Romensky, A.A., On the calculation of the flow dynamics in liquid cyclones, Fluid Mechanics,
Soviet Reserch, 3, (1), 1974, 154-159.
Nepomnyashchii, E.A. and Pavlobskii, V.V., Hydrodynamic design of a hydrocyclone, Theor. Found. of Chem. Eng.
(Engl. Transl), 11, (1), 1977, 83-88.
Nepomnyashchii, E.A. and Pavlobskii, V.V., Calculating the velocity field in a hydrocyclone on the basis of a laminar
analog of the averaged turbulent flow, Theor. Found. of Chem. Eng. (Engl. Transl), 13, (5), 1980, 671-674.
Nepomnyashchii, E.A. and Pavlobskii, V.V., Hydrodynamic calculation of a pressurized hydrocyclone, Theor.
Found. of Chem. Eng. (Engl. Transl), 20, (2), 1986, 151-156.,
Ohasi, H. and Maeda, S., Motiuon of water in a hydraulic cyclone, Trans. Chem. Eng. (Kagaku Kogaku), 22, 1958,
200-2007.
Ovalle, E. and Concha, F., The role of wave propagation in hydrocyclone operation II: Wave propagation in the air-
water interface of a conical hydrocyclone, Chem. Eng. J., 111, 2005, 213-223.
Petersen, K.R.P, Vortex chamber modelling for hydrocyclone simulation, M.Sc. Thesis, JKMRC, University of
Queensland, Australia, 1993.
Quian, L., Changlie, D., Jirun, X. Lixin, Yu and Guangai, X., Comparison of the performance of water-sealed and
commercial hydrocyclone, Int. J. Mineral Process., 25, 1989, 297-310.
Rajamani, K. and Hsieh, K.T., Hydrocyclone model: A fluid mechanical approach, SME Annual meeting, Phoenix
Arizona, Preprint 88-163, 1988.
Rajamani R.K. and Devulapalli, B, Hydrodynamic modeling of swirling flow and particle classification in large-scale
hydrocyclones, Kona, 12, 1994, 95-104.
Rietema, K. And Krajenbrink, H.J., Theoretical derivation of tangential velocity profiles in a flat vortex chamber. In-
fluence of turbulence and wall friction, Appl. Scio. Res., Section A, 8, 1958, 177-197.
Rietema, K., Performance and design of hydrocyclones: I. General considerations, Chem. Eng. Sci., 15, 1961,
298-302.
Rietema, K., Liquid-solids separation in a cyclone: The effect of turbulence on separation, Symposium on the inter-
action between fluids and particles, London, Inst. Chem. Engrs., 1962, 275-281.
Smith Jr., J.L., An analysis of the vortex flow in the cyclone separator, Trans. ASME, Jl. Basic Engn., December
1962, 609-618.
Steffens, P.R., Whiten, W.J., Appleby, S. and Hitchins, J., Prediction of air core diameters for hydrocyclones, Int. J.
Miner. Process., 39, 1993, 61-74.
Svarovsky, L., Hydrocyclones, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, London, 1984, 198pp.
Svarovsky, L. and Marasinghe, B.S., Performance of hydrocyclones at high solid concentrations, Int. Conf. Hydro-
cyclones, BHRA, Cambridge, 1980, Paper 10, 127-142.
Upadrashta, K.R. and Venkateswarlu, D., Tangential flow pattern of power-law fluids in a hydrocyclone, Journal of

KONA No.25 (2007) 131

 Powder & Bulk solids Technology, 7, (4), 1983, 19-28.
Upadrasta, K.R., Ketcham, V.J. and Miller, J.D., Tangential velocity profile for pseudo-plastic power-law fluids in the
hydrocyclone. A theoretical derivation, Int. J. Mineral Process., 20, 1987, 309-318.
Van Duijin, G. and Rietema, K., Performance of a large-cone-angle hydrocyclone, I. Hydrodynamics, Chem. Eng.
Sci.. 38, (10), 19083, 1651-1661.
Xu, J. Luo, Q and Qiu, J., Studying the flow field in a hydrocyclone with no forced vortex, Part 1. Average velocity,
Filtr. Sep. July/August, 1990, 276-278.

Author’s short biography

Fernando Concha Arcil

Fernando Concha Arcil obtained a Batchelor degree in Chemical Engineering at
the University of Concepción in Chile in 1962 and a Ph.D. in Metallurgical Engi-
neering from the University of Minnesota in 1968. He is professor at the Depart-
ment of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Concepción. His main research
topic is the application of transport phenomena to the field of Mineral Processing,
He has published four books: Modern Rational Mechanics, Design and Simulation
of Grinding-Classification Circuits and Filtration and Separation, all in Spanish, and
Sedimentation and Thickening: Phenomenological Foundation and Mathematical
Theory in English. He also has published more than 100 technical papers in inter-
national journals. For his work in sedimentation with applications to hydrocyclones
and thickeners he received the Antoine Gaudin Award 1998, presented by the
American Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration, SME.

132 KONA No.25 (2007)

View publication stats