Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cherd

Improving cyclone efficiency for small particles

Sepideh Akhbarifar ∗ , Mansour Shirvani

Chemical Engineering Department, Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran 16846, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Test results of a new highly efficient add-on for cyclones are reported. The add-on has
Received 5 February 2019 the same beneficial characteristics as cyclones (versatility, long-lasting, low construction
Received in revised form 6 May 2019 and maintenance cost, simple design, little investment, little extra space, flexible operating
Accepted 11 May 2019 conditions). The new device was tested in combination with Stairmand cyclones. Efficiencies
Available online 18 May 2019 without any additional filters reached 98% for a particle size distribution with an average of
1.6 ␮m and >99% for particles ≥10 ␮m. In the most effective mode of operation the dust enters
Keywords: the cyclone(s) and the depleted stream leaves for the add-on, a ‘jet impingement chamber’,
Cyclone which contains an air-blowing nozzle pipe pushing dust particles toward the wall creating
Jet impingement chamber clean gas in the center, which is released. The dust-enriched stream is recycled, i.e., added
Recycle flow to the fresh feed for the cyclones. Experiments were performed under large-scale operating
Clean air conditions and design methods applied to fully characterize the system’s efficiency with
Efficiency all variables of operation including three dust particle size distributions covering the range
Design methods from 0.3 to 200 ␮m.
© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Efficient separation of solid particles from off-gas protects workers and
equipment, reduces environmental pollution, and prevents reactions
between gases and particles. Tighter environmental regulations make
it necessary to replace or retrofit older equipment. At the same time
more cost-effective, i.e. low downtime and low maintenance, long-
lasting versatile systems are in demand. Cyclones are the most widely
used industrial dust collectors from gas streams (Jo et al., 2000).
Cyclones have no moving parts and work on the basis of cen-
trifugal forces resulting from cyclonic streams inside the apparatus.
Gravitational, centrifugal, and frictional forces affect the particles in
the separation process (Miyakawa et al., 1984). The entrained parti-
cles inside the cyclone move toward the wall and are collected during
axial movement in the downward direction. The biggest advantages of
cyclones in comparison to other dust removal equipment are relatively
low construction and maintenance cost, simple design, little invest-
ment, flexible operating conditions, including elevated temperatures
and pressures. Important disadvantages of cyclones are decreasing effi-
ciency for the separation of particles 5 ␮m and less, due to reduced
centrifugal forces acting on the particles. Removal of submicron size
particles is paramount in some very large-scale domains such as trans-
port of natural gas. Pipelines contain ‘black powder’ whose particle size
is on the order of 1 ␮m and less. The powder must be separated from the
gas to avoid, e.g., damage to compressors (Tsochatzidis, 2008). In recent
years, research resulted in improving the dust separation efficiency
for fine particles in industry-scale cyclones based on new designs
(Obermair and Staudinger, 2001). In most cases, improvement of effi-
ciency was small and in some cases increased the number of operation
variables and complicated the design (Gregg, 1995). An auxiliary device
called post cyclone (PoC) was introduced and attached to reverse-flow
cyclones at the exit of the vortex finder and showed that emission of
fine particles was reduced (Jo et al., 2000; Ray et al., 1997). To increase
the efficiency of conventional cyclones, a double cyclone both with and
without electric field has been proposed and tested (Lim et al., 2004).
Jamshidifard et al. (2016) introduced a helical-duct dust concentrator
coupled with a cyclone to design an efficient cyclone dust separator
for fine particles. Samaeili et al. (2017) showed that decreasing the
outlet diameter and the inlet width of cyclones resulted in higher effi-
ciency of hydro-cyclones. Enlarging the body diameter had a negative
effect on efficiency. Furthermore, the cyclone efficiency is enhanced as
the density difference between fluid and solid and the input velocity
become larger. Another recent innovation for improving the collection
efficiency is the use of a centrifugal impeller inside the cyclone in place

∗
Corresponding author current address: Vitreous State Laboratory, Department of Physics, The Catholic University of America, 400 Hannan
Hall (Room 312), 620 Michigan Ave. N.E., Washington, D.C. 20064, USA.
E-mail address: sepideha@vsl.cua.edu (S. Akhbarifar).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2019.05.026
0263-8762/© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
484 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492
of the immersion tube for the purpose of improved repulsion of the
dust escaping from the cyclone (Jiao et al., 2006). Sadighi et al. (2006)
designed a chamber, which divides the output stream from the cyclone
into two streams; one with fewer particles (taken as the clean output
stream) and the other with more particles, which is recycled to the
cyclone.
Funk and Baker (2013) published a literature review on dust cyclone
technology covering the evolution of cyclones since 1929 and reports on
their efficiencies. Cyclone efficiencies are measured frequently by a ‘cut
point’, meaning that the collection efficiency (or grade) is 50%. For larger
particles the collection efficiency approaches 100%. For many cyclones
used in industry, the cut point is less than 5 microns, normalized for
shape and density, Koch and Licht (1977).
The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a comprehen-
sive test of efficiency of a recently introduced jet impingement chamber
(Akhbarifar et al., 2009, 2011a, 2011b), an add-on for cyclones that
improves the overall efficiency. The design and operation of a pilot plant
will be described, which consisted essentially of two cyclones con-
nected to the jet impingement chamber, which was complemented to
allow rotation of the nozzle tube. Two cyclones were used only because
the then invented jet impingement chamber (Akhbarifar et al., 2009,
2011a, 2011b) could be attached to and tested with an already existing
experimental setup. The variables tested were the feed flow rate, the
recycle flow rate, the flow rate of air from the nozzles inside the jet
impingement chamber, and three particle size distributions covering a
range of 0.3 ␮m to 200 ␮m. The potentially beneficial effect of rotating
the nozzle tube was tested as well.
2. Experiments and design methods
In this section we explain the jet impingement-recycling-
cyclone device and report on the tests completed to evaluate
the pilot plant efficiency as a function of feed-, recycle-, and
jet-impingement flow rates, using three different dust parti-
cle size distributions (PDS). The full fractional design (FFD)
method was used (Section 2.2) to determine the number of
necessary experiments and to develop a response model to
calculate system efficiencies that complement our experi-
mental work.
When a fourth variable, the speed of rotation of the nozzle
tube was introduced, the central composite rotatable design
(CCRD) method was used (Section 2.3) to determine the num-
ber of experiments to be conducted and to develop a response
model to calculate chamber efficiencies that complement our
experimental work.
2.1. Jet impingement-recycling-cyclone device
Our dust-separating chamber includes a modified version of
Sadighi et al. (2006) work, who suggested separating a dust
entrained gas stream into one that is depleted (clean) and
one that is enriched in dust particles as described above. Our
chamber can be operated in different ways, which will be
explained by referring to Fig. 1a, b. The Figure shows the design
of the pilot plant and two alternative modes of operation. The
height of the add-on is comparable, e.g., to that of a Stairmand
cyclone.
In Fig. 1a, a gas (air) stream loaded with dust particles (the
feed) is sent through the cyclones and then tangentially to
the jet impingement chamber for further cleaning. The cham-
ber has two tangential inlets on opposite sides. In this device
the feed stream is drawn downward for particle separation.
Along its center axis, the cylindrical chamber holds a thin tube
equipped with air-blowing nozzles. The air jets from the noz-
zles push the dust particles toward the wall of the cylinder,
creating a cleaned stream of air in the center and a stream
enriched with dust near the wall of the chamber. At the bottom
of the chamber the cleaned stream is extracted tangentially
and released to the environment. To collect and weigh resid-
ual particles in the clean stream during testing, a bag filter
was attached near the exit. The dust-enriched stream leaves
the chamber toward the cyclones where it is united with fresh
feed. We used two high efficiency Stairmand cyclones with a
diameter of 15 cm and height of 60 cm (body plus cone) each.
The jet impingement chamber had a diameter of 30.5 cm and
was 169 cm high. The length of the nozzle tube was 169 cm,
had a diameter of 8.22 cm and contained 300 nozzles with a
diameter of 0.6 cm each.
In Fig. 1b, the dust is fed (tangentially) directly into the
jet impingement chamber. This was done to test its effi-
ciency without using a cyclone first. Knowing that state of
art cyclones can reach very high efficiency for larger particles
(>5 ␮m) the question was whether the jet impingement cham-
ber could do the same. Since separation of the solid particles
from the gas phase depends solely on the effectiveness of the
air blowing from the nozzles, rotation of the nozzle rod may
enhance the separation. Therefore, a motor was attached in
Fig. 1b to drive the nozzle rod at various velocities, including no
rotation. Again, the cleaned air in the middle of the chamber
is released to the environment. During testing residual parti-
cles in the cleaned air is collected and weighed to measure the
efficiency of the jet impingement chamber. The dust-enriched
stream is sent to the cyclones for particles collection. In this
scenario the cyclones are not the main part of the separa-
tion process. The dust-depleted air from the cyclones is sent
to the jet impingement chamber and mixed with fresh feed.
The optimal function of the jet-impingement chamber is to
achieve the highest possible concentration of particles near
the wall and therefore the highest overall efficiency of the
process. The efficiency of separation benefits from the longer
residence time of the particles in the chamber compared to a
cyclone. Previously we have presented some test results with-
out rotating the nozzle tube (Akhbarifar et al., 2011b). In this
study the effect of rotation was studied extensively to evaluate
its potential benefit.
2.2. Effect of PSD on the efficiency of the
cyclone-jet-impingement system
To investigate the effect of different PSD on the separation
efficiency of the entire system three silica powder sam-
ples with different PSD were used. The PSDs of the powder
samples were measured with a Malvern Mastersizer 2000
instrument. The first silica powder (S1) PSD was between
0.3 ␮m and about 40 ␮m, the second (S2) between 10 ␮m and
about 150 ␮m, and the third (S3) between 30 ␮m and 200 ␮m.
The most frequent particle sizes (in volume percent) were
for S1 about 1.6 ␮m (d10 = 0.803, d50 = 1.588, d90 = 19.998), for
S2 about 57 ␮m (d10 = 11.290, d50 = 56.854, d90 = 107.102), and
for S3 about 77 ␮m (d10 = 40.666, d50 = 77.255, d90 = 132.214).
For the tests of the pilot plant we produced a dust-loaded
air stream, which contained about 9–16 g of commercial silica
fume (SiO2 ) per m3 . All experiments were conducted at room
temperature (22 ◦ C).
The full fractional design (FFD) method was used to ana-
lyze the effect of these different PSD and of the other variables
(feed-, recycle-, and jet-impingement flow rate) on the effi-
ciency of the entire system (Fig. 1a). The rotational speed of
the nozzle tube was kept constant at zero rpm. The number of
experiments in this method is equal 2k ; where k is number of
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492
Fig. 1 – Cyclone-jet-impingement-chamber dust separation process (pilot plant) (a) feed input to the cyclones (b) Feed input
to the jet-impingement-chamber (motor optional).
design factors. Therefore, the total number of tests required
for the three independent variables (feed flow rate, recycle
flow rate, and jet-impingement flow rate) for each particle
size is 23 = 8. All three input design factors are set at two lev-
els each. These levels are called “high” and “low” or “+1” and
“−1”, respectively. Calculating the full complement of all pos-
sible factor combinations means that we can estimate all main
and interaction effects. There are three main effects, three
two-factor interactions, and one three-factor interaction, all
of which appear in the response model as follows:

3

3

3 In this study the CCRD method was used to explore the
Y = a0 + ai Xi + aij Xi Xj + a123 X1 X2 X3
i=1 i=1 j=i+1
Y is the system efficiency: Y (%) = 100 × (1–mj /(mc + mj )),
where mj is the mass of dust collected from the ‘clean’ air
outlet of the jet impingement chamber and mc is the mass
collected from the cyclones. The variables X are the design fac-
tors, which were measured. A regression analysis was carried
out using Mathematica software to determine the coefficients
‘a’ of the FFD model.
2.3. Effect of rotating the nozzle tube on the efficiency
of the jet-impingement chamber
Box and Wilson (1951) developed an effective alternative to the
factorial design method called the central composite rotat-
able design (CCRD) method, which was further improved by
Box and Hunter (Box and Hunter, 1957). The CCRD method
gives almost as much information as a three-level factorial,
requires fewer tests than the full factorial and was shown to
be sufficient to describe the majority of steady-state process
responses (Cilliers et al., 1992; Crozier, 1992).
485
Table 1 – Relationship between coded and actual values
of variables (Napier-Munn, 2000).
Code Actual value of factorial design
−ˇ Xmin
(xmax +xmin ) (xmax −xmin )
−1 2 − 2ˇ
(xmax +xmin )
0 2
(xmax +xmin ) (xmax −xmin )
+1 2 + 2ˇ
+ˇ Xmax
(1) effect of the four variables (feed-, recycle-, jet-impingement
flow rate, and rotating nozzle tube speed) on the efficiency of
the jet-impingement chamber (Fig. 1b). In these experiments
only the PSD S2 was used. The number of experiments is equal
to 2k with its origin at the center, 2k points fixed axially at
a distance, say ˇ, from the center to generate the quadratic
terms, and replicate tests at the center; where k is the num-
ber of design factors. The axial points are chosen such that
they allow for rotation (Box and Wilson, 1951), which ensure
that the variance of the model prediction is constant at all
points equidistant from the design center. Replicates of the
test at the center are very important as they provide an inde-
pendent estimate of the experimental error. For four variables
the recommended number of tests at the center is six (Box and
Hunter, 1957). Hence, the total number of tests required for the
four independent variables (feed-, recycle-, jet-impingement
flow rate, and rotating nozzle tube speed) is 24 + (2 × 4) + 6 = 30
(Box and Hunter, 1957; Obeng et al., 2005). After defining the
range of factorial designs, they are coded to lie at ±1 for the
factorial points, 0 for the center points and ±ˇ for the axial
points. Table 1 shows the calculated codes as functions of the
range of factorial design.
486 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492
In Table 1, Xmax and Xmin are maximum and minimum val-
ues of X, respectively; ˇ = [2k ]1/4 and k is the number of factorial
designs. Here, k = 4 hence ˇ = 2. The response model for four
variables is given by Eq. (2):

4

4

4

4 on showing and discussing system responses not maximum
Y = a0 + ai Xi + aii Xi2 + aij Xi Xj
i=1 i=1 i=1 j=i+1
The response data were determined experimentally. A
regression analysis was carried out using Mathematica to
determine the coefficients ‘a’ of the response model.
3. Results and discussion
In this section we report on the pilot plant efficiency (system
efficiency, Fig. 1a) based on experiments covering a number
normalized feed-, recycle-, jet impingement flow rates, and
nozzle tube rotational speed ranges. The FFD method was
used to model the effects of the first three variables on the
system efficiency (Fig. 1a). The CCRD method was used to
model the efficiency of the jet impingement chamber (Fig. 1b)
when the nozzle tube rotational speed was added as the forth
variable.
3.1. Effect of PSD on efficiency of
cyclone-jet-impingement system
To model the effect of all three variables with different PSD on
the efficiency via the FFD method, the low (−1) and high (+1)
settings of each variable were defined and are reported here
in normalized form:
X1 = Feed flow rate/maximum feed flow rate: 0.247–0.279
X2 = Recycle flow rate/maximum recycle flow rate:
0.313–0.445
X3 = Jet impingement flow rate/maximum jet impingement
flow rate: 0.157–0.340
The non-normalized feed-, recycle-, and jet impingement
flow rates were in the hundreds of m3 /h. Using the FFD
method, the coded and the normalized variables for each of
the 8 experiments in the design matrix were calculated and
are given in Table 2 together with the respective measured
system efficiencies Y.
The experimental results in Table 2 shows that averag-
ing the results for each particle size distribution yields the
highest system efficiency of Y = 98.1% for S2 (20–120 ␮m), fol-
lowed by S3 (30–150 ␮m) with Y = 97.6% and S1 (0.3–30 ␮m)
with Y = 96.3%, not considering for S1 the last two efficiencies
in Table 2, for which obviously the least favorable operating
conditions apply. Nevertheless, system operating conditions
exist for which Y = 98.0% (S1, test 1), Y = 99.7% (S2, test 4), and
Y = 99.4% (S3, test 5) can be reached.
Eq. (1) can be expanded as follows:
Y = a0 + a1 X1 + a2 X2 + a3 X3 + a12 X1 X2 + a13 X1 X3 + a23 X2 X3
+ a123 X1 X2 X3
By fitting all sets of data (Table 2) to Eq. (3), all eight coeffi-
cients for S1–S3 are calculated and shown in Table 3.
In addition to the experimental efficiencies reported in
Table 2, we conducted a series of case studies using Eq. (3) to
evaluate the sensitivity of the entire system vis-à-vis the oper-
ational variables. The results are displayed in this section in
Fig. 2. In Fig. 2 the selected operating points were: X1 = 0.698,
X2 = 0.343, and X3 = 0.253. For example, Fig. 2a shows system
efficiencies as a function of X1 for X2 = 0.343 and X3 = 0.253,
etc. When selecting the operating points, the emphasis was
(2) possible efficiencies, for which examples are given in the
experimental study (Table 2).
Based on the efficiencies calculated with the design
method for operating points (X1 , X2 , and X3 ) not covered by
experiments, a direct comparison of the efficiencies in Table 2
and those in Fig. 2 is not possible. However, the calculated val-
ues fit very well into ranges of efficiencies whose endpoints
represent measurements. For example, a relative flow rate of
0.26 (close to midpoint) in Fig. 2a yielded for S1 an efficiency
of 95.5% compared with endpoint experimental data of 97.2%
and 93.6% (Table 2). Respective values are for S2: calculated
98.3%, measured 98.3% and 98.2% and for S3: calculated 97.8%,
measured 97.6% and 97.9% (Table 2). We conclude that the cal-
culated and experimental values are in very good agreement,
i.e. within 2% relative (S1) or less (S2 and S3).
As expected, Fig. 2a–c shows for each PSD (S1–S3) a differ-
ent dependence of the efficiency of the system on any of the
flow rates. The figures show that the system is most efficient
for PSD S2. Surprisingly the efficiency for S3, the PSD with the
largest particles deviates significantly from S2 who’s PSD is
not very different from S3. In any case, efficiencies are high for
both PSDs, reaching ≥99% (Table 2). Note the high efficiency of
the new system for the separation of S1, the PSD where most
of the particles are smaller than 5 ␮m (Fig. 1a). Table 2 shows
that the efficiencies exceeded 95% and reached 98% for spe-
cific operating conditions. In only one test the efficiency was
93%. The high efficiency for particles ≤5 ␮m is due to enhanced
forces acting horizontally on the particles and to the longer
residence time in the chamber compared to that in a cyclone.
As shown in Table 3 in conjunction with Eq. (3), all coef-
ficients ‘a’ depend on S. Hence, we can write a more general
formula for efficiency that includes all independent variables.
In this study we have three different particle sizes. If we plot
each coefficient versus particle sizes, we get a parabolic curve.
Therefore, the fitting function of each coefficient for particle
size can be defined by Eq. (4):
a0 ,ai ,aij ,a123 = aS2 + bS + c, (wherei = 1–3andj = i + 1to3) (4)
where, it is understood that each coefficient has, in general,
different a, b, and c. By fitting we can find the coefficients a, b
and c, for each a0 , ai , aij , a123 . We end up with eight S dependent
equations for each a0 , ai , aij , a123 coefficient. By replacing a0 ,
ai , aij , a123 by new S dependent equations in Eq. (3), we can find
a single, general equation for the efficiency Y that depends on
the four independent variables, X1 , X2 , X3 , and S (Eq. 5):
Y=171.29 + X1 (−268.10 + 705.22X2 +662.72X3 −2083.90X2 X3 )
−190.76X2 − 180.32X3 + 527.09X2 X3 + S(4.80 − 9.79X2
(3) −23.27X3 + 45.96X2 X3 + X1 (−18.86 + 37.19X2 + 95.44X3
−182.25X2 X3 )) + S2 (−0.08 + 0.16X2 + 0.33X3 − 0.67X2 X3
+X1 (0.29 − 0.61X2 − 1.37X3 + 2.69X2 X3 )) (5)
In the following we give an example for when Eq. (5) is
used to find maximum efficiencies for selected ranges of vari-
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492 487

Table 2 – Coded levels of the three variables and experimental results.

Particle size Test no. Code level of variables Normalized variables Efficiency

X1 X2 X3 X1 X2 X3 %

1 −1 −1 −1 0.247 0.313 0.157 98.02a

2 1 −1 −1 0.279 0.313 0.157 96.45a
3 −1 −1 1 0.247 0.313 0.340 95.95
4 1 −1 1 0.279 0.313 0.340 95.01
S1
5 −1 1 −1 0.247 0.445 0.157 95.92
6 1 1 −1 0.279 0.445 0.157 96.05
7 −1 1 1 0.247 0.445 0.340 94.23a
8 1 1 1 0.279 0.445 0.340 93.01a
1 −1 −1 −1 0.247 0.313 0.157 98.73a
2 1 −1 −1 0.279 0.313 0.157 96.92a
3 −1 −1 1 0.247 0.313 0.340 98.62
4 1 −1 1 0.279 0.313 0.340 99.69
S2
5 −1 1 −1 0.247 0.445 0.157 97.68
6 1 1 −1 0.279 0.445 0.157 96.99
7 −1 1 1 0.247 0.445 0.340 98.52a
8 1 1 1 0.279 0.445 0.340 97.80a
1 −1 −1 −1 0.247 0.313 0.157 98.10a
2 1 −1 −1 0.279 0.313 0.157 97.06a
3 −1 −1 1 0.247 0.313 0.340 96.96
4 1 −1 1 0.279 0.313 0.340 95.01
S3
5 −1 1 −1 0.247 0.445 0.157 99.43
6 1 1 −1 0.279 0.445 0.157 98.12
7 −1 1 1 0.247 0.445 0.340 99.10a
8 1 1 1 0.279 0.445 0.340 96.75a

a
Each pair of numbers averaged in the text below in the comparison with calculated yields.

Table 3 – Coefficients for Eq. (3).

Particle size a0 a1 a2 a3 a12 a13 a23 a123

S1 183.268 −315.167 −215.116 −238.579 797.794 901.604 642.029 −2539.570

S2 201.497 −398.403 −223.438 −421.357 848.769 1656.220 959.771 −3732.400
S3 96.673 3.940 14.078 8.656 −37.517 −102.757 75.072 −168.178

Fig. 2 – Effect of (a) feed flow rate, (b) recycle flow rate, and (c) jet impingement flow rate on the efficiency of the system for
the particle size distributions of S1, S2, and S3.
488 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492
ables rather than sensitivities of the entire system. We chose:
X1 : 0.247 ≤ relative feed flow rate ≤ 0.279, X2 : 0.314 ≤ relative
recycle flow rate ≤ 0.445, X3 : 0.157 ≤ relative jet impingement
flow rate ≤ 0.340, and PSD 1.6 (␮m) ≤ particle size ≤ 77 (␮m). We
calculated a maximum efficiency of Y = 99.11% for X1 = 0.247,
X2 = 0.314, X3 = 0.157, and a particle size distribution with a
most frequent particle size of 23.5 ␮m.
3.2. Effect of rotating the nozzle tube on the efficiency
of the jet impingement chamber
Using the relationships in Table 1, the normalized variables,
X1 , X2 , X3 , and additionally the variable for nozzle rotation X4
were calculated for each of the 30 experiments in the design
matrix and are given in Table 4. The speed of non-normalized
X4 was in the range of tens of rpm. Efficiencies were studied
only with the PSD S2 (20–120 ␮m).
X1 = Feed flow rate/maximum feed flow rate: 0.5–0. 9
X2 = Recycle flow rate/maximum recycle flow rate: 0.5–0.9
X3 = Jet impingement flow rate/maximum jet impingement
flow rate: 0.15–0.75
X4 = Rotating nozzle tube speed/maximum rotating nozzle
tube speed: 0–1
The results in Table 4 show that averaging the results
for dust S2 fed into the jet impingement chamber (Fig. 1b)
yields an efficiency of Y = 96.5% versus Y = 98.1% for the effi-
ciency of the total, i.e., when the dust is fed into the cyclones
first (Fig. 1a). However, operating conditions exist for which
Y = 97.7% can be reached (test 1, Table 4). Moreover, the sen-
sitivity studies below show that operating conditions exist
yielding even higher efficiencies (≥98%) than covered by our
experiments (Figs. 3c, 4 b, 5 b, and 6 b, c, e).
Eq. (2) can be expanded as follows:
Y = a0 + a1 X1 + a2 X2 + a3 X3 + a4 X4 + a11 X1 2 + a22 X2 2 + a33 X3 2
+ a44 X4 2 + a12 X1 X2 + a13 X1 X3 + a14 X1 X4 + a23 X2 X3 + a24 X2 X4
+ a34 X3 X4 (6)
By fitting the results in Table 4 to Eq. (6) all fifteen coeffi-
cients were calculated and are shown in Table 5.
As mentioned in Section 3.1 in addition to the experimental
efficiencies reported in Table 4, we conducted a series of case
studies using Eq. (6) to evaluate the sensitivity of the cham-
ber vis-à-vis the operational variables. The sensitivity studies
were carried out in all cases with a lower, a higher and a mid-
point value for the parameters (feed flow, recycle flow, jet flow,
nozzle rotation speed) in all diagrams. The results are shown
in Figs. 3–6.
As for the sensitivity study of the entire system (Sec-
tion 3.1, using Eq. (5)) we give an example for when Eq. (6)
is used to find maximum efficiencies rather than sensitivi-
ties of the jet impingement chamber with the particle size
distribution S2 for selected ranges of variables. We chose:
X1 : 0.5 ≤ relative feed flow rate ≤ 0.9, X2 : 0.258 ≤ relative recy-
cle flow rate ≤ 0.901, X3 : 0.15 ≤ relative jet impingement flow
rate ≤ 0.75, and X4 : 0 ≤ relative nozzle tube speed ≤ 1. We
calculated a maximum efficiency of Y = 98.91% for X1 = 0.5,
X2 = 0.258, X3 = 0.15, X4 = 0.
In Fig. 3 the variable is the normalized (or relative) rotating
nozzle tube speed. Fig. 3a shows the effect of different relative
feed flow rates on efficiency in the range of relative tube speeds
of 0–1. The relative recycle- (0.58) and jet impingement flow
rates (0.45) were held constant at the values in parenthesis.
Smaller feed flow rates increase the residence time of particles
in the chamber and thus increase separation efficiency at all
tube speeds. Fig. 3b shows the effect of different recycle flow
rates on efficiency. The relative feed- (0.7) and jet impinge-
ment flow rates (0.45) were held constant. Obviously, in the
selected range the influence of recycle flow rates on efficiency
is small. All feed- and recycle flow rates show a maximum effi-
ciency of the jet impingement chamber at a tube speed of 0.5.
This shows that rotating the nozzles has a positive effect on
efficiency that reaches a maximum. Beyond the maximum tur-
bulence is likely to diminish particle enrichment near the wall
of the cylinder (Fig. 1b). Fig. 3c shows the effect of different jet
impingement flow rates on efficiency. The feed- (0.7) and recy-
cle flow rates (0.58) were held constant. Evidently, jet flow rate
and nozzle rotation are counterproductive. Below a certain jet
flow rate nozzle rotation seems to have only a negative effect
on efficiency. Above a certain jet flow rate nozzle rotation seem
to have an increasingly positive effect on efficiency.
In Fig. 4 the variable is the normalized (or relative) feed flow
rate. Fig. 4a shows the effect of different relative recycle flow
rates on efficiency in the feed flow rate range of 0.5–0.9. The
relative jet flow rate (0.45) and nozzle tube speed (0.5) were
held constant at the values in parenthesis. The curves reflect
that there are two effects of the recycle flow rate on efficiency.
For example, the smallest recycle flow rate (0.26) has the small-
est effect on the feed flow rate when the two streams meet at
the entry of the chamber (Fig. 1b). Increasing the feed flow at
constant recycle flow diverts more gas towards the exit of the
chamber for cleaned gas without it being sufficiently clean. If
the recycle flow increases (0.58, 0.90) the total flow through
the chamber increases, the residence time in the chamber
decreases, i.e., the efficiency decreases but less gas is diverted
to the exit for clean gas, i.e., the efficiency increases. Within
a certain range of increasing feed flow rates the two opposite
effects seem to compensate each other until the increasing
feed flow decreases the overall efficiency. Fig. 4b shows that
there is a dramatic effect of jet flow on efficiency. Small jet flow
rates are clearly favorable. Increasing feed flow rates decreases
the efficiency for all jet flow rates. Note that the relative noz-
zle tube speed (X4 ) was zero in this case. In Fig. 4c we see that
rotating the nozzles reduces the effect of the jet flow rates
significantly but lowers the efficiency that was reached with
rotation. The relative recycle flow rate (0.58) was held constant
in Fig. 4b, c. In Fig. 4d we see that the effect of nozzle rotation
is small on efficiency for a given relative jet flow (here 0.45).
Again, the relative recycle flow rate was 0.58.
In Fig. 5 the variable is the normalized (or relative) recycle
flow rate. Fig. 5a shows the effect of different relative feed flow
rates on efficiency in the range of relative recycle flow rates of
0.26–0.9. The jet flow rate (0.45) and nozzle tube speed (0.5)
were held constant at the values in parenthesis. Making the
recycle flow rate the main variable instead of the feed flow rate
changes the shape of the curves from concave to convex and
from falling to rising, with one exception in Fig. 5a. In Fig. 5a
the relative jet flow rate is held constant at 0.45. The follow-
ing factors control the trend and the position of the curves in
Fig. 5a: The higher the feed flow rate and the lower the recycle
flow rate, the higher is the spill of not well cleaned gas into the
outlet of the chamber for clean air. This effect diminishes as
the recycle flow rate increases and explains the increasing effi-
ciency, e.g., of the lowest curve in Fig. 5a. Additional factors to
consider in this mode of operating the pilot plant are decreas-
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492 489

Table 4 – Coded levels of the four variables and experimental results.

Test no. Code level of variables Normalized variables Efficiency

X1 X2 X3 X4 X1 X2 X3 X4 %

Factorial points
1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0.60 0.60 0.30 0.25 97.72
2 1 −1 −1 −1 0.80 0.60 0.30 0.25 96.25
3 −1 1 −1 −1 0.60 0.80 0.30 0.25 97.67
4 −1 −1 1 −1 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.25 95.56
5 −1 −1 −1 1 0.60 0.60 0.30 0.75 97.05
6 1 1 −1 −1 0.80 0.80 0.30 0.25 97.32
7 1 −1 1 −1 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.25 95.44
8 1 −1 −1 1 0.80 0.60 0.30 0.75 95.39
9 −1 1 1 −1 0.60 0.80 0.60 0.25 96.47
10 −1 1 −1 1 0.60 0.80 0.30 0.75 95.85
11 −1 −1 1 1 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.75 96.77
12 1 1 1 −1 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.25 95.59
13 1 1 −1 1 0.80 0.80 0.30 0.75 96.71
14 1 −1 1 1 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.75 95.66
15 −1 1 1 1 0.60 0.80 0.60 0.75 97.16
16 1 1 1 1 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.75 96.19

Axial points
17 −2 0 0 0 0.50 0.70 0.45 0.50 97.42
18 2 0 0 0 0.90 0.70 0.45 0.50 94.78
19 0 −2 0 0 0.70 0.50 0.45 0.50 97.18
20 0 2 0 0 0.70 0.90 0.45 0.50 96.67
21 0 0 −2 0 0.70 0.70 0.15 0.50 96.50
22 0 0 2 0 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.50 96.25
23 0 0 0 −2 0.70 0.70 0.45 0 96.32
24 0 0 0 2 0.70 0.70 0.45 1.0 95.76

Center points
25 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.70 0.45 0.50 96.76
26 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.70 0.45 0.50 96.12
27 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.70 0.45 0.50 97.11
28 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.70 0.45 0.50 96.81
29 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.70 0.45 0.50 96.90
30 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.70 0.45 0.50 97.01

Fig. 3 – Effect on chamber efficiency of (a) the nozzle tube speed and feed flow rate, (b) the nozzle tube speed and recycle
flow rate, (c) the nozzle tube speed and jet impingement flow rate.
490 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492

Fig. 4 – Effect on the chamber’s efficiency of (a) the feed and recycle flow rate, (b) the feed and jet impingement flow rate (c)
the feed and jet impingement flow rate (d) the feed flow rate and nozzle tube speed (X4 is the nozzle tube speed).

Fig. 5 – Effect on chamber’s efficiency of (a) the recycle and feed flow rates, (b) the recycle and jet-impingement flow rate, (c)
the recycle and jet impingement flow rate, (d) the recycle flow rate and nozzle tube speed (X4 is the nozzle tube speed).

Table 5 – Coefficients of Eq. (6).

a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a11 a22 a33 a44 a12 a13 a14 a23 a24 a34

98.49 12.02 −9.90 −3.38 −1.56 −16.04 1.78 −4.07 −2.81 11.73 −1.92 −0.15 2.17 −1.62 11.13

Table 6 – Summary of results.

Particle size distribution Efficiency (%)

Name Range(␮m) Most frequent(␮m) Fig. 1a Fig. 1b

Typical Best Typical Best

S1 0.3–40 1.6 96–98 98.0 Not tested Not tested

S2 10–150 57 97–99 99.7 96–98 98.5
S3 30–200 77 97–99 99.4 Not tested Not tested
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492
Fig. 6 – Effect on chamber efficiency of (a, b) the jet impingement and feed flow rates at two X4 values (c, d) the jet
impingement and recycle flow rates at two X4 values, (d) the jet impingement and recycle flow rate at X4 = 0.5 speed, (e) jet
impingement flow rate and nozzle tube speed.
ing residence time of the dust in the chamber and increasing
dilution as the relative recycle rate increases. As the feed flow
rate decreases, these different factors take on different weight,
which determines the shape of the two other curves (feed flow
0.7 and 0.5) in Fig. 5a. Fig. 5b shows the strong dependence of
efficiency on jet flow at zero rotation and the much weaker
dependence with rotation (Fig. 5c), as was shown already in
Fig. 4b, c. The picture in Fig. 5d corresponds to that in Fig. 6d.
However, a closer look at Fig. 5b–d reveals that practically all
efficiencies are higher than those in Fig. 4b–d. The mode of
operation shown in Fig. 5b–d requires considering three fac-
tors: (1) the relative feed flow was kept constant at 0.7. (2) The
residence time in the chamber decreases with increasing recy-
cle flow rate. (3) The feed is increasingly diluted. Evidently,
increasing dilution of the feed, which increases efficiency of
the chamber, outweighs the loss of residence time, which
would decrease efficiency. This explains the increasing effi-
ciencies with increasing recycle flow. The important overall
finding is that this mode of operation yields higher efficiencies
than that shown in Fig. 4b–d.
In Fig. 6 the variable is the normalized (or relative) jet
impingement flow rate. This sensitivity study quantifies fur-
ther the effects discovered earlier in this study: (1) Efficiencies
decrease with increasing jet flow rates. (2) Rotating the nozzle
tube reduces this decrease. Fig. 6b shows that the decreas-
ing efficiency with increasing jet flow rate, which is shown in
Fig. 6a, can almost be eliminated by rotating the nozzle tube.
491
Note that some efficiency is lost between Fig. 6a, b. This loss is
probably due to turbulence induced by rotation. A comparison
of Fig. 6b with a shows that rotation does not reduce the loss
of the chamber’s efficiency at the highest relative feed flow. As
expected, Fig. 6c, d shows that there is an effect of different
recycle flow rates on efficiency and that this effect is signifi-
cantly reduced when the nozzle tube is rotated. In Fig. 6c, d
the relative feed flow rate is held constant at 0.7. Fig. 6e shows
how efficiency can be affected by varying jet flow and noz-
zle rotation. Without rotation, the efficiency is high at small
jet flow rates and decreases when the jet flow rate increases
because turbulence near the wall increases. If the jet flow rate
is small but rotation is high, then rotation prevents the jet
stream to push the dust particles far enough to the wall to pro-
duce a clean stream in the middle. Increasing the jet flow rate
increases particles separation, i.e., efficiency, as the respec-
tive curve shows (relative rotational speed = 1). Evidently, there
is a rotational speed for which the dependence of the cham-
ber’s efficiency depends least on a varying jet flow (relative
rotational speed = 0.5). The value of 0.5 was used whenever
rotation was introduced as a parameter in earlier figures.
In Table 6 we summarize our findings. We show the three
particle size ranges, the most frequently occurring parti-
cle sizes and the experimentally determined efficiencies for
feed injected first into the cyclones (Fig. 1a). We tested the
mode of operation where feed was injected first into the jet-
impingement chamber (Fig. 1b) only with the particle size
492 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 7 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 483–492
distribution S2. The results show that feeding the cyclones first
yields slightly higher efficiencies.
4. Conclusions
Our ‘jet impingement chamber’ (JIC) was complemented with
a rotating nozzle tube and operated as an add-on for cyclones
to improve the separation of particles <5 ␮m. The effective-
ness of the JIC relies on a rotatable air-blowing nozzle tube
inside the chamber that generates a highly particle-depleted
air stream.
Contaminated air was either treated first in the cyclones
and then sent to the JIC for further cleaning (Fig. 1a) or dust was
treated first in the JIC and then sent to the cyclones (Fig. 1b).
In the first mode of operation (Fig. 1a), the number of exper-
iments necessary for comprehensive testing was calculated
with the full fractional design (FFD) method. In the second
mode (Fig. 1b) the central composite rotatable design (CCRD)
method was used.
Silica dust in air was generated with particle sizes rang-
ing from 0.3 to 200 ␮m. These yielded typical experimental
efficiencies of 96% to 98% with a best value of 98.8% for a dis-
tribution with most frequently occurring particles of 1.6 ␮m,
and 97% to over 99% for two distributions with corresponding
particles of 57 ␮m and 77 ␮m, respectively; all with rotating the
tube. Silica dust concentrations ranged between 9 and 16 g/m3 .
We found that the system efficiency was slightly higher when
the dusty air was fed first to the cyclones (Table 6).
Calculated efficiencies with the help of the design method
covered operational variables beyond the experiments, provid-
ing confidence that high efficiencies are typical of the setup in
Fig. 1. We found that calculated and experimental values are
in good agreement, i.e. within 2% relative (S1) or less (S2 and
S3).
In a few cases rotation of the nozzle tube increased the
achievable efficiency without rotation. We conclude that the
add-on JIC would be operated without rotating the nozzle tube
and is therefore considered a device without moving parts.
We conclude that any improvement of the system’s effi-
ciency is solely due to the effect of the air-jet emitting nozzles
and the extended residence time of the dust in the JIC com-
pared to the residence time in the cyclones.
Acknowledgment
Sepideh Akhbarifar and Mansour Shirvani wish to thank Dr.
Werner Lutze at The Catholic University of America for his
support and encouragement and the many discussions during
the preparation of this manuscript and the Abadan refinery in
Iran for their financial support.
References
Akhbarifar S., Shirvani M., Jabaran A., High efficiency cyclone
de-dusting with recycles flow and jet-impingement flow.
Iranian patent number 61320. October 10, 2009.
Akhbarifar, S., Zahedi, S., Shirvani, M., Akhbarifar, S., 2011a.
Improving dust removal of cyclones. In: Proceeding of the 2nd
International Conference on Engineering and
Meta-Engineering (ICEME), Orlando, USA.
Akhbarifar, S., Shirvani, M., Zahedi, S., Zahiri, M.R., Shamsaii, Y.,
2011b. Improving cyclone efficiency by recycle and jet
impingement streams. Iran. J.Chem. Chem. Eng. 30,
119–124.
Box, G.E.P., Hunter, J.S., 1957. Multi-factor experimental design for
exploring response surfaces. Ann. Math. Stat. 28,
195–241.
Box, G.E.P., Wilson, K.B., 1951. On the experimental attainment of
optimum conditions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 13,
1–45.
Cilliers, J.J., Austin, R.C., Tucker, J.P., 1992. An evaluation of formal
experimental design procedures for hydrocyclone modelling.
In: Proceeding 4th International Conference on
Hydrocyclones. Kluwer, Southampton, pp. 31–49.
Crozier, R.D., 1992. Flotation Theory, Reagents and Ore Testing.
Pergamon Press, New York.
Funk, P.A., Baker, K.D., 2013. Dust cyclone technology – a
literature review. J. Cotton Sci. – Eng. Ginn. 17, 40–51.
Gregg, W.W., 1995. High efficiency cyclones for powder processing
applications. Adv. Filter Sep. Technol. 9, 240.
Jamshidifard, S., Shirvani, M., Kasiri, N., Movahedirad, S., 2016.
Improved fine particle removal from gas streams using a new
helical-duct dust concentrator. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 114,
280–286.
Jiao, J., Zheng, Y., Sun, G., Wang, J., 2006. Sep. Purif. Technol. 49,
157–166.
Jo, Y., Tien, C., Ray, B.M., 2000. Development of a post cyclone to
improve the efficiency of reverse flow cyclones. Powder
Technol. 113, 97–108.
Koch, W.H., Licht, W., 1977. New design approach boosts cyclone
efficiency. Chem. Eng., 79–89.
Lim, K.S., Kim, H.S., Park, Y.O., Lee, K.W., 2004. Cyclones and a
double cyclone with and without an electric field. J. Aerosol
Sci. 35, 103–116.
Miyakawa S.K., Hajime A.A., Yoshihiro T.N., Kenji H.C., Toshiaki
N.K. Cyclone type air cleaner. US Patent 4, 486, 20, 1984.
Napier-Munn, T.J., 2000. The Central Composite Rotatable Design.
JKMRC, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, pp.
1–9.
Obeng, D.P., Morrell, S., Napier-Munn, T.J., 2005. Application of
central composite rotatable design to modeling the effect of
some operating variables on the performance of the
three-product cyclone. Int. J. Miner. Process. 76,
181–192.
Obermair, S., Staudinger, G., 2001. The dust outlet of a gas
cyclone and its effects on separation efficiency. Chem. Eng.
Technol. 24, 1259.
Ray, M.B., Luning, P.E., Hoffmann, A., Plomp, A., Beumer, M.I.L.,
1997. Post cyclone (PoC): an innovative way to reduce the
emission of fines from industrial cyclones. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 36, 2766.
Sadighi, S., Shirvani, M., Esmaeli, M., Farzami, R., 2006. Improving
the removal efficiency of cyclones by recycle stream. Chem.
Eng. Technol. 29, 1242.
Samaeili, M., Hashemi, J., Sabeti, M., Sharifi, K., 2017. Modeling
and analyzing hydrocyclone performances. Iran. J. Chem.
Chem. Eng. 36, 177–190.
Tsochatzidis, N.A., 2008. Study addresses black powder’s effects
on metering equipment. Oil Gas J. 106, 56–61.