購買設(shè)計請充值后下載，，資源目錄下的文件所見即所得，都可以點開預(yù)覽，，資料完整，充值下載可得到資源目錄里的所有文件。。?！咀ⅰ浚篸wg后綴為CAD圖紙，doc,docx為WORD文檔，原稿無水印，可編輯。。。具體請見文件預(yù)覽，有不明白之處，可咨詢QQ:12401814

performance , form 17 pressure comparing the performance of a double inlet cyclone with Powder Technology 145 (2004) operation. However, the increasing emphasis on environ- ment protection and gas–solid separation is indicating that finer and finer particles must be removed. To meet this challenge, the improvement of cyclone geometry and per- formance is required rather than having to resort to alterna- tive units. Many researchers have contributed to large volume of work on improving the cyclone performance, by introducing new inlet design and operation variables. These include studies of testing a cyclonic fractionator for researchers, was developed, and the experimental study on addressing the effect of inlet type on cyclone performances was presented. 2. Experimental Three kinds of cyclone separators with various inlet geometries, including conventional tangential single inlet have became one of most important particle removal device that preferably is utilized in both engineering and process clean air by Lim et al. [6]. In this paper, the new inlet type, which is different type of inlet from that used by former simplicity to fabricate, low cost to operate, and well adapt- ability to extremely harsh conditions, cyclone separators Keywords: Cyclone; Symmetrical spiral inlet; Collection efficiency; Pressure drop 1. Introduction Cyclone separators are widely used in the field of air pollution control and gas–solid separation for aerosol sampling and industrial applications [1]. Due to relative [2], developing a mathematic model to predict the collection efficiency of small cylindrical multiport cyclone by DeOtte [3], testing a multiple inlet cyclones based on Lapple’ type geometry by Moore and Mcfarland [4], designing and testing a respirable multiinlet cyclone sampler that minimize the orientation bias by Gautam and Streenath [5],and particle size and flow rate in this paper. Experimental result indicated that the symmetrical spiral inlet (SSI), especially CSSI inlet geometry, has effect on significantly increasing collection efficiency with insignificantly increasing pressure drop. In addition, the results of collection efficiency and pressure drop comparison between the experimental data and the theoretical model were also involved. Short communi Development of a symmetrical cyclone separator Bingtao Zhao * , Henggen Department of Environmental Engineering, Donghua University Received 28 October 2003; received in revised Available online Abstract Three cyclone separators with different inlet geometry were designed, direct symmetrical spiral inlet (DSSI), and a converging symmetrical performance characteristics, including the collection efficiency and sampling that used multiple inlet vanes by Wedding et al. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-21-62373718; fax: +86-21- 62373482. E-mail address: zhaobingtao@ (B. Zhao). Shen, Yanming Kang No. 1882, Yanan Rd., Shanghai, Shanghai 200051, China 24 February 2004; accepted 3 June 2004 July 2004 which include a conventional tangential single inlet (CTSI), a spiral inlet (CSSI). The effects of inlet type on cyclone drop, were investigated and compared as a function of cation spiral inlet to improve 47–50 (CTSI), direct symmetrical spiral inlet (DSSI), and converg- ing symmetrical spiral inlet (CSSI), were manufactured and studied. The geometries and dimensions these cyclones are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 1. To examine the effects of inlet type, all other dimensions were designed to remain the same but only the inlet geometry. The pressure drops were measured between two pressure taps on the cyclone inlet and outlet tube by use of a digital by 0.15–1.15% and 0.40–2.40% in the tested velocity range. Fig. 4(a)–(d) compares the grade collection efficiency of the cyclones with various inlet types at the flow rate of 3 Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of experimental system setup. B. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 145 (2004) 47–5048 micromanometer (SINAP, DP1000-IIIC). The collection efficiency was calculated by the particle size distribution, by use of microparticle size analyzer (SPSI, LKY-2). Due to having the same symmetrical inlet in Model B or C, the flow rate of each inlet of multiple cyclone was equal to another and controlled by valve; two nozzle-type screw feeders were used in same operating conditions to disperse the particles with a concentration of 5.0 g/m 3 in inlet tube. The solid particles used were talcum powder obeyed by log-normal size distribution with skeletal density of 2700 kg/m 3 , mass– mean diameter of 5.97 Am, and geometric deviation of 2.08. The mean atmospheric pressure, ambient temperature, and relative humidity during the tests were 99.93 kPa, 293 K, and less than 75%, respectively. 3. Results and discussion The experimental system setup is shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of cyclones geometries: (a) conventional tangential single inlet, Model A; (b) direct symmetrical spiral inlet, Model B; (c) converging symmetrical spiral inlet, Model C. 3.1. Collection efficiency Fig. 3 shows the measured overall efficiencies of the cyclones as a function of flow rates or inlet velocities. It is usually expected that collection efficiency increase with the entrance velocity. However, the overall efficiency of the cyclone with symmetrical spiral inlet both Models B and C was always higher than the efficiency of the cyclone with conventional single inlet Model A at the same velocity; and especially, the cyclone with CSSI, Model C has a highest overall efficiency. These effects of improved inlet geometry contribute to the increase in overall efficiency of the cyclone Table 1 Dimensions of cyclones studied (unit: mm) DD e hH B Sab 300 150 450 1200 1125 150 150 60 388.34, 519.80, 653.67, and 772.62 m /h, with the inlet velocities of11.99, 16.04,20.18, and23.85m/s,respectively. As expected, the frictional efficiencies of all the cyclones are seen to increase with increase in particle size. The shapes of the grade collection efficiency curves of all models have a so-called ‘‘S’’ shape. The friction efficiencies of the DSSI (Model B) and CSSI cyclones (Model C) are greater by 2–10% and 5–20% than that for the CTSI cyclone (Model A), respectively. This indicates that the inlet type or geometry to the cyclone plays an important role in the collection efficiency. It was expected that particles introduced to the cyclone with symmetrical spiral inlet (Models B and C) would easily be collected on the cyclone wall because they only have to move a short distance, and especially, the CSSI (Model C) changes the particle concentration distribution and makes the particle preseparated from the gas before entering the main body of cyclone. Fig. 5 compares the experimental data at a flow rate of 653.67 m 3 /h (inlet velocity of 20.18 m/s) with existing classical theories [7–11]. Apparently, the efficiency curves based on Mothes and Loffler’ model and Iozia and Leith’s method match the experimental curves much closer than other theories do. This result corresponds with the study carried out by Dirgo and Leith [12] and Xiang et al. [13]. Fig. 3. Overall efficiency of the cyclones at different inlet velocities. velocity B. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 145 (2004) 47–50 49 Fig. 4. Grade efficiency of the cyclones at different inlet velocities. (a) Inlet (d) Inlet velocity=23.85 m/s. The comparison show that some model can predict a theoretical result that closed the experimental data, but the changes of flow pattern and particle concentration distribu- tion induced by symmetrical spiral inlet having effects on cyclone performance were not taken into account adequately in developed theories. To examine the effects of the symmetrical spiral inlet on cyclone performance more clearly, Fig. 6 was prepared, depicting the 50% cut size for all models with varying the flow rate or inlet velocity. The 50% cut size of Models C and B are lower than that of Model A at the same inlet Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental grade efficiency with theories. =11.99 m/s. (b) Inlet velocity=16.04 m/s. (c) Inlet velocity=20.18 m/s. velocity. As the inlet velocity is decreased, the 50% cut size is approximately decreased linearly. With inlet velocity 20.18 m/s, for example, the decrease rate of 50% cut size is up to 9.88% for Model B and 24.62% for Model C. This indicated that the new inlet type can help to enhance the cyclone collection efficiency. 3.2. Pressure drop The pressure drop across cyclone is commonly expressed as a number gas inlet velocity heads DH named the pressure Fig. 6. The 50% cut size of the cyclones. inlet velocity are presented in Table 2. Obviously, higher pressure drop is associated with higher Barth 5.18 B. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 145 (2004) 47–5050 flow rate for a given cyclone. However, specifying a flow rate or inlet velocity, the difference of pressure drop coef- ficient between Models B, C, and A is less significant, and varied between 5.21 and 5.76, with an average value 5.63, for Model B, 5.22–5.76, with an average value 5.67, for Model C, and 5.16–5.70, with an average value 5.55, for Model A, calculated by regression analysis. This is an important point because it is possible to increase the cyclone collection efficiency without increasing the pressure drop significantly. The experimental data of pressure drop were also compared with current theories [14–20], and results are presented in Table 3. The results show that the model of Alexander and Barth provided the better fit to the experimental data, although for some cyclones the models of Shepherd and Lapple and Dirgo predicted equally well. 4. Conclusions A new kind of cyclone with symmetrical spiral inlet drop coefficient, which is the division of the pressure drop by inlet kinetic pressure q g m i 2 /2. The pressure drop coeffi- cient values for the three cyclones corresponding to different Table 2 Pressure drop coefficient of the cyclones Cyclone Inlet velocity (m/s) model 11.99 16.04 A 5.16 5.18 B 5.21 5.27 C 5.22 5.35 Table 3 Comparison of pressure drop coefficient with theories Theory Shepherd Alexander First Stairmand Value 6.40 5.62 6.18 5.01 (SSI) including DSSI and CSSI was developed, and the effects of these inlet types on cyclone performance were tested and compared. Experimental results show the overall efficiency the DSSI cyclone and CSSI is greater by 0.15– 1.15% and 0.40–2.40% than that for CTSI cyclone, and the grade efficiency is greater by 2–10% and 5–20%. In addition, the pressure drop coefficient is 5.63 for DSSI cyclone, 5.67 for CSSI, and 5.55 for CTSI cyclone. Despite that the multiple inlet increases the complicity and the cost of the cyclone separators, the cyclones with SSI, especially CSSI, can yield a better collection efficiency, obviously with a minor increase in pressure drop. This presents the possi- bility of obtaining a better performance cyclone by means of improving its inlet geometry design. References [1] Y.F. Zhu, K.W. Lee, Experimental study on small cyclones operating at high flowrates, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 30 (10) (1999) 1303–1315. [2] J.B. Wedding, M.A. Weigand, T.A. Carney, A 10Am cutpoint inlet for the dichotomous sampler, Environ. Sci. Technol. 16 (1982) 602–606. [3] R.E. DeOtte, A model for the prediction of the collection efficiency characteristics of a small, cylindrical aerosol sampling cyclone, Aero- sol Sci. Technol. 12 (1990) 1055–1066. [4] M.E. Moore, A.R. Mcfarland, Design methodology for multiple inlet cyclones, Environ. Sci. Technol. 30 (1996) 271–276. [5] M. Gautam, A. Streenath, Performance of a respirable multi-inlet cyclone sampler, J. Aerosol Sci. 28 (7) (1997) 1265–1281. [6] K.S. Lim, S.B. Kwon, K.W. Lee, Characteristics of the collection efficiency for a double inlet cyclone with clean air, J. Aerosol Sci. 34 (2003) 1085–1095. [7] D. Leith, W. Licht, The collection efficiency of cyclone type particle collectors: a new theoretical approach, AIChE Symp. Ser. 68 (126) (1972) 196–206. [8] P.W. Dietz, Collection efficiency of cyclone separators, AIChE J. 27 (6) (1981) 888–892. [9] H. Mothes, F. Loffler, Prediction of particle removal in cyclone sepa- rators, Int. Chem. Eng. 28 (2) (1988) 231–240. [10] D.L. Iozia, D. Leith, The logistic function and cyclone fractional efficiency, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 12 (1990) 598–606. [11] R. Clift, M. Ghadiri, A.C. Hoffman, A critique of two models for cyclone performance, AI ChE J. 37 (1991) 285–289. [12] J. Dirgo, D. Leith, Cyclone collection efficiency: comparison of ex- perimental results with theoretical predictions, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 4 (1985) 401–415. [13] R.B. Xiang, S.H. Park, K.W. Lee, Effects of dimension on cyclone performance, J. Aerosol Sci. 32 (2001) 549–561. [14] C.B. Shepherd, C.E. Lapple, Flow pattern and pressure drop in cy- 20.18 23.85 average 5.45 5.70 5.55 5.57 5.76 5.63 5.67 5.76 5.67 Casal Dirgo Model A Model B Model C 7.85 4.85 5.55 5.63 5.67 clone dust collectors: cyclone without inlet vane, Ind. Eng. Chem. 32 (1940) 1246–1256. [15] R.M. Alexander, Fundamentals of cyclone design and operation, Proc. Aust. Inst. Min. Met. (New Series) (1949) 152–153, 202–228. [16] M.W. First, Cyclone dust collector design, Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. 49 (A) (1949) 127–132. [17] C.J. Stairmand, Design and performance of cyclone separators, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 29 (1951) 356–383. [18] W. Barth, Design and layout of the cyclone separator on the basis of new investigations, Brennst. Wa¨rme Kraft 8 (1956) 1–9. [19] J. Casal, J.M. Martinez-Bennet, A batter way to calculate cyclone pressure drop, Chem. Eng. 90 (3) (1983) 99–100. [20] J. Dirgo, Relationship between cyclone dimensions and performance, Doctoral Thesis, Harvard University, USA, 1988. 外文翻譯 專 業(yè) 過程裝備與控制工程 學(xué)生姓名 于 亮 亮 班 級 B裝備032班 學(xué) 號 0310140146 指導(dǎo)教師 咸 斌 . 旋風(fēng)分離器對稱蝸管進口的實驗室研發(fā) Bingtao Zhao, Henggen Shen, Yanming Kang 翻譯：于亮亮 摘要：設(shè)計三種具有不同幾何形狀進口的旋風(fēng)分離器,一種是傳統(tǒng)的單一切向進口(CTSI),一種是對稱的直蝸管進口(DSSI),還有一種是對稱的收斂蝸管進口(CSSI)。進口類型對旋風(fēng)分離器工作特性的效果,包括收集效率和壓降,本文研究并比較其與粒子大小和流速的關(guān)系。實驗結(jié)果表明對稱的蝸管進口(SSI),尤其是CSSI形狀進口,隨著新增的可忽略壓降的條件下越來越多的對收集效率有重要的影響。另外,收集效率和壓降的研究結(jié)果也包括試驗數(shù)據(jù)和理論模型之間的比較。 關(guān)鍵字:旋風(fēng)分離器;對稱的蝸管進口;收集效率;壓降。 ⒈介紹： 旋風(fēng)分離器廣泛應(yīng)用于空氣污染控制領(lǐng)域，為含懸浮微粒氣體進行氣–固分離等工業(yè)應(yīng)用[1］。由于其制造簡單,操作成本低,和對極端的苛刻條件的適應(yīng)性好,因此無論是應(yīng)用在工程上還是操作過程上旋風(fēng)分離器成為最主要的除塵裝置之一。然而,越來越多的提倡環(huán)境保護，氣–固分離都強調(diào)應(yīng)該分離出最大量的微塵粒子。為達到這個要求,旋風(fēng)分離器幾何學(xué)和性能的改善要比替換可更換件來得重要。許多專家認為擴大旋風(fēng)室是提高旋風(fēng)分離器性能的主要因素,通過引進新設(shè)計的進口與操作變量。這包括對一臺分離試樣的旋風(fēng)分離器的裝有多個進口葉片的分餾器的測試并結(jié)合其他的研究[2］,德奧特建立一個數(shù)學(xué)模型來預(yù)算小型圓柱多諧振蕩器旋風(fēng)分離器的收集效率[3］,穆爾和麥克法倫以萊普勒的典型幾何學(xué)為基準(zhǔn)測試一個有多個進口的旋風(fēng)分離器[4］,高塔姆和斯蒂納斯設(shè)計和測試一個可換氣的多進口旋風(fēng)分離器取樣器的最小方向偏差[5］,通過分離后的清潔空氣來比較一個雙進口旋風(fēng)分離器的性能[6］。在本文中,介紹了一些形狀研究員設(shè)計的不同形狀進口的新式進口,和它們對旋風(fēng)分離器的性能效果的實驗性研究。 ⒉試驗性的研究 三種具有不同幾何形狀進口的旋風(fēng)分離器,包括傳統(tǒng)的單一切向進口(CTSI),對稱的直蝸管進口(DSSI),和對稱的收斂蝸管進口(CSSI),已經(jīng)研制出了。它們的幾何形狀和尺寸見Fig1和Table⒈為了測試不同的進口類型所帶來的效果,其它的尺寸設(shè)計完全相同,僅進口的幾何形狀不同。 Fig.1 旋風(fēng)分離器形狀示意圖：(a) Model A 傳統(tǒng)的單一切向進口 (b) Model B 對稱的收斂蝸管進口 (c) Model C 對稱的收斂蝸管進口。. Table 1：旋風(fēng)分離器尺寸統(tǒng)計：（單位mm） Fig.2：試驗結(jié)構(gòu)系統(tǒng)示意圖 圖⒉所示為實驗系統(tǒng)機構(gòu)。 壓降是由接在旋風(fēng)分離器進口和出口管的兩壓力計測量的。通過一數(shù)字微壓計(SINAP ,壓差1000-IIIC )讀得。收集效率是通過微顆粒大小分析器(SPSI,LKY -2)所得粒度分布計算的。由于Model B,C具有一樣對稱的進口,所以組合式旋風(fēng)分離器各進口的流速是相等的。并且流速可由閥來控制;運行條件也相同,將濃度為5.0g/m3的粒子用雙噴管螺旋給料機喂到進口管中。固體顆粒為滑石粉核心密度的2700kg/m3,按原標(biāo)準(zhǔn)尺寸分配,平均直徑的5.97Am,幾何偏差為2.08。在這次測試過程中平均大氣壓,環(huán)境溫度,和相對濕度分別是99.93kPa,293K,75%。 ⒊結(jié)果和討論 3.1 收集效率 圖3顯示所測量的旋風(fēng)分離器總效率與流速或者進口速度的關(guān)系。正如預(yù)料的那樣收集效率隨進口速度的增加而增加。然而,Model B Model C兩旋風(fēng)分離器有著對稱的蝸管進口,在同一進口速度下,兩者的總效率永遠要高于傳統(tǒng)的單一切向進口旋風(fēng)分離器(Model A)，特別是有CSSI的旋風(fēng)分離器(Model C)的總效率最高。在測試給定的相同速度條件下,通過改善進口幾何形狀所帶來的旋風(fēng)分離器總效率的增加率分別為0.15–1.15%和0.40–2.40%。 圖4(a)–(d) 比較不同進口類型的旋風(fēng)分離器的分級收集效率。在進口速度分別為11.99,16.04,20.18,和23.85m/s時的流速分別為388.34,519.80,653.67,和772.62 m3/h。可見,旋風(fēng)分離器的摩擦效率隨粒子大小的增加而增加。所有旋風(fēng)分離器的分級收集效率曲線都呈S形。DSSI(Model b)和CSSI(Model c)旋風(fēng)分離器的摩擦效率分別比CTSI旋風(fēng)分離器(Model a)大2–10%,5–20%。這表明進口的幾何形狀對旋風(fēng)分離器的收集效率有著重要的影響。進入有對稱的蝸管進口的旋風(fēng)分離器(Model B和C)的粒子容易聚集在旋風(fēng)分離器壁上,因為粒子只能移動很短的位移,尤其CSSI(Model C)改變了粒子分布濃度并使粒子在進入旋風(fēng)分離器的筒體前就從氣體中分離了出來.圖5根據(jù)傳統(tǒng)的理論[7–11］比較了流速為653.67m3/h(進口速度為20.18m/s)時的試驗數(shù)據(jù)。很明顯,以Mothes /Loffler模型Iozia/ Leith 理論得出的效率曲線比其它的學(xué)說所得的曲線更符合試驗結(jié)果。這些結(jié)果與研究進行經(jīng)過Dirgo、Leith 和Xiang 等人的研究結(jié)果相吻合。 Fig.3 不同進口速度下旋風(fēng)分離器的總效率 比較表明有些模型可以推斷一個還沒有公開的理論結(jié)果。但是現(xiàn)有的試驗數(shù)據(jù)理論還不足以推斷出流態(tài)和粒子濃度分布的變化是對稱的蝸管進口對旋風(fēng)分離器性能產(chǎn)生的效果。為了更清楚地驗證對稱的蝸管進口對旋風(fēng)分離器性能的作用效果,再看圖6,表示隨著流速或進口速度的變化引起的各個模型的50%切截尺寸。在相同進口速度下model c和model b的50%切截尺寸比model a要低。與進口速度的減少一樣,50%切截尺寸也是近似呈線性減少的。例如，當(dāng)進口速度為20.18m/s時,50%切截尺寸的減少率由model b的9.88%和model c的24.62%決定。這表明新型進口可以促進旋風(fēng)分離器的收集效率。 3.2.壓降 旋風(fēng)分離器得壓差數(shù)值通常表示為一定數(shù)量的氣體入口速度壓頭高度差，用壓差數(shù)值系數(shù)表示，壓差數(shù)值系數(shù)是進口動壓壓差數(shù)值的分度。表2列出了在不同的入口速度時這三個旋風(fēng)分離器的壓差數(shù)值系數(shù)值。 顯然,旋風(fēng)分離器的壓降高低與流速高低有關(guān)。然而,一定流速或者入口速度下,A、B和C模式的壓力降系數(shù)有所不同，在5.21和5.76之間變化，其平均值為5.63。例如模式B在5.22–5.76之間變化，平均值為5.67；模式C在5.16–5.70之間變化平均值為5.55；模式A根據(jù)回歸分析計算。這是一個重點，因為由此有可能在沒有有效的壓差值增加的情況下提高氣旋收集效率。 表3列出了壓降的試驗數(shù)據(jù)與電流理論的比較結(jié)果。結(jié)果顯示Alexander和Barth模式與試驗數(shù)據(jù)最符合,盡管Shepherd ，Lapple 和Dirgo 氣旋模式推算也很出色。 Fig.4 不同進口速度時的選粉效率等級：(a)進口速度為11.99 m/s (b)進口速度為16.04 m/s (c) 進口速度為20.18 m/s (d) 進口速度為23.85 m/s. Fig.5 試驗所得效率等級與理論的比較 Fig.6 旋風(fēng)分離器的50%切截尺寸 Table 2 ：旋風(fēng)分離器的壓力損失系數(shù)： Table 3 ：與理論壓力損失系數(shù)比較： 4、結(jié)論 人們發(fā)明了一種具有對稱的蝸管進口(SSI)，DSSI和CSSI的新型旋風(fēng)分離器,并且測試和比較了這種進口類型的旋風(fēng)分離器的性能。實驗結(jié)果顯示這種DSSI旋風(fēng)分離器和CSSI旋風(fēng)分離器的總效率分別比CTSI旋風(fēng)分離器高出0.15–1.15%和0.40–2.40%。此外,DSSI旋風(fēng)分離器、CSSI旋風(fēng)分離器和CTSI旋風(fēng)分離器的壓力損失系數(shù)分別是5.63、5.67和5.55。盡管這些并聯(lián)進口增加了旋風(fēng)分離器的復(fù)雜程度并加大了其成本,然而具有SSI尤其是CSSI的旋風(fēng)分離器具有更好的收集效率,而且顯著的減少了壓力損失。這篇文章介紹了借助于改進進氣道幾何形狀設(shè)計而改善旋風(fēng)分離器性能的可能性。 參考資料： [1] Y.F. Zhu, K.W. Lee, Experimental study on small cyclones operating at high flow rates, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 30 (10) (1999) 1303– 1315. [2] J.B. Wedding, M.A.Weigand, T.A. Carney, A 10 Am cut point inlet for the dichotomous sampl Environ.Sci.Technol. 16 (1982) 602– 606. [3] R.E. DeOtte, A model for the prediction of the collection efficiency characteristics of a small, cylindrical aerosol sampling cyclone, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 12 (1990) 1055– 1066. [4] M.E. Moore, A.R. Mcfarland, Design methodology for multiple inlet cyclones, Environ. Sci. Technol. 30 (1996) 271–276. [5] M. Gautam, A. Streenath, Performance of a respirable multi-inlet cyclone sampler, J. Aerosol Sci. 28 (7) (1997) 1265– 1281. [6] K.S. Lim, S.B. Kwon, K.W. Lee, Characteristics of the collection efficiency for a double inlet cyclone with clean air, J. Aerosol Sci. 34 (2003) 1085–1095. [7] D. Leith, W. Licht, The collection efficiency of cyclone type particle collectors: a new theoretical approach, AIChE Symp. Ser. 68 (126) (1972) 196– 206. [8] P.W. Dietz, Collection efficiency of cyclone separators, AIChE J. 27(6) (1981) 888– 892. [9] H. Mothes, F. Loffler, Prediction of particle removal in cyclone separators, Int. Chem. Eng. 28 (2) (1988) 231– 240. [10] D.L. Iozia, D. Leith, The logistic function and cyclone fractional efficiency, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 12 (1990) 598– 606. [11] R. Clift, M. Ghadiri, A.C. Hoffman, A critique of two models for cyclone performance, AI ChE J. 37 (1991) 285–289. [12] J. Dirgo, D. Leith, Cyclone collection efficiency: comparison of experimental results with theoretical predictions, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 4 (1985) 401–415. [13] R.B. Xiang, S.H. Park, K.W. Lee, Effects of dimension on cyclone performance, J. Aerosol Sci. 32 (2001) 549– 561. [14] C.B. Shepherd, C.E. Lapple, Flow pattern and pressure drop in cyclone dust collectors: cyclone without inlet vane, Ind. Eng. Chem. 32 (1940) 1246–1256. [15] R.M. Alexander, Fundamentals of cyclone design and operation, Proc. Aust. Inst. Min. Met. (New Series) (1949) 152– 153, 202– 228. [16] M.W. First, Cyclone dust collector design, Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. 49(A) (1949) 127–132. [17] C.J. Stairmand, Design and performance of cyclone separators, Trans .Inst. Chem. Eng. 29 (1951) 356–383. [18] W. Barth, Design and layout of the cyclone separator on the basis of new investigations, Brennst. Wa¨rme Kraft 8 (1956) 1 – 9. [19] J. Casal, J.M. Martinez-Bennet, A batter way to calculate cyclone pressure drop, Chem. Eng. 90 (3) (1983) 99– 100. [20] J. Dirgo, Relationship between cyclone dimensions and performance, Doctoral Thesis, Harvard University, USA, 1988. 6