02638762/06/$30.00+0.

00
# 2006 Institution of Chemical Engineers
www.icheme.org/cherd Trans IChemE, Part A, June 2006
doi: 10.1205/cherd.05111 Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 84(A6): 495 505

CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH

AN AIR CORE
Comparison Between Large Eddy Simulations and a Second
Moment Closure
M. BRENNAN

The Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia

C
FD simulations of the 75 mm hydrocyclone of Hsieh (1988) have been conducted
using FluentTM. The simulations used 3-dimensional body fitted grids. The simu-
lations were two phase simulations where the air core was resolved using the mixture
(Manninen et al., 1996) and VOF (Hirt and Nichols, 1981) models. Velocity predictions
from large eddy simulations (LES), using the Smagorinsky Lilly sub grid scale model
(Smagorinsky, 1963; Lilly, 1966) and RANS simulations using the differential Reynolds
stress turbulence model (Launder et al., 1975) were compared with Hsiehs experimental vel-
ocity data. The LES simulations gave very good agreement with Hsiehs data but required
very fine grids to predict the velocities correctly in the bottom of the apex. The DRSM/
RANS simulations under predicted tangential velocities, and there was little difference
between the velocity predictions using the linear (Launder, 1989) and quadratic (Speziale
et al., 1991) pressure strain models. Velocity predictions using the DRSM turbulence
model and the linear pressure strain model could be improved by adjusting the pressure
strain model constants.

Keywords: computational fluid mechanics; hydrocyclone; turbulence; second-moment

closure; large eddy simulation.

INTRODUCTION computational challenge for several reasons. The flow is

Cyclone separators are used extensively in the chemical
and mineral processing industries to remove or classify par-
ticles in particle laden fluid flows. Cyclones rely on the cen-
trifugal forces that develop under the swirling flow inside
the cyclone body to effect the separation and can classify
on density or particle size. Cyclone separators are essen-
tially passive devices, with a short residence time, which
makes them easy to run. However, the fact that cyclones
treat particle-laden flows means that wear and its minimiz-
ation is a major operational problem. Further the classifi-
cation behaviour is influenced by the cyclone shape, the
flow field and the flow turbulence.
Modelling the hydrodynamics of hydrocyclones by com-
putational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a key to understanding
how they behave, however, the CFD is a non-trivial


Correspondence to: Dr M. Brennan, The Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Isles Rd, Indooroopilly,
Queensland, 4068, Australia.
E-mail: m.brennan@uq.edu.au
turbulent. Hydro-cyclones operate with a strong swirl
together with a flow reversal, and a flow separation, near
the underflow. This makes the flow strained and introduces
anisotropy into the turbulence. Further the short residence
time implies that the turbulence is not at equilibrium.
Hydro-cyclones are often operated with the outlets open
to the atmosphere and thus develop an air core along the
axis because the swirling flow generates an axial region
of negative gauge pressure which draws air in. The free sur-
face between the air and the water phase introduces further
turbulence anisotropy because the turbulent stresses normal
to the free surface drop to zero as the free surface is
approached. Finally hydrocyclones treat particle laden
flows, which influences the turbulence because particles,
which are smaller than the length scale of the turbulence,
are known to damp the turbulence, whilst the turbulence
also influences the mixing of the particles and thus affects
the partition behaviour.
In this paper the results of two phase water/air CFD
studies of the 75 mm cyclone of Hsieh (1988) are reported.
In particular velocity predictions from large eddy

495
496 BRENNAN
simulations (LES) and the differential Reynolds stress
turbulence model (DRSM) are compared Hsiehs (1988)
LDA data.
PREVIOUS CFD WORK
Boysan et al. (1982) solved the Reynolds averged
Navier Stokes equations for a single phase gas cyclone
using an algebraic turbulence model. Subsequently, Hsieh
(1988) investigated hydrocyclones, with further publi-
cations by co-workers from the University of Utah.
(Hsieh and Rajamani, 1991; Monredon et al., 1992;
Devulapalli and Rajamani, 1994, 1996). Hsieh (1988)
measured the velocities and turbulence parameters in a
75 mm glass cyclone with a water feed and operating
with an air core using laser Doppler anemometry. This
data was used to validate a two-dimensional axi-symmetric
CFD simulation which used a mixing length eddy viscosity
turbulence model where different mixing length constants
were used for the two components of the momentum
equation. Although Hsiehs CFD model required calib-
ration, it was able to simulate with reasonable accuracy
the average velocity profiles inside the cyclone body and
demonstrated the effect of swirl and flow reversal on
turbulence behaviour. Subsequently the same approach
was used by Devullapalli and Rajamani (1994, 1996) who
modelled and measured a 250 mm Krebs D10 hydrocyclone
design.
CFD studies of cyclones have continued since Hsiehs
(1988) work where authors have used various forms of
the k-1 model to model the turbulence (Malhotra et al.,
1994; Fraser et al., 1997; He et al., 1999) but recent studies
(Slack and Wraith, 1997; Slack et al., 2000; Suasnabar,
2000; Cullivan et al., 2003) have suggest that the turbu-
lence in hydrocyclones is too anisotropic to simulate accu-
rately with two equation turbulence models and that at least
a second moment (or Reynolds stress) turbulence model is
needed. Slack et al. (2000) also studied the flow inside
single phase gas cyclones using LES on a finer grid, and
LES seemed to give good predictions. Slack et al. (2000)
in particular noted that the turbulence in gas cyclones
was developing, i.e., a flow where the production of turbu-
lence exceeded the turbulent dissipation.
These more recent studies (Slack et al., 2000; Suasnabar,
2000; Cullivan et al., 2003) have also indicated that CFD of
hydrocyclones needs a three-dimensional grid to capture
asymmetries in the flow.
The JKMRC has completed initial CFD studies of dense
medium and classifying cyclones using FluentTM (Brennan
et al., 2002; Brennan, 2003) and is using gamma ray tomo-
graphy to measure density profiles in dense medium
cyclones (Subramanian, 2002). The density profiles from
this experimental work are being used to validate the
CFD modelling. The initial CFD work was a 3-D simu-
lation of a 350 mm Dutch State Mines pattern body and
was a two phase simulation (air/water) which predicted
the position of the air core and flow splits with reasonable
accuracy. The work used the volume of fluid (VOF) model
(Hirt and Nichols, 1981) to predict the position of the air
core and the FluentTM implementation of the differential
Reynolds stress turbulence (DRSM) model. Subsequently
a DRSM based multiphase approach using the mixture
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
model (Manninnen et al., 1996) was used to simulate
medium segregation (Brennan, 2003), but it was apparent
that medium segregation was over predicted.
CFD MODEL APPROACH
Averaged and Filtered Equations of Motion
CFD simulations of turbulent flows have traditionally
used the Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes equations
(RANS), where the equations of motion are averaged
over a time scale which is long relative to the time scale
of the turbulent fluctuations and hence none of the turbulent
fluctuations are resolved by the simulation. The averaging
operation results in six additional unknowns in the Rey-
nolds averaged form of the Navier Stokes equations
which account for the transfer of momentum by the unre-
solved turbulence and these unknowns are commonly
called the Reynolds stresses. Model equations, typically
using either a 2 equation, or a second moment turbulence
model, must be supplied to calculate the Reynolds stresses
and obtain a numerical solution.
RANS turbulence models are empirical and typically are
calibrated for flows where the turbulence is fully developed
(or at equilibrium with respect to turbulent production and
dissipation). RANS models can be recalibrated for other
flows but this immediately implies that RANS models
lack universality. Various modifications to RANS models
have been proposed to improve their universality and the
literature in this area is immense. A good discussion of
the issues associated with RANS turbulence modelling
has been given by Wilcox (1998).
Advances in computer hardware have meant that LES
are becoming practical for engineering CFD problems. In
LES the larger scales of the turbulence are resolved by inte-
grating the equations of motion in time and only the turbu-
lent scales which are smaller than the grid are modelled.
The fact that an LES resolves much of the turbulence with-
out modelling implies that LES should be more accurate
than a RANS simulation.
With LES, the equations of motion are filtered and the
filtering operation also results in six additional unknowns
which account for the transfer of momentum by turbulent
eddies which are smaller than the grid. These unknowns
are known as the sub grid scale (SGS) stresses and must
be modelled if the equations of motion are to be solved.
Whilst this re-introduces the same questions of accuracy
and universality that apply to RANS models, in principle
the grid can be made sufficiently small that the SGS stresses
are isotropic and can be modelled simply.
The disadvantages of LES are primarily computational;
LES requires a finer mesh than a comparable RANS simu-
lation and LES intrinsically produces an unsteady solution
in time, whereas a time averaged steady state solution can
usually be obtained for a RANS simulation. LES has pri-
marily been used for the single phase flows used in aerody-
namic and meteorological applications and there are still
unanswered questions about appropriate SGS models for
the multiphase flows encountered in mineral processing
applications.
The Reynolds averaged and filtered equations of motion
have a common form where tij is a symmetric tensor
 CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE 497

containing the six unknown stresses which must be equations for the shear components of the Reynolds stres-
modelled: ses. Modelling Pij has been the subject of much research
and most workers have taken the approach where Pij is
@ r @ rui the sum of slow and fast terms (Wilcox, 1996):
0 (1)
@t @xi
@ @ @uk
( rui ) (rui uj ) Pij Aij Mijkl (6)
@t @xj @xl
@ @ Both the slow pressure strain term Aij and the fast pressure
 p (tmij tij ) rgi (2)
@xi @xj strain term Mijkl are assumed to be functions of the magni-
tude of what is commonly called the Reynolds stress aniso-
The Differential Reynolds Stress Turbulence Model tropy tensor bij:
(DRSM)
u0i u0j  2=3kdij
The RANS simulations in this study have used the FluentTM bij (7)
implementation of the DRSM which is based on the Launder 2k
et al. (1975) second moment closure and solves a transport
equation for each of the six unique Reynolds stresses:
The slow pressure strain term Aij redistributes the Reynolds
tij tji ru0i u0j (3) stresses based on their magnitude and is also called the
return to isotropy term, whilst the fast pressure strain
The exact DRSM transport equations contain a number of term Mijkl is multiplied by the velocity gradients and this
unknown correlations which must be modelled. These sensitises the pressure strain model (and redistributes the
unknowns are; the dissipation tensor 1ij, the pressure strain Reynolds stresses according to) to flow strain, flow rotation,
correlation tensor Pij, and the turbulent diffusion of the Reynolds stress production and convection of the Reynolds
Reynolds stresses expressed by the tensor Cijk. The Launder stresses. Most models for Aij and Mijkl are truncated taylor
et al. (1975) model assumes that dissipation occurs only in series expansions in bij. However, the higher order expan-
the transport equations for the normal stresses and solves a sions generate a large number of additional terms contain-
transport equation for a scalar dissipation rate 1 (i.e., isotropic ing adjustable constants and much of the research work
dissipation). The Launder et al. (1975) model models Cijk seems to attend to reducing these terms to a manageable
using a generalized gradient diffusion hypothesis; however level.
the FluentTM implementation uses a simpler turbulent vis- FluentTM has a number of options for Pij and in this
cosity for stability reasons. The DRSM transport equations work the linear pressure strain (LPS) model of Launder
that are thus solved in FluentTM are et al. (1989) with the wall reflection term and the quadratic
pressure strain (QPS) model of Speziale et al. (1991) were
D used. The LPS model is linear in bij whilst the QPS is a
(ru0i u0j ) rPij r1ij  rPij quadratic expansion in bij and the QPS allows for strained
Dt

 flows where Reynolds stress redistribution would be non-
@ @ 0 0 linear. In particular the QPS does not need the LPS wall
m u u rCijk
@xk @xk i j reflection term, which introduces a non linear function
into the LPS in the vicinity of a boundary, to model the cor-
@uj @ui
Pij u0i u0k  u0j u0k rect flow behaviour in wall bounded regions.
@xk @xk (4)
m @ 0 0
rCijk t uu
s k @xk i j
2 Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
r1ij  dij r1
3 In a LES, tij in equation (2) contains the sub grid scale
s k 0:82 stresses, which in this work are modelled with the
SmagorinskyLilly (Smagorinsky, 1963; Lilly, 1966) model:

   1
D @ m @ tij  tkk dij 2mt,s Sij (8)
(r1) m t 1 3
Dt @xj se @xj
1 1 12 (5) The SmagorinskyLilly model calculates the SGS eddy vis-
C11 Pii  C21 r cosity algebraically from a length scale Ls and the mean local
2 k k
strain rate
s1 1:09, C11 1:44, C21 1:92
mt,s rLs jSj (9)
The pressure strain correlation tensor Pij acts to redistribute
the individual Reynolds stresses. In the case of the Launder Ls is normally equal to a third power of the finite volume
et al. (1975) DRSM model, which assumes isotropic dissi- size at each grid point in regions of high turbulence but the
pation, Pij also provides the only sink in the transport FluentTM implementation also makes Ls a function of the

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
498 BRENNAN

distance from the wall in wall bounded regions:

Ls min (kd, Cs Vg1=3 ) (10)

Cs is the SGS calibration constant which in this work was 0.1.

Air Core Modelling

Multiphase flows can be simulated using a full Eulerian
multiphase model, which is the most sophisticated
approach but solves a full set of transport equations for
each phase in the mixture. The mixture model (Manninnen
et al., 1996) is a less numerically intensive approach to
simulating multiphase flows where one of the phases is dis-
persed. The mixture model is derived from the full Eulerian
multiphase transport equations by making two simplifying
assumptions: (i) that the dispersed phases are moving at
their terminal slip velocity relative to the continuous fluid
phase and (ii) the interphase momentum transfer can be for-
mulated by a simple drag calculation. Assumption (i) obvi-
ates the need to solve separate momentum equations for
each phase in the system and the mixture model only
solves the equations of motion for the fluid mixture and
transport equations for the volume fractions of any
additional dispersed phases

@
ak r  (ak um ) r  (ak ukm ) 0
@t (11)
ukm uk  um

The ukm is the drift velocity of the phase k with respect to

Figure 1. Image of grid used in hydrocyclone simulations showing feed
the mixture and is calculated from the slip velocities of the port, and detail of underflow.
other dispersed phases:

X
n
ak r k continuous air phase and in the context of hydro-cyclones
ukm ukc  ulc
l1
rm (12) can treat a case where air is present both as a dispersed
phase in the feed, and as a continuous phase in the air core.
ukc uk  uc

ukc is the slip velocity of the dispersed phase k relative to Grid, Boundary Conditions and Problem Set Up
the continuous fluid phase c and is calculated from the The simulations used FluentTM V6. Initial work was
equilibrium drag assumption. done using V6.1.22 and more recent work used 6.2.15.
A further simplification of the mixture model is the VOF Three dimensional body fitted grids were used with an
(Hirt and Nichols, 1981). The VOF model is designed to accurate geometric model of the Hsieh cyclone body con-
model multiphase flows where the phases segregate totally. sisting of the feed port, main body and vortex finder. The
It solves the equations of motion for the mixture and an grids were generated using GambitTM using the Cooper
additional transport equation for each additional phase meshing facility; however the grids have been set up so
which is essentially identical to equation (11) except that that in the main body they were essentially a cylindrical
the drift velocity ukm is not calculated. O grid. The feed port used a velocity inlet boundary con-
In this work the air core has been simulated with both the dition, whilst the underflow and overflow were pressure
mixture and VOF models and the results are compared because
both models have applications in solving CFD of the multi-
phase flows encountered in mineral processing. The VOF Table 1. Grids used in simulations showing number of grid points in each
model is best suited to model CFD problems where there is coordinate. Radial is the number of points between the vortex finder and
a clear air/water free surface between a continuous air and a outer wall. Total is the total number of volume elements
continuous water phase. By comparison the primary purpose Pars 1 2 3 4
of the mixture model is to model dispersed phases and
should be suitable for modelling many mineral slurries Axial 102 112 204 224
because the slurry particles are often less than 1 mm in diam- Radial 30 40 60 80
Tangential 44 44 88 88
eter, and accelerate to their terminal slip velocity quickly. Total 2.31  105 3.14  105 18.5  105 25.1  105
However, the mixture model can be still be used to model a

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
 CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE
outlet boundary conditions. Figure 1 shows an outline of a
typical grid and two features of the grid should be noted.
Firstly a circular inlet port was used and this was meshed
and merged with the main grid by projecting the face
meshes from the port inlet and a surrounding section of
the cyclone wall in to the outer wall face of the vortex
finder. Secondly the grid was graded radially near the
underflow so that a fairly coarse grid existed in the
region expected to be occupied by the air-core.
Four grids are reported here and the grid parameters
are shown in Table 1. The number of axial mesh points
is the total number including the upper body and apex.
The number of radial mesh points is the number between
the wall and the vortex finder, whilst 10 points were used
radially inside the vortex finder.
Grids 1 and 2, which are the coarser grids, were gener-
ated directly using Gambit. However grid 3 and grid 4
which are the finer grids were generated using grid adap-
tation where grid 3 was generated from grid 1 and grid 4
was generated from grid 2. The standard FluentTM grid
adaptation algorithm was used where the entire grid in a
steady case study was adapted.
The y in wall bounded grid points was between 50 and
100 for grid 1 and was between 20 and 40 for grid 4, so
standard wall functions were used for the DRSM simu-
lations. In the cases of simulations using LES, these
values of the wall bounded y imply that the log layer
was being resolved but the viscous sub layer and transition
region were being modelled.
Hsieh (1988) conducted measurements on a cyclone
where the air core was fully developed and the flow and tur-
bulence have reached a time averaged steady state. The
simulations reported here are for similar steady operation.
The following strategy was evolved because it could
obtain, with reasonable reliability, a case study with
steady flow and a stable air core. Other approaches were
tried but the cases invariably diverged:
1. The case was initialised with a cyclone full of water
with the backflow air volume fraction set to zero on
overflow and underflow boundary conditions.
2. The case was run using the steady solver and the stan-
dard k-1 model for approximately 200 iterations.
3. The DRSM model with the LPS option was then enabled
and the case ran for about 25 iterations using the steady
solver and then the unsteady solver (fixed time step) was
enabled and the simulation was ran as a time integration
till a central axial core of negative pressure formed,
which led to a reversed flow on the overflow and under-
flow boundary conditions.
4. The back flow air volume fraction on both the overflow
and underflow boundary conditions was then set to 1 and
the simulation was run using the unsteady solver until
the air core was fully developed and overflow and
underflow mass flow rates matched the feed flow rate.
The steady case study using DRSM/LPS/VOF was saved
as a base case and was used as the starting case for other
case studies using other model options.
The methodology [steps (1) (4)] does not realistically
represent the actual dynamics of air core development,
because in reality the back flow air volume fraction is 1
from start up. However, perturbations of the final steady
cases always saw the case stabilise back to the same flow
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
499
split and velocities and hence the predictions should be
independent on how the case was first evolved.
The simulations were run on Silcon Graphics Altix ser-
vers which are part of the Queensland Parallel Supercom-
puting Foundation. PRESTO discretization was used for
pressure. HRIC discretization was used for the air volume
fraction with the VOF model and QUICK was used with
the air volume fraction with the mixture model. All other
equations used QUICK. HRIC and QUICK discretization
have been compared using the VOF model and predict
essentially the same velocities, but the HRIC option gave
a sharper resolution of the air/water free surface.
The simulations were time consuming. In the case of the
DRSM simulations, a velocity data set could be generated
after a week of simulations. The LES on the finer grids
took considerably longer even though parallel processing
was used.
Results
Hsieh (1988) reported time averaged velocities. LES is
intrinsically a dynamic simulation and will resolve the
large scale turbulent fluctuations plus any periodic effects,
even when the simulation has reached a time-averaged
steady state. To compare LES predictions with time averaged
velocity data the LES instantaneous velocities must be aver-
aged over a sufficiently long sample time. In this work each
LES was run at time averaged steady flow and a set of instan-
taneous velocity predictions were generated from the LES at
fixed 1023 s intervals. This set of instantaneous velocity pre-
dictions was then averaged externally. Over 200 sets of
instantaneous data from the LES were found to be sufficient
to give good predictions of the mean velocities.
The DRSM simulations reached a true steady state with no
fluctuations in the computed velocities. Hence the predicted
velocities for the DRSM simulations presented in this work
are also an average of between four and 10 sets of instan-
taneous velocities as calculated by the solver, generated at
0.1 s intervals, after the simulation reached steady flow.
All simulations were conducted using a water feed rate of
1.1165 kg s21 which is equivalent to Hsiehs (1988) series 1
data. Hsieh (1988) measured axial velocities at four tangen-
tial positions of 08, 908, 1808 and 2708 and measured tangen-
tial velocities at 0 and 1808 where the 0 1808 plane was
normal to the feed port. In this work, axial velocity predic-
tions are reported in the 90 2708 plane and tangential vel-
ocity predictions are reported in the 0 1808 plane at 60,
120, 180 and 240 below the top of the cyclone.
Figure 2 shows a comparison between the axial vel-
ocities measured by Hsieh (1988) in the 90 2708 plane
and those predicted by the CFD using the DRSM turbu-
lence model with the linear pressure strain correlation
and the VOF model whilst Figure 3 compares tangential
velocities in the 0 1808 plane for the same simulations.
The simulations are compared at 60 mm, 120 mm and
180 mm, for grids 1, 2 and 3.
The results for the axial velocities in Figure 2 show that
the DRSM turbulence model predicts the axial velocities
well at 60 mm, but under predicts the axial velocities at
lower levels. Further the DRSM turbulence model does not
predict correctly the asymmetry in the measured axial velo-
cities. Figure 3 shows that the DRSM model consistently
under predicts the tangential velocities at all levels and
500 BRENNAN
Figure 2. Comparison between axial velocities measured by Hsieh (1988,
Series 1) and axial velocities predicted by CFD using RSM with LPS and
VOF for air core at 60 mm, 120 mm and 180 mm below the top of cyclone
in the 902708 plane. Shows effect of different grids.
that this under prediction of the tangential velocities is
actually worse with grids 2 and 3, which are the finer grids.
Figure 4 shows a comparison between Hsiehs (1988)
measured velocities at 120 mm and DRSM predictions
using; the LPS option with the VOF model, the QPS
option with the VOF model and the LPS option with the
mixture model. The simulations with the mixture model
treated the air as a dispersed phase with a notional particle
size of 1.0  1024 m.
The simulations with the Mixture model treated the air
as a dispersed phase with a notional particle size of
1.0  1024 m. Figure 4 shows that the VOF and mixture
models predict essentially the same velocities. This is to be
expected as the only difference between the two models is
that the mixture model calculates a drift velocity in the air
phase transport equation. This will only be non-zero in the
region of the domain where the air/water free surface is
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
Figure 3. Comparison between tangential velocities measured by Hsieh
(1988, Series 1) and tangential velocities predicted by CFD using RSM
with LPS and VOF for air core at 60 mm, 120 mm and 180 mm below
the top of cyclone in the 01808 plane. Shows effect of different grids.
located and this will have the effect of driving the air inwards
under the centrifugal forces, resulting in a sharper numerical
prediction of the phase boundary. This will feed back into the
momentum equation through the density gradient across the
free surface, but the density gradient is much the same with
both models and is in the same location.
Figure 4 shows that the QPS model predicts marginally
better axial velocities than the LPS model near the air/
water phase boundary but in the main part of the flow the
LPS and QPS axial velocity predictions are essentially the
same. Figure 4 also shows that tangential velocity predictions
from the LPS and QPS are almost identical with both models
under predicting the tangential velocities to the same extent.
The fact that the DRSM turbulence model as used here
under predicts the tangential velocities in Hsiehs cyclone,
irrespective of grid refinement, implies that there is a pro-
blem with the DRSM turbulence model for this flow.
 CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE
Figure 4. Comparison between axial and tangential velocities measured by
Hsieh (1988, Series 1) and velocities predicted by CFD using RSM at
120 mm below the top of cyclone in the 01808 plane. Compares LPS
and QP, VOF and mixture models. CFD used grid 2.
Flow in hydrocyclones is a turbulent shear flow which
suggests that the DRSM is over-predicting the shear com-
ponents of the Reynolds stresses. This problem could be
addressed by attention to the pressure strain model. There
is little difference between the velocity predictions from
the LPS and QPS sub-models, which suggests that the
non-linearity of the QPS confers no advantage. However
the Speziale et al. (1991) QPS model is a contraction of
a more general form and assumes that the turbulence is
homogeneous. Further, the QPS reduces to the LPS when
the included non-linear terms are neglected, so the under
prediction of the tangential velocities may be the result of
an incorrect assumption that applies to both pressure
strain models. However under prediction of the tangential
velocities could also be due inappropriate simplifying
assumptions for 1ij and Cijk.
Figure 5 shows a comparison between the axial vel-
ocities measured by Hsieh (1988) in the 90 2708 plane
and the ensemble averaged axial velocities predicted
using LES and the VOF model for the air core, whilst
Figure 6 compares tangential velocities in the 0 2708
plane. Results are shown at 60, 120 and 180 mm and are
for grids 2 and 4. The LES predictions are much closer
to the measured velocities than velocities predicted by the
DRSM turbulence model; the agreement on tangential vel-
ocities is very good, but the LES still does not reproduce
the apparent axial velocity asymmetry in Hsiehs data at
180 mm. The results also show that there is some difference
between the average velocities predicted by grids 2 and 4,
with the finer grid giving a smoother velocity profile across
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
501
Figure 5. Comparison between axial velocities measured by Hsieh (1988,
Series 1) and axial velocities predicted by CFD using LES and mixture
model for air core at 60 mm, 120 mm and 180 mm below the top of
cyclone in the 902708 plane. Shows effect of different grids.
the radius, but in the upper apex region the velocities pre-
dicted by both grids are similar.
Figure 7 shows a comparison between Hsiehs average
velocities at 240 mm from the top of the cyclone and
those predicted by the CFD for the LES and the DRSM.
It is difficult to interpret Hsiehs planar velocity measure-
ments at this level with any accuracy so Hsiehs reported
averages of all four tangential positions is used here
instead. The DRSM model matches the tangential average
axial velocities quite well at this level. The LES with
grid 2 predicts a much sharper flow reversal in the axial
flow velocities whilst the LES with grid 4 is reasonably
close. The LES with grid 4 gives the best prediction for
the tangential velocities but the LES tangential velocity
predictions for grid 2 are relatively poor. This implies
that grid 4 is the best grid for an LES simulation.
The fact that the LES seems to predict the velocities well
would imply that the approach of positioning the wall
502
Figure 6. Comparison between tangential velocities measured by Hsieh
(1988, Series 1) and tangential velocities predicted by CFD using LES
and mixture model for air core at 60 mm, 120 mm and 180 mm below
the top of cyclone in the 0 1808 plane. Shows effect of different grids.
bounded grid points in the log layer at y  40 100 and
modelling the viscous sub-layer and transition region with
a wall function does not introduce significant errors.
Simulations using LES and the mixture model were also
run with grid 2 and grid 4 but the time average velocity pre-
dictions were essentially the same as time average velocity
predictions from the LES/VOF simulations, so the LES/
mixture simulations are not reproduced here.
Adapting the grid in an LES reduces the size of the LES
filter with the result that the LES resolves more of the smal-
ler scales of turbulence. The fact that grid adaption
improves and more particularly flatters out the axial vel-
ocity gradients at 240 mm indicates that these smaller
scales contribute a significant amount of the turbulent
momentum transfer at this level and need to be resolved
rather than modelled. Hence grids 1 and 2 are too coarse
in this region. However LES using grids 1 and 2 still
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
BRENNAN
Figure 7. Comparison between axial and tangential velocities measured by
Hsieh (1988, Series 1) with velocities predicted by CFD using LES and
mixutre model for air core at 240 mm below the top of cyclone. Velocities
are the average of four tangential positions. Also shown are predictions
using the RSM model with LPS and VOF.
give reasonable velocity predictions in the main part of
the cyclone body, so adapting grid 1 (or grid 2) only
below 180 mm, may be satisfactory and the resultant par-
tially adapted grid would not have the computational over-
head of grid 4.
Can the DRSM Model Be Calibrated to Give Better
Velocity Predictions?
While it is evident that LES is more accurate than the
DRSM simulations, the LES are much more numerically
intensive. The best LES velocity predictions are from
grid 4 which contains nearly an order of magnitude more
nodes than grid 1. In addition the LES needed a shorter
time step, typically 1.0  1024 s, compared to around
1  1023 s for a DRSM simulation. Further, the LES
needed to run for a significant period of time and a statisti-
cally sufficient amount of instantaneous velocity data
needed to be generated, which then had to be ensemble
averaged to obtain velocity predictions. This raises the
question as to whether it might be practical to recalibrate
a DRSM simulation with the Launder et al. (1975) model
as is on a coarser grid to match either experimental results,
or an LES prediction at one operating point. The calibrated
 CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE 503

DRSM simulation could then be used in engineering simu- adjustable constants and this simplifies the task. The Laun-
lations at other conditions with some confidence at con- der et al. (1989) linear model is
siderably less computational cost than an LES.  
Calibration of the existing model is also a useful first step 1 0 0 2
Pij C1 r ui uj  dij k
to identifying what might be needed in terms of model k 3
modifications.  
The DRSM model used in this study implements dissipa- 1
 C2 Pij  Dij  dij (Pkk  Dkk )
tion only in the transport equations for the Reynolds normal 3
stresses, which are the diagonal components of the Reynolds  
@uj @ui
stress tensor. Apart from convection and turbulent diffusion, 0
Pij  ui uk 0 0
uj uk0 , (13)
the only sink in each transport equation for the Reynolds @xk @xk
shear stresses is the associated shear component of the  
@uk @uk
pressure strain tensor. This implies calibration could be Dij  u0i u0k u0j u0k
@xj @xi
accomplished by adjusting the pressure strain model con-
stants with the aim of damping the Reynolds shear stresses, 1
which act on the tangential velocity. k u0k u0k , C1 1:8, C2 0:6 (default)
2
Calibration of the linear pressure strain model has been
considered here because the linear model has only two The first constant C1 adjusts the slow, or return to isotropy,

Figure 8. Comparison between axial velocities measured by Hsieh (1988, Figure 9. Comparison between tangential velocities measured by Hsieh
Series 1) with axial velocities predicted by CFD using RSM/LPS with (1988, Series 1) with tangential velocities predicted by CFD using
VOF, but with changes in C1 and C2 in the LPS model (C1 1.8, RSM/LPS with VOF, but with changes in C1 and C2 in the LPS model
C2 0.6 are default values). (C1 1.8, C2 0.6 are default).

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
504 BRENNAN

component of the pressure strain tensor which redistributes However, simulations at other feed rates and other cyclone
the stresses based on their magnitude and acts as a sink for geometries with these adjusted constants have not been
the Reynolds shear stresses. Increasing C1 will reduce the conducted.
magnitude of the Reynolds shear stresses but will also
make Reynolds normal stresses more equal to each other
(i.e., make the turbulence more isotropic), which would NOMENCLATURE
seem to be undesirable. Ak particle cross-sectional area of phase k
The second constant C2 adjusts the fast pressure strain Aij slow pressure strain tensor
bij dimensionless Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor
term which redistributes the stresses based on the magni- Cd drag coefficient
tude of production and convection. Increasing C2 will Cij convective transport tensor
reduce the production and convection of the Reynolds Cijk turbulent transport tensor
shear stresses but will also make the production of the Rey- Cs Smagorinsky Lilly constant
C1 Slow linear pressure strain model constant
nolds normal stresses more isotropic, which would also C2 Fast linear pressure strain model constant
seem to be undesirable. d distance from wall
Figures 8 and 9 show the effect of adjustments to C1 and g gravity vector
C2 on the predicted velocities. Increasing C2 to 0.9 gi i component of gravity vector
improves both the axial and tangential velocity predictions. k turbulent kinetic energy
Ls length scale of the sub grid scale stresses
However, the peak in the tangential velocities is somewhat Mp0 fluctuating component of interphase momentum transfer
broader than measured. Reducing C1 to 1 seems to have a Mijkl fast pressure strain tensor
limited effect except that it makes the tangential velocity Pij turbulent production tensor
peak at 120 mm somewhat broader. Increasing C2 much Sij mean strain rate
t time
above 0.9 resulted in a satisfactory prediction of the tangen- ukc velocity vector of phase k relative to continuous phase
tial velocities but had the effect of damping the Reynolds ukm velocity vector of phase k relative to mixture velocity
stress components in the axial direction so significantly um mixture velocity vector
that the predicted axial velocities started to fluctuate ui0 i component of velocity vector
time-wise. ui0 i component of fluctuating velocity
Vg volume of grid finite volume
It is likely that the non-linear constants in the fast Vk particle volume of phase k
pressure strain term of the quadratic pressure strain model xi i co-ordinate
could be adjusted to achieve a satisfactory velocity predic- y dimensionless distance from wall
tion as well and investigating this option would be a useful
next step. Greek Symbols
ak volume fraction of dispersed phase k
dij Kronecker delta
CONCLUSIONS 1ij dissipation tensor
Pij pressure strain correlation tensor
CFD predictions of the 75 mm hydrocyclone of Hsieh r density
(1988) have been conducted in FluentTM using 3 D body tij turbulent or sub grid scale stress tensor
fitted grids where the air core is resolved with the VOF tmij viscous stress tensor
m molecular viscosity
(Hirt and Nichols, 1981) and mixture (Manninen et al., mt eddy viscosity
1996) models and have been compared to Hsiehs mt,s sub-grid scale eddy viscosity
measured LDA data. It has been found that simulations
using the differential Reynolds stress turbulence model
under predict the axial velocities in the apex and consist-
ently under predict the tangential velocities. There is rela- REFERENCES
tively little difference between the predictions from the Brennan, M.S., Holtham, P.N., Rong, R. and Lyman, G.J., 2002, Compu-
standard LPS model (Launder et al., 1975) and the QPS tational fluid dynamic simulation of dense medium cyclones, Proceed-
model (Speziale et al., 1991). Velocity predictions using ings 9th Australian Coal Preparation Conference, Yeppoon Australia,
the VOF and mixture models are essentially the same. 1317 October 2002, Paper B3.
Brennan, M.S., 2003, Multiphase CFD simulations of dense medium and
The results are independent of the grid with grids of classifying hydrocyclones, Third International Conference on CFD in
between 2.2  105 and 2.4  106 nodes giving essentially the Minerals and Process Industries, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia,
the same velocity predictions. 1012 December, 59 63.
LES using the basic Smagorinsky Lilly (Smagorinsky, Boysan, F., Ayers, W.H. and Swithenbank, J., 1982, Trans IChemE, 60:
222230.
1963; Lilly, 1996) sub-grid scale model give good agree- Cullivan, J.C., Williams, R.A. and Cross, C.R., 2003, Understanding the
ment with Hsiehs velocity data, however the best agree- hydrocyclone separator through computational fluid dynamics, Trans
ment is obtained using a grid of 2.4  106 nodes. IChemE, 81A: 455466.
Under prediction of the tangential velocities by the Devulapalli, B. and Rajamani, R.K., 1994, Application of LDV to the
DRSM model implies that with the both pressure strain modelling of particle size classification in industrial hydrocyclones,
ASME FED, 191: 41 48.
options, the model is over predicting the Reynolds shear Devulapalli, B. and Rajamani, R.K., 1996, A comprehensive CFD model
stresses. DRSM simulations where the constants in the for particle-size classification in industrial hydrocyclones, Hydrocy-
LPS model have been adjusted from the default values clones 96, Cambridge, UK, 83 104.
of C1 1.8 and C2 0.6 have been conducted. It has Fraser, S.M., Abdel Rasek, A.M. and Abdullah, M.Z., 1997, Compu-
tational and experimental investigations in a cyclone dust separator,
been found that increasing the fast pressure strain constant Proc Instn Mech Engrs, 211E: 247 257.
C2 to 0.9 improves the velocity predictions. These adjust- He, P., Salcudean, M. and Gartshore I.S., 1999, A numerical simulation of
ments also reduce the predicted Reynolds stresses. hydrocyclones, Trans IChemE, 77(A): 429441.

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
 CFD SIMULATIONS OF HYDROCYCLONES WITH AN AIR CORE
Hirt, C.W. and Nichols, B.D., 1981, Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the
dynamics of free boundaries, Journal of Computational Physics, 39:
201 225.
Hsieh, K.T., 1988, A phenomenological model of the hydrocyclone, PhD
Thesis, University of Utah.
Hsieh, K.T. and Rajamani, R.K., 1991, Mathematical model of the hydro-
cyclone based on the physics of fluid flow, AIChE J, 37: 735.
Launder, B.E., 1989, Second-moment closure: present . . . and future?,
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 10: 282 300.
Launder, B.E., Reece, G.J. and Rodi, W., 1975, Progress in the develop-
ment of a Reynolds-stress turbulence closure, J Fluid Mech, 68:
537 566.
Lilly, D.K., 1966, On the application of the eddy viscosity concept in the
inertial subrange of turbulence, NCAR manuscript 123.
Malhotra, A., Branion R.M.R. and Hauptmann, E.G., 1994, Modeling the
flow in a hydrocyclone, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineer-
ing, 72: 953 960.
Manninen, M., Taivassalo, V. and Kallio, S., 1996, On the Mixture Model
for Multiphase Flow (Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus, Espoo,
Finland).
Monredon, T.C., Hsieh, K.T. and Rajamani, R.K., 1992, Fluid flow of the
hydrocyclones: An investigation of the device dimensions, International
Journal of Mineral Processing, 35: 65 83.
Slack, M.D., Prasad, R.O., Bakker, A. and Boysan, F., 2000, Advances in
cyclone modeling using unstructured grids, Trans IChemE, 78(A):
10981104.
Slack, M.D. and Wraith, A.E., 1997, Modelling the velocity distribution in
a hydrocyclone, 4th International Colloquium on Process Simulation,
1113 June, Espoo, Finland, 6583.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A6): 495 505
505
Smagorinsky, J., 1963, General circulation experiments with the primitive
equation. I. The basic experiment, Monthly Weather Review, 91:
99164.
Speziale, C.G., Sarkar, S. and Gatski, T.B., 1991, Modeling the pressure
strain correlation of turbulence, J Fluid Mech, 227: 245272.
Suasnabar, D.J., 2000, Dense medium cyclone performance, enhancements
via computational modeling of the physical process, PhD Thesis, Uni-
versity of New South Wales.
Subramanian, V.S., 2002, Measuring medium segregation in the dense
medium cyclone using gamma ray tomography, PhD Thesis, JKMRC,
University of Queensland.
Wilcox, D.C., 1998, Turbulence Modelling for CFD (DCW Industries, La
Canada California).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The computational resources that were used in this work are part of the
Queensland Parallel Supercomputing Foundation. The author would also
like to thank Prof. Klaus Bremhorst, Mechanical Engineering UQ and
Dr Peter Holtham JKMRC UQ for their assistance in preparing this paper.
NOTES
Fluent and Gambit are trademarks and software of Fluent Inc.
The Manuscript was received 9 May 2005 and accepted for publication
after revision 10 March 2006.