|
Figure 1.1: |
Control variables of an electrostatic separation process: high-voltage level U; roll-speed n; angular α1 and radial d1 position of the corona electrode; angular α2 and radial d2 position of the electrostatic electrode; angular positions γ1 and γ2 of the splitters. |
27 |
|
Figure 1.2: |
Schematic representation of a powder tribocharging installation and corresponding variables: fluidised bed pressure, injection pressure, dilution pressure, vortex pressure, charging device configuration and coating, powder granularity. |
30 |
|
Figure 1.3: |
Two electrodes configuration for a free fall separation chamber. |
31 |
|
Figure 1.4: |
Charge measurement setup. |
33 |
|
Figure 1.5: |
High voltage measurement setup. |
34 |
|
Figure 1.6: |
Electrostatic voltmeter: surface potential measurement principle [96]. |
35 |
|
Figure 1.7: |
Circuit diagram of an electrostatic voltmeter [95]. |
37 |
|
Figure 1.8: |
Instrument control system for voltage measurements [93]. |
38 |
|
Figure 1.9: |
Front panel of the virtual instrument for single particle charge measurements. |
40 |
|
Figure 2.1: |
Charge insulating particles “pinned” to the surface of the grounded electrode of a roll-type corona-electrostatic separator; 1: grounded rotating roll; 2: wire type corona electrode; 3: charged particles. |
45 |
|
Figure 2.2: |
Insulated particles charge measurements setup: schematic representation (a) and physical embodiment (b). |
47 |
|
Figure 2.3: |
Design architecture of the charge measurement virtual instrument. |
50 |
|
Figure 2.4: |
Schematic representation of type I, II, and III particles |
55 |
|
Figure 2.5: |
View of the corona charging experimental set-up; 1: wire type corona electrode; 2: charged insulated particles; 3: grounded roll electrode |
56 |
|
Figure 2.6: |
Charge Q of type I particles as function of spacing d, for an applied voltage U = 20 kV and a distance s = 50 mm between the electrodes |
57 |
|
Figure 2.7: |
Charge Q of type II and type III particles as function of discharging time tdisch |
58 |
|
Figure 2.8: |
Custom Faraday cage for powder charge measurements |
60 |
|
Figure 2.9: |
Schematic representation of the experimental setup for powder tribocharging |
61 |
|
Figure 2.10: |
Physical embodiment of the charge measurement setup for powders |
62 |
|
Figure 2.11: |
Command structure for virtual instrument for charge vs. time measurements. |
63 |
|
Figure 2.12: |
Typical charge to time graph obtained with the virtual instrument for the powder tribocharge measurements. |
65 |
|
Figure 2.13: |
Graphs of the charge to time characteristic from the powder tribocharging measurement system obtained with the virtual instrument |
66 |
|
Figure 2.14: |
X-bar chart showing results from experiments 1, 2 and 3. |
75 |
|
Figure 3.1: |
Experimental set-up for the study of corona charging and discharging of granular insulating layers at the surface of a grounded electrode. In the photography left to right: electrostatic voltmeter, potential probe and corona electrode, high voltage supply. |
81 |
|
Figure 3.2: |
Insulated granular layer at the surface of a grounded electrode; spring actuated potential probe and dual corona electrode (detail from Figure 3.1). |
82 |
|
Figure 3.3: |
Virtual instrument for surface potential decay measurement - front panel. |
83 |
|
Figure 3.4: |
Two discharge curves obtained with the virtual instrument for the nonconductive fraction of a genuine chopped wire waste; Y-axis in kV, X-axis in measurement points corresponding to a 5 Hz sampling rate |
101 |
|
Figure 3.5: |
Forces acting on a charged insulating particle at the surface of a rotating roll electrode connected to the ground. |
88 |
|
Figure 3.6: |
Surface potential decay of fine (sample S1.1) and coarse (sample S1.2) PVC particles. Each curve is the average of at least 5 measurements. |
91 |
|
Figure 3.7: |
Surface potential decay of PE (sample S2) versus silicon rubber (sample S3) particles. Each curve is the average of at least 5 measurements. |
92 |
|
Figure 3.8: |
Surface potential decay of fine PVC particles before and after drying for 30 min. in hot airflow (60° C). Each curve is the average of at least 5 measurements. |
93 |
|
Figure 3.9: |
Surface potential decay of HDPE for RH=20% and RH=40% |
97 |
|
Figure 3.10: |
Surface potential decay of PVC for RH = 20 % and RH = 40 %. |
98 |
|
Figure 3.11: |
Surface potential variance due to RH dVHDPE and dVPVC |
98 |
|
Figure 3.12: |
Surface potential decay for PVC and HDPE at RH=40% |
100 |
|
Figure 3.13: |
Surface potential decay for PVC and HDPE at RH=20% |
100 |
|
Figure 3.14: |
Potential difference between HDPE and PVC: dV20=VHDPE-VPVC at 20% RH |
101 |
|
Figure 3.15: |
PE versus rubber; Surface potential ratio VS.2 / VS.3 |
102 |
|
Figure 4.1: |
Roll-type corona-electrostatic laboratory separator (CARPCO Inc, Jacksonville, Fl) with high-voltage probe; 1: feeder; 2: corona electrode; 3: electrostatic electrode; 4: high-voltage connector; 5: high-voltage probe; 6: grounded roll electrode (carrier); 7 collector. |
107 |
|
Figure 4.2: |
Experimental set-up for HV monitoring, using a digital electrometer and a virtual instrument developed in a LabVIEW environment. |
108 |
|
Figure 4.3: |
Voltage restoring curves for the two HV supplies. The graph resulted from the superposition of the curves recorded for two series of spark discharges, one for each of the HV supplies. |
110 |
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4.4: |
Voltage restoring curve for the: HV supply #1 with 20 ms/div (a) and HV supply #2 with 500 ms/div (b) |
111 |
|
Figure 4.5: |
Electrostatic field at the surface of the grounded electrode in a corona electrostatic separator. |
113 |
|
Figure 4.6: |
HV variation before and during granular material processing. Voltage level 30 kV; sampling frequency 20 Hz. |
114 |
|
Figure 4.7: |
Diagram of the Virtual Instrument employed for HV monitoring, using a HV probe and a digital electrometer. Developed in LabVIEW 6.0 |
115 |
|
Figure 4.8: |
Plots of the predicted response σHV and of the respective 95% confidence intervals as function of metal concentration c (%), for n = 80 rev/min and U = 30 kV (a); as function of roll-speed n (rev/min), for c = 25% and U = 30 kV (b). |
119 |
|
Figure 4.9: |
Plots of the predicted response σHV and of the respective 95% confidence intervals: as function of metal concentration c (%), for n = 80 RPM and U = 28 kV (a); as function of applied voltage U [kV], for c = 25% and n = 80 RPM (b). |
121 |
|
Figure 4.10: |
Low pass, 3rd order filter used for signal enhancement |
124 |
|
Figure 4.11: |
Input signal and filtered signal |
125 |
|
Figure 4.12: |
High voltage variation for a 3 mm particle |
126 |
|
Figure 4.13: |
High voltage variation for a 10 mm particle |
126 |
|
Figure 4.14: |
Average feed rate data obtained for 10-second intervals. |
128 |
|
Figure 4.15: |
Measured data on an empty run (a) and on a regular run (b). |
130 |
|
Figure 4.16: |
Normalised coefficients of the quadratic model |
131 |
|
Figure 4.17: |
The linear correlation of noise and metal content. Confidence 99%. |
132 |
|
Figure 5.1: |
Variables of an electrostatic separation process. |
138 |
|
Figure 5.2: |
Graph representation of the factors under study (a) and the Taguchi’s linear graph associated to the L16 orthogonal array (b). |
141 |
|
Figure 5.3: |
Linear graph representation of the factors under study (a) and the Taguchi linear graph associated to the L8 orthogonal array (b). |
143 |
|
Figure 5.4: |
The “design factors”, voltage and roll-speed, and the “noise factors”, granule size and copper content, represented as respectively inner and outer arrays of an experimental design. |
152 |
|
Figure 5.5: |
Plots of the predicted output/noise ratio Y as function of U and n. The computations were carried out with MODDE, for a confidence level p = 0.95. |
158 |
|
Figure 5.6: |
Contour plots of the simplified response function (percentage of middling) computed with MODDE, for n = 80 min-1 (a); n = 90 min-1 (b); n = 100 min-1 (c). |
160 |
|
Figure 5.7: |
The arrangement of the electrostatic separation “design” and “noise” factors as respectively inner and outer arrays. |
163 |
|
Figure 5.8: |
Plots of the predicted output/noise ratio Y [-] as function of U [kV], n [RPM], and γ[°]. The computations were carried out with MODDE 5.0, for a confidence level p = 0.95 computed with MODDE 5.0. |
168 |
|
Figure 5.9: |
Contour plot of the output/noise ratio Y [-]. |
168 |
|
Figure 5.10: |
Plots of the predicted amount of middling M [g] as function of RH [%], and c [%] , for U = 28 kV, n = 90 RPM, and γ = -6°. The computations were carried out with MODDE 5.0, for a confidence level p = 0.95. |
171 |
|
Figure 5.11: |
Plots of the predicted global performance index G [%] as function of RH [%], for U = 28 kV, n = 90 RPM, and γ = -6°. The computations were carried out with MODDE 5.0, for a confidence level p = 0.95. |
172 |
|
Figure 5.12: |
Contour plots of the global performance index G [-], computed with MODDE 5.0, as function of n [RPM] and γ [°], for U = 28 kV, c = 25 %, and RH = 40, 50, and 60%. |
173 |