BUCKLING PHENOMENON IN CYCLONE SEPARATOR STAND USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (using SOLIDWORKS)

AIM:

To analyze the buckling phenomenon in a cyclone separator stand using SOLIDWORKS

OBJECTIVES:

1. To understand the principle of cyclone separators
2. To understand the buckling phenomena and analyze it using the cyclone separator stand
3. To create a stiffener between the legs of the stand and find the difference it creates
4. To find the optimum position of the stiffener.

INTRODUCTION:

Buckling is the sudden change in shape of a structural component under load such as the bowing of a column under compression or the wrinkling of a plate under shear. If a structure is subjected to a gradually increasing load, when the load reaches a critical level, a member may suddenly change shape and the structure and component is said to have buckled.

Cyclone separators or simply cyclones are separation devices (dry scubbers) that use the principle of inertia to remove particulate matter from flue gases. Cyclone separators is one of many air pollution control devices known as precleaners since they generally remove larger pieces of particulate matter. This prevents finer filtration methods from having to deal with large, more abrasive particles later on. In addition, several cyclone separators can operate in parallel, and this system is known as a multicyclone.

PROCEDURE OF COMPLETION:

• First, the .STEP file provided was opened and a simulation study of buckling phenomenon was done suppressing the parts other than the stand.
• Then, the stand was saved as a separate file and a stiffener was attached in between the legs as follows:

• The stiffener was situated `0.5m` from the upper part for the simulation.
• The stands were fixed and a force of `200kN` was applied on the stand for both the above mentioned cases.
• Then, a finer mesh of approx. `0.0201m` was used and the simulation was run.
• Alloy steel was used as the material for the above. The properties are as follows:

• Then, a new design study was created where the location of the stiffener was changed from `0.25m` to `1.75m` with a step of `0.1m`.
• A buckling factor of safety of `15` was chosen for getting the optimum location and the optimization was run.

OBSERVATIONS:

The difference between the buckling factor of safety with and without the stiffener is as follows:

Without stiffener:

With stiffener:

The case study for different locations of the stiffener are as follows:

CONCLUSION:

1. We can conclude that adding a stiffener increases the buckling factor of safety from `7.0143` to `10.683`.
2. As we can see from the case study, the location of the stiffener should be around the mid-path of the legs so as to get the maximum amount of factor of safety as highlighted.
3. The optimum case for the above case study arrives at `0.95m` i.e. a buckling factor of safety of `15.629907`.
4. As we know, the buckling factor of safety should be atleast `3`, so in our case both with and without the stiffeners are good but it is better to use the stiffener as it gives us more factor of safety.