Eddy Current Separation of Small Nonferrous Particles Using A Complementary Air-Water Method

Separation Science and Technology
ISSN: 0149-6395 (Print) 1520-5754 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lsst20
Eddy current separation of small nonferrous

particles using a complementary air-water method
Mihail Lungu & Adrian Neculae
To cite this article: Mihail Lungu & Adrian Neculae (2017): Eddy current separation of small
nonferrous particles using a complementary air-water method, Separation Science and Technology,
DOI: 10.1080/01496395.2017.1380670
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2017.1380670
Accepted author version posted online: 21

Sep 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lsst20
Download by: [Ryerson University Library] Date: 26 September 2017, At: 00:41
Eddy current separation of small nonferrous particles using a complementary air-water
method
Short title: Eddy current separation using an air-
t
water method
ip
Mihail Lungu1 and Adrian Neculae
cr
Downloaded by [Ryerson University Library] at 00:41 26 September 2017
Faculty of Physics, West University Timisoara, Blv. V. Parvan No. 4, Timisoara, Romania
us
Abstract an
The paper describes a new eddy-currents separation technique, based on a complementary air-
water method, designed for the recovery of nonferrous particles, smaller than 5 mm, from
M
heterogeneous mixtures. The main part of the equipment is a horizontal magnetized rotary
cylinder with four poles of NdFeB permanent magnets, alternately oriented. This separation
ed
method consists of initial electromagnetic actions upon strongly conducting particles in air,
followed by the combined electromagnetic actions and Magnus forces upon tailing particles in
pt
water. The dependencies of the separation parameters Grade, Yield and Separation Efficiency
ce
versus rotation speed for an Al-Cu waste are presented and discussed.
Keywords: Eddy current separation; small nonferrous particles; heterogeneous mixtures;

Ac
separation efficiency.
1
Corresponding author, E-mail: lmihaister@gmail.com
11
1 Introduction
The minimizing of energy consumption and pollutant emissions and the management of waste
disposal are the driving forces in the research activity dedicated to the discovery of new or
t
improved separation methods or principles, advanced technologies that recover, recycle and
ip
reuse materials throughout the manufacturing processes. The modern Eddy Current Separators
cr
(ECS), considered among the most efficient equipment for separation and purification of
us
homogeneous solutions and heterogeneous mixtures in chemical and environmental engineering,
use predominantly moving permanent magnets to generate strong magnetic fields and to obtain
an
efficient separation of particles at low operation costs [1-3]. The variation of the magnetic field in
the separation zone of the device induces eddy currents in the nonferrous metallic particles. The
M
interaction between these currents and the variable magnetic field causes the separation of the
different metallic particles from each other or from the nonconductive ones [4,5]. The most
ed
common configuration of dynamic ECS is the one having a horizontal rotating drum covered by
rows of permanent magnets with alternating polarity mounted parallel to the axis of the drum, in
pt
which the waste to be separated is taken over the drum by a conveyor belt [6]. This type of
ce
devices presents different designs of rotor and feed techniques and is used for the separation of
materials with a wide range of particles sizes [4,7,8]. Despite their important advantages, such as
Ac
productivity and low cost, the classical ECS have also some limitations, especially regarding the
separation of the conductive nonferrous particles smaller than 5 mm from the nonconductive
ones, or one from each other. For these particles, the electrodynamic separation forces tend to be
22
dominated by the other forces that act in the opposite direction, such as gravitational and
frictional forces, which appear due to the movement of the particles [9,10].
To overcome this shortcoming, the particles can be introduced in a region of the separation
device where the complementary forces (e.g. Magnus force) act as supplementary forces in the
t
ip
same sense with the electrodynamic separation forces [1,10-12]. The Magnus effect is the
cr
phenomenon that consists of the appearance of a force perpendicular to the direction of motion
of a rotating object moving in a fluid. The rotating object moving in the fluid creates a whirlpool
us
around itself, and a boundary layer appears around it, inducing a wider circular motion of the
fluid. If the object is moving at a translational speed υ, the fluid velocity close to the body is
an
higher than υ, on one side, and lower than υ, on the other side. According to the Bernoulli
principle, in the region where the speed is higher, the fluid pressure is lower, and in the region
M
where the speed is lower, the fluid pressure is higher. This difference of pressure induces the
Magnus force directed from the high pressure to the low pressure region, perpendicular to the
ed
movement direction of the object [13].

pt
In this paper, we present a new type of ECS with permanent magnets which has an operating
ce
principle based on the combined action of electrodynamic and Magnus forces. The performances
of the device in the case of separation of electrotechnical waste (a heterogeneous Al-Cu mixture
Ac
consisting of particles smaller than 5 mm) are presented and analyzed in terms of the efficiency
of the separation process, focusing on frequently used parameters such as Grade, Yield and
Separation Efficiency [9,14]. The complementary air-water method proposed implies that the
particles with higher separation factor (Al in our study) are separated in air during a first step of
33
the process, under the action of the electromagnetic force, while the tailing (undecided and
particles with lower separation factor - Cu in our study) fallen into the water is separated during
the second step of the process, under the combined action of the electromagnetic and Magnus
forces.
t
ip
The main component of the device is a magnetized horizontal spinning cylinder made of
cr
NdFeB. Its surface consists of four poles of permanent magnets, alternatively N-S and S-N
oriented, as shown in Figure 1.
us
Figure 1: The NdFeB magnetized cylinder, a), schematic representation of the magnetized
an
cylinder b).
The magnetized cylinder is coupled to an electric engine. Figure 2a presents the outline and
M
Figure 2b shows a detail of the experimental installation, revealing the magnetized cylinder.
ed
Figure 2: Outline of the experimental installation a), detail with the magnetized cylinder b).
2 Materials and Methods

pt
ce
2.1 Eddy currents separation in air and water

Ac
Figure 3 points out the electromagnetic actions upon a conductive nonferrous particle placed in
the active zone of an eddy current electrodynamic separator with permanent magnets, i.e. the two
components of the electromagnetic force (the tangential Ft and, respectively, the radial
component Fr of the force, with respect to the magnet surface) and the torque T [1,9,15]. The
44
resultant trajectory of a particle depends on the tangential force Ft and the torque T, as well as on
the interactions between particles, which can cause their supplementary deflections.
In the case of conventional ECS, if the torque T is sufficiently strong, due to the spinning
motion, it produces the jump of the strongly conducting particles. In the case of small particles,
t
ip
this effect can limit the separation efficiency, because they can jump up too early and fall close
cr
over the rotor, and then into the tailing, becoming undecided particles.
us
Figure 3: Electromagnetic actions upon a conductive nonferrous particle placed in the active
zone of the eddy current separator with permanent magnets.

an
This process leads to a decrease of the product purity, which represents a major drawback. In
order to avoid this inconvenient, the complementary air-water method divides the separation
M
process into two parts, as follows:

ed
1. The first stage of the process consists of a conventional separation between the strongly
conducting particles and the tailing, similar to the conventional ECS. The tangential component
pt
of the electromagnetic force, Ft, oriented perpendicular to the direction of induced eddy currents,
plays the main role in the separation process in air. The magnitude of the force depends on
ce
several variables, according to the relation [1,16]:

Ac
2
1 B σ
Ft = m (ω − ω p ) c Q, (1)
2 r ρ
where m is the mass of the particle, ω the angular velocity of the magnetic field, ωp the angular
velocity of the particle (if the eddy current rotor rotates counterclockwise with ω, as in Figure 3,
55
the torque T makes the particle spin clockwise with ωp), B the value of the magnetic induction at
the particle’s position, c a factor depending on the shape and orientation of the particle, σ the
electrical conductivity, the bulk density of the particle, σ ρ the separation factor and Q
the quality factor, that takes values between 0.35 and 0.5.
t
ip
2. The second stage of the process focuses on the separation of undecided and poorly
cr
conducting particles, due to the conversion of eddy current torque for the tailing particles into
Magnus force in water. The Magnus force can be generally expressed as [13]:
us
FM = CM ρ f ωp × υ . (2)
an
In particular, for a spherical particle, the Magnus force becomes:
M
1
FM = ρ f ω p rυ Af (3)
2
ed
In the relations above, we noted CM the Magnus coefficient, which depends on the particle’s size
and shape, ρf the density of the fluid, r the radius of the particle, υ the relative velocity of the
pt
particle, A the cross-section area of the particle, and f the lift coefficient, which for a smooth
ce
particle takes typical values ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. This force moves the body in a direction
perpendicular to the vector representing the velocity of the body relative to the fluid and causes a
Ac
deflection of particle trajectory in the direction of rotation.
A characteristic of the classical ECS devices is the interaction time during which the particles
are subjected to the variable of magnetic field, which is usually short [4]. If the particles in a
rotation movement fall free in liquid in the presence of the magnetic field, the appearing Magnus
66
force causes an increase of the interaction time, with a positive contribution to the separation
process. The trajectory of a clockwise spinning particle in water is sketched in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Separation forces acting in water.
t
Due to the complementary actions of the Magnus force FM and the radial force Fr in
ip
horizontal direction, on the one hand, and of the tangential force Ft and the gravity G in vertical
cr
direction, on the other hand, the particles drift away. This leads to a supplementary deflection,
us
which produces an additional and efficient separation between poorly conducting and undecided
particles in water. The influence of the buoyant force FA can be neglected, considering the small
an
sizes of particles involved in the separation process. Another force playing a significant role in
defining the trajectory of a particle in water is the drag force, FD. This force depends on particle
M
mass density, velocity and geometry (dimensions and shape) and on fluid viscosity. When the
particles subjected to the separation process have similar geometries and velocities, the influence
ed
of the drag force on their trajectory is practically the same, and the differentiation of trajectories
is mainly due to the differences of the separation factors implying different values of the
pt
electrodynamic force acting on particles.

ce
2.2 Considerations regarding the modeling of a separation process

Ac
We are going to consider an initial quantity m of material for separation (feed), composed of a
mixture of n different materials in quantities mi, where m =  i =1 mi , being in proportions of

n
fi = mi m , subjected to a process of separation, as sketched in Figure 5:
77
Figure 5: Schematic representation of the separation process.
The device designed to collect the materials after separation consists of a number of p
compartments. If the amount of the compound collected in a compartment k is noted by M k , the
t
total amount collected in all compartments at a certain separation stage is M =  j =1 M j .
p
ip
In order to estimate the separation device performance for a component x, we define three
cr
separation parameters, as follows:
us
1. Grade or Purity, which describes the quality of the separated fraction (i.e. the percentage
an
of the material x in the compartment k), defined as:
mxk
Gxk = , (4)
M
Mk
where mxk is the mass of the material x collected, and M k the total mass of the separated
ed
fraction in the compartment k.

pt
2. Yield, representing the performance or effectiveness of the separator related to component

ce
x, defined as:
mxk
Ac
Yxk = , (5)
mx
where mx is the total mass of the component x in the feed, at the inlet of the separator.
88
The ideal situation, when the collected product contains only the useful material with a purity of
100%, corresponds to the value 100% for the parameter Grade, while a 100% value for Yield
expresses the fact that all of the material of interest is found in the product.
3. Separation Efficiency of the machine (SE), parameter that provides a more flexible
t
ip
characterization of the efficiency of the separation of the component x in the compartment k, at a
cr
certain stage of the process, defined as [9,14]:
us
SE xk = Gxk + Yxk − 1 . (6)
During the calculations, we used the following set of notations:

an
• the amount of the materials i ≠ x in the feed at the inlet of the separator:
M
n n
 mi = M  fi ,
i =1 i =1
(7)
ed
i≠ x i≠ x
• the amount of the components i ≠ x collected in compartments j, other than k:

pt
n p p  n

 mij =  M j  Gij  ,

ce
(8)
i =1 j =1 j =1
 i =1

i≠ x j≠k j≠k  i≠ x 
Ac
where Mj is the mass of the separated fraction collected in section j and Gij the purity of a
component i collected in the compartment j.
• the amount of unwanted materials i ≠ x that contaminate the content of the component x
in compartment k :
99
n n n p
m
i =1
ik = M k − mxk =  mi −  mij .
i =1 i =1 j =1
(9)
i≠ x i≠ x i≠ x j ≠k
The evaluation of Mk from equation (9) gives:
t
n n p
M k (1 − Gxk ) = M  f i −  M j Gij ,
ip
i =1 i =1 j =1
i≠ x i≠ x j ≠k
cr
and consequently:
us
 
M n p
Mj n
Gxk = 1 −  fi +    Gij  .
Mk 
j =1 M k

i =1
i≠ x 
j≠k 
i =1
i≠ x 
an
If we note the mass ratio the ratio of the total amount collected in a compartment j and the one
M
Mj
collected in compartment k, Q jk = , we obtain:
Mk
ed
  p   p  
n p n
M n M n
Gxk = 1 −  fi  1 +  Q jk  +  Q jk  Gij  = 1 −  fi +   j  G 
ij .
     
pt
i =1  jj =≠1k  jj =≠1k  i =1 Mk i =1 j =1 M k i =1
i≠ x    i≠ x  i≠ x 
j≠k  i≠ x 
ce
n
Considering the concentration of the component x in the feed as f x = 1 −  f i , the purity of the
i =1
i≠ x
Ac
component x in compartment k becomes:
 p  p   n 
Gxk = f x 1 +  Q jk +  Q jk  Gij − 1  .
   
 j =1  j =1   i =1 
 j≠k  j ≠k   i≠ x 
    
10
10
n
Further, taking the purity of the component x in a compartment j as Gxj = 1 −  Gij , we obtain:
i =1
i≠ x
p
Gxk = f x −  Q jk ( Gxj − f x ) . (10)
j =1
t
j≠k
ip
Equation (10) establishes a correlation between the purity of a component x in a particular
cr
compartment k, the component concentration at the inlet of the separator, the mass ratio for that
us
component and the purity of all the other components collected in other compartments.
The evaluation of the yield corresponding to the component x collected in the compartment k,
an
according to equation (5), leads to:
M
mxk m G M
Yxk = = xk = xk k . (11)
mx fxM fx M
ed
For a mixture containing two useful components, A and B, and a collecting device with two
compartments 1 and 2, equation (10) becomes:

pt
GA1 = f A (1 + Q21 ) − Q21 (1 − GB 2 ) (12)

ce
GB 2 = f B (1 + Q12 ) − Q12 (1 − GA1 ) (13)

Ac
and from equation (11), we obtain the corresponding values for the yield:
GA1 M 1 G 1
YA1 = = A1 (14)
f A M1 + M 2 f A 1 + Q21
11
11
GB 2 M 2 G 1
YB 2 = = B2 . (15)
f B M1 + M 2 f B 1 + Q12
In the formulas (12-15), the following notations have been used:
t
- G A1 : the purity of component A collected in compartment 1,
ip
- GB 2 : the purity of component B collected in compartment 2,
cr
- YA1 : the yield of component A collected in compartment 1,
us
- YB 2 : the yield of component B collected in compartment 2,
an
- f A : the concentration of component A at the inlet of the separator,
M
- f B : the concentration of component B at the inlet of the separator,

ed
M1 M
- Q12 = , Q21 = 2 , where M1 and M2 are the amounts collected in the compartments 1
M2 M1
pt
and 2, respectively.
ce
For a mixture of two components of known concentration in the feed material, these
equations allow direct assessment of the purity of one of the two components, G A1 or GB 2 , if the
Ac
purity of the other component is assessed and the amounts collected in the two compartments are
weighed. The corresponding values for the yield can be also easily calculated using a similar
procedure.
12
12
2.3 Engineering and operation
In order to increase the efficiency of the separation process, a novel device has been designed
and built. Unlike the traditional solution used by classical ECS, in this separator the particles
t
with higher separation factor leave classically the equipment under the action of electromagnetic
ip
forces, but the tailing (undecided particles and particles with lower separation factor) fall in
cr
water, where the particles are separated under the combined actions of electromagnetic and
Magnus forces, as depicted in Figure 4. The main component of the separation equipment is the
us
cylinder made of NdFeB permanent magnets that rotates horizontally at a rotation speed between
an
0 and 2000 rot/min, driven by a DC electric engine. The length of the cylinder is 5 cm, the
thickness 5 mm and the diameter is 8 cm. The geometry of the collecting recipient (the height of
M
the separating walls and their position) has been designed in correlation with the horizontal and
vertical travel distances of the particles and the splitting position, in order to assure an optimal
ed
separation process. According to the notations in Figures 6 the dimensions of the collecting
recipient are as follows: h = 25 cm, d1 = 5 cm, d2 = d3 = 2.5 cm.

pt
a) b)
ce
Figure 6: The operating principle of the experimental installation in air a), in air and water b).
Ac
The air-water separation process has been carried out at room temperature, depending on the
following main parameters involved in the process: the rotation speed n of the magnetized
cylinder, the properties of the particles subjected to the separation process (separation factor σ ρ
, shape, dimensions) and the proportions of components in the waste. As it has already been
13
13
mentioned before, the spinning of the strongly conducting particle, together with the separation
factor, play the most important role in the separation process. Therefore, the rotation speed n
[rot/min] = ( 30 π ) ⋅ ω [sec-1] that gives the factor (ω − ω p ) in Equation (1) must be correlated with
the separation factor σ ρ in order to obtain an optimal separation. The feed material is
t
ip
introduced over the rotary cylinder I into the active zone of the field by the feeding vibratory
cr
plane II. The separation process takes place in two stages. Firstly, the particles with higher
separation factor (Al in our case) are separated by tailing only under the action of
us
electromagnetic forces, leave the separator and fall in the compartment 1 of the collecting
recipient IV, while the tailing (undecided and particles with lower separation factor) fall in
an
compartment 2+3. In the second stage the particles with lower separation factor and the
undecided ones, in rotation movement induced by torque T, fall in the water, where are separated
M
under the conjugated actions of Magnus and electromagnetic forces. The Magnus effect causes a
supplementary deflection, and, consequently, produces an additional and more efficient

ed
separation between undecided particles and particles with lower separation factor. The undecided
pt
particles fall in compartment 2, and the particles with lower separation factor in compartment 3,
respectively. The undecided particles collected in compartment 2 are in fact particles with higher
ce
separation factor having executed irregular jumps under the action of the torque T, or particles
that have suffered unwanted interactions with other particles, as mentioned in the theoretical
Ac
section. Practically, by collecting particles with higher separation factor in compartments 1 and 2
and particles with lower separation factor in compartment 3, the use of the compartment dedicated
to the collection of the mix product (in this case, the undecided particles) has been avoided. Thus,
the main goal pursued in this study has been achieved, i.e. to obtain a better separation of the
14
14
undecided particles than in the case of a classical eddy current separator. The mobile wall III has
the role of hindering the particles with high separation factor to fall in water. During the
experiments, the inclination angle was fixed at α = 450 , for the used heterogeneous Al-Cu
mixture.
t
ip
3 Results and Discussion
cr
In the separation experiments conducted in our laboratory, a quantity of 200 g of a heterogeneous
us
mixture containing Aluminum and Copper particles with quasi-spherical shaped particles has
been used, as presented in Figure 7. The proportions of the two components are roughly 40% Cu
an
and 60% Al, respectively.
M
Figure 7: The heterogeneous Al-Cu mixture used in the experiments.
Based on our experience in the domain, quasi-spherical shaped particles are more difficult to
ed
separate than those with irregular shape, due to the fact that the net electrodynamic force acting
pt
on a particle is greater when the asymmetry of the particle is higher. For this reason, we have
considered that a mixture of quasi-spherical shaped particles is more useful for testing the full
ce
capabilities of the separator. The size distribution of the particles for a sample containing 600
particles has been obtained by using the ImageJ software. The results presented in Figure 8 show
Ac
that most of the particles have dimensions between 1 and 2.5 mm, so they can be considered
small compared to those usually separated by classical ECS.
15
15
Figure 8: The particle size distribution in the mixture, obtained by ImageJ software for a
sample containing 600 particles.
The values of the material parameters ρ , σ and σ / ρ for Aluminum and Copper that have been
used in our experiments are given in Table 1 [9]:
t
ip
Table 1: Values of the material parameters for Aluminum and Copper.
cr
The values in the Table 1 show that both Al and Cu have very high electrical conductivities
us
but different values of mass density. They can be separated due to the significant difference of
the separation factor: the separation factor for Al is nearly double the separation factor for Cu.
an
After each separation, the masses of collected products have been measured with two types
M
of digital balances: WLC 1/A2 (precision 0.02 g), in the case of coarse measurements, and
Radwag PS 110/C/2 (precision 0.001 g) for more refined measurements.

ed
The experiments have been carried out in both geometries described above (separation in air
and air-water separation), at six different values of the rotation speed of the drum: 1 – 1000
pt
rot/min, 2 – 1200 rot/min, 3 – 1400 rot/min, 4 – 1600 rot/min, 5 – 1800 rot/min, 6 – 2000
ce
rot/min. The measured quantities of Al harvested from compartment 1 (mAl1) in the case of the
classical separation in air (Figure 6a), and in compartments 1 and 2 (mAl(1+2)) in the case of air-
Ac
water separation (Figure 6b), together with the corresponding calculated parameters G and Y are
presented in Tables 2a and 2b, respectively. M1 represents the whole amount of material (Al+Cu)
collected in compartment 1 in the case of the classical separation in air (Figure 6a), and M1+2 the
16
16
whole amount of material collected in compartments 1 and 2, in the case of air-water separation
(Figure 6b).
Table 2a: Values obtained for Al using a classical separation in air
t
Table 2b: Values obtained for Al using the air-water separation method
ip
The corresponding values in the case of Cu are provided in Tables 3a (classical separation in air)
cr
and 3b (air-water separation). M2+3 represents the whole amount of material (Al+Cu) collected in
us
compartment 2+3 in the case of the classical separation in air (Figure 6a), and M3 the whole
amount of material collected in compartment 3, in the case of air-water separation (Figure 6b).
an
Table 3a: Values obtained for Cu using a classical separation in air
M
Table 3b: Values obtained for Cu using the air-water separation method
ed
-Figure 9 presents the separation diagrams regarding the behaviors of G and Y versus SE for
Al, the component with higher separation factor in the mixture, at different rotation speed n,
pt
obtained for two experimental configurations: for a classical separation, performed in air (the left
side of the diagram), and for an air-water separation process (the right side of the diagram),
ce
respectively. Every point on the graph corresponds to three different experimental

Ac
determinations, and the represented values are affected by an average error of about 6%. The
corresponding rotation speeds of the drum are indicated in the diagrams by the same numbers as
in tables.
17
17
Figure 9: The separation parameters Grade [%] and Yield [%] versus Separation Efficiency [%]
at different rotation speed n [rot/min] for Al, in the case of classical separation in air (left) and in
the case of air-water separation (right).
-Figure 10 shows the similar diagrams for the complementary product of the mixture, Cu, the
t
ip
component with lower separation factor in our experiments. The values are derived from the
cr
same experimental determinations as in the case presented before.
us
at different rotation speed n [rot/min] for Cu, in the case of classical separation in air (left) and in
an
As it results from the separation diagrams presented in Figures 9 and 10, the SE parameter
M
first increases with the rotation speed, then, achieves a maximum value approximately at the
intersection of the G-Y diagrams, and, finally, decreases with the rotation speed. The results also
ed
show that all the three parameters describing the separation process achieve higher values in the
case of the complementary air–water separation method.

pt
The main processes that determine the behavior of particles are presented below. When the
ce
rotation speed increases, the amount of aluminum particles that get into the final product
Ac
(compartment 1) also increases, while the copper particles remain in the tailing (compartment 3).
The copper particles start to contaminate the product from compartment 2 when the rotation
speed gets to a value of 1600 – 1800 rot/min, while the aluminum recovered in the final product
reaches a maximum value starting at a rotation speed of 2000 rot/min. At a higher rotation speed,
18
18
the Grade of the copper particles will also reach a maximum value. The same behavior can be
observed for the parameter Yield of aluminum. It is obvious that an efficient separation process
implies practically a compromise between the purity of the product that will set the price/ton and
the amount of the product. This optimal value corresponds to the maximum value of the SE
t
parameter, and consequently, the separation diagrams presented above can be used to predict the
ip
experimental conditions for reaching the economic optimum of the separation process. In the
cr
case of the Cu-Al mixture, it can be concluded that in the case of the air-water separation
us
process, the maximum separation efficiency for Al is obtained at a suitable value of the cylinder
revolution, n = 1600 rot/min (see Figure 9). The high values of the rotation speed are not
an
convenient, because the particles with higher separation factor are heavily repelled and can
collide with the ones with lower separation factor, modifying their trajectory. Consequently, a
M
fraction of the particles with higher separation factor becomes undecided, diminishing the
efficiency of the separation process.

ed
The device we used for experiments is a small scale prototype, designed to test the
pt
capabilities of the proposed separation method. With this device we were able to process a
quantity of about 200 g/min or 12 kg/hour of mixture. According to our estimations, for a device
ce
with a drum having the diameter and the width two times larger, we could process up to 50 kg of
mixture per hour. Despite this productivity that might be considered low, the reported results
Ac
clearly show that the use of a complementary separation in water (after the preliminary
separation in air) brings a significant plus in terms of accuracy of separation process, especially
for small nonferrous particles that are so difficult to treat by classical ECS. On the other hand,
due to the small distance between the feed and the rotor, the proposed experimental device
19
19
assures a very efficient use of the high field region for the separation, a high robustness and a
low operational cost. The solution for treating large tonnage of material is to use a number of
such separation cells mounted in parallel, according to the quantity to be processed. Even if this
involves increased costs, we must always be aware of the fact that obtaining Cu and Al by
t
recycling is cheaper than extracting them from raw materials. Also, it is important to mention
ip
that the treatment of large amounts of material is necessary mainly in the case of materials with
cr
very low concentration of useful material, such as mining waste.
us
4 Conclusions an
This experimental installation is a novel device proposed to be used for the separation of small
nonferrous metallic particles, designed to produce a better separation of the main part of the
M
particles that become undecided in the case of a classical ECS. The paper shows how, by using the
ed
air-water method, it can be achieved the efficient separation of a mixture composed of higher
separation factor (Al) and lower separation factor (Cu) nonferrous particles resulted from an Al-
pt
Cu electrotechnical waste. By using a complementary separation process, with a first stage
performed in air and a second in water, the separation accuracy can reach high values, close to
ce
those of the usual dynamic eddy current separators. It can also lead to a set of specific
advantages, such as low operational cost, robustness, and a more efficient use of the high field
Ac
region for the separation process, obtained by bringing the feed closer to the rotor. Despite some
inherent disadvantages that must be put into balance, such as the productivity of the device,
which is lower than in the case of classical ECS, and the fact that a part of the final product is
wet, the important advantage represented by the high separation accuracy for small particles
20
20
makes this
t techniquue a promissing tool forr improving the perform
mances in thhe separationn of small
nonferroous metallicc particles.
Acknow
wledgementt
t
The autthors wish also to thhank Dr. R
Rainer Köhhnlechner (““Dr. K”) ffrom Hamoos GmbH,
ip
Penzberrg/Germanyy, for the w
willingness to
t offer the magnetizedd cylinder, the main ppart of the
cr
installattion with whhich the expperiments were perform

med.
us
Referen
nces
[1] Rem
an
m, P.C. (19999) Eddy Currrent Separration, Eburoon Delft, Neetherlands.
[2] Schuubert, H.A. (1996) Aufbbereitung feester Stoffe, B

Band II Sorrtierprozessee, DVG Stuuttgart.
M
[3] Ruaan, Jjun; Q

Qian, Yiminng; Xu, Zhhenming (20014) Enviroonment-frieendly technnology for
recoveriing nonferroous metals from e-wasste: Eddy ccurrent sepaaration. Resoources, Connservation
ed
and Reccycling 87: 1109.
[4] Setttimo, F.; Beevilacqua, P.;

P Rem, P. (2004) Eddy-Current Separation of Fine Noon-ferrous
pt
Particles from Bulkk Streams. P

Physical Sepparation in SScience andd Engineerinng 13(1): 155.
ce
[5] Wanng, Di; Ma, Xiushui; Zhi,

Z Xiongfeei,; Zhang, Shuming (22013) Reseaarch Review
w of Scrap
Metals E
Eddy Currennt Separatioon Technoloogy. Sensorss & Transduucers 158(11): 242.
Ac
[6] Rem
m, P.C.; Leeest, P.A.; vvan den Akkker, A.J. (1997) A moodel for edddy-current sseparation.
Internattional Journnal of Minerral Processiing 49(3-4): 193.
21
21
[7] Schlett, Z.; Claici, F.; Mihalca, I.; Lungu, M. (2002) A new static separator for metallic
particles from metal-plastic mixtures, using eddy currents. Minerals Engineering 15(1): 111.
[8] Staude, R.M.; Schlett, Z.; Lungu, M. (2002) A new possibility in Eddy-Current separation.
Minerals Engineering 15: 287.
t
ip
[9] Lungu, M. (2009) Separation of small nonferrous particles using a two successive steps eddy-
cr
current separator with permanent magnets. International Journal of Mineral Processing 93: 172.
[10] Zhang, S.; Rem, P.; Foessberg, E. (1999) The investigation of separability of particles
us
smaller than 5mm by eddy current separation technology. Part I: Rotating type eddy current
an
separators. Magnetic and Electrical Separation 9: 233.
[11] Fraunholcz, N.; Rem, P.C.; Haeser, P.A.C.M. (2002) Dry Magnus separation. Minerals
M
Engineering 15: 45.
[12] Köhnlechner, R.; Schlett, Z.; Lungu, M.; Caizer, C. (2002) A new wet eddy-current
ed
separator. Resources, conservation and recycling 37(1): 55-60.
[13] Ricardo, J. (2014) Modeling the Motion of Volleyball with Spin. Journal of the Advanced
pt
Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Investigation 2(1): 1.

ce
[14] Fourie, P.J. (2007) Modelling of separation circuits using numerical analysis. The 6th
International Heavy Minerals Conference ‘Back to Basics’, The Southern African Institute of
Ac
Mining and Metallurgy.
[15] Van der Valk, H.J.L.; Braam, B.C.; Dalmijn, W.L. (1986) Eddy-current separation by
permanent magnets Part I: Theory. Resources and Conservation 12: 233.
22
22
[16] Federation of European Mining Program (FEMP) (2008) Eddy-current separation.
www.femp.org/info/Recycling/6_EddyCurrentSeparation.
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
23
23
Figure 1: The NdFeB magnetized cylinder, a), schematic representation of the magnetized
cylinder b).
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
24
24
Figure 2: Outline of the experimental installation a), detail with the magnetized cylinder b).
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
25
25
Figure 3: Electromagnetic actions upon a conductive nonferrous particle placed in the active
zone of the eddy current separator with permanent magnets.
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
26
26
Ac
ce
pt
Figure 4: Separation forces acting in water.
ed
27
27
M
an
us
cr
ip
t
Ac
ce
pt
ed
28
28
M
Figure 5: Schematic representation of the separation process.
an
us
cr
ip
t
Figure 6: The operating principle of the experimental installation, only in air a), in air and water
b).
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
29
29
Ac
ce
pt
ed
30
30
M
an
Figure 7: The heterogeneous Al-Cu mixture used in the experiments.
us
cr
ip
t
Figure 8: The particle size distribution in the mixture, obtained by ImageJ software for a sample
containing 600 particles.
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
31
31
at different rotation speed n [rot/min] for Al, in the case of classical separation in air (left) and in
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
32
32
at different rotation speed n [rot/min] for Cu, in the case of classical separation in air (left) and in
t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
33
33
Table 1: Values of the material parameters for Aluminum and Copper
ρ σ σ/ρ
t
Material
ip
[kg/m3] [1/m Ohm] [m2/kg Ohm]
cr
Aluminum 2700 27 106 10000
Copper 8900 56 106
us 6300
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
34
34
Table 2a: Values obtained for Al using a classical separation in air
mAl1 M1 (Al+Cu) GAl1 YAl1

Values
t
ip
[g] [g] [%] [%]
cr
1. 105.28 109.10 96.50 87.73
us
2. 108.52 113.04 96.00 90.43
an
3. 111.82 117.70 95.00 93.18
M
4. 113.96 121.88 93.50 94.96

ed
5. 115.72 126.48 91.50 96.43

pt
6. 116.62 131.04 89.00 97.18

ce
Ac
35
35
Table 2b: Values obtained for Al using the air-water separation method
mAl(1+2) M1+2 (Al+Cu) GAl(1+2) YAl(1+2)

Values
t
ip
[g] [g] [%] [%]
cr
1. 109.78 111.12 98.80 91.48
us
2. 112.82 114.90 98.20 94.02
an
3. 115.54 118.86 97.20 96.28
M
4. 117.30 122.18 96.00 97.74

ed
5. 118.46 125.10 94.70 98.72

pt
6. 119.24 127.80 93.30 99.36

ce
Ac
36
36
Table 3a: Values obtained for Cu using a classical separation in air
mCu(2+3) M2+3 GCu(2+3) YCu(2+3)
t
(Al+Cu)
Values [g]
ip
[%] [%]
[g]
cr
us
1. 76.18 90.90 83.80 95.23
an
2. 75.48 86.96 86.80 94.35
M
3. 74.12 82.30 90.05 92.64
ed
4. 72.08 78.12 92.26 90.10

pt
5. 69.26 73.52 94.18 86.56

ce
6. 65.58 68.96 95.10 81.98

Ac
37
37
Table 3b: Values obtained for Cu using the air-water separation method
mCu3 M3 (Al+Cu) GCu3 YCu3

Values
t
ip
[g] [g] [%] [%]
cr
1. 78.66 88.88 88.50 98.33
us
2. 77.92 85.10 91.57 97.40
an
3. 76.68 81.14 94.50 95.84
M
4. 75.10 77.82 96.52 93.88

ed
5. 73.36 74.90 97.95 91.70

pt
6. 71.44 72.20 98.94 89.30

ce
Ac
38
38

Eddy Current Separation of Small Nonferrous Particles Using A Complementary Air-Water Method

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Eddy Current Separation of Small Nonferrous Particles Using A Complementary Air-Water Method

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Separation Science and Technology

ISSN: 0149-6395 (Print) 1520-5754 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lsst20

Eddy current separation of small nonferrous

Mihail Lungu & Adrian Neculae

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2017.1380670

Accepted author version posted online: 21

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Short title: Eddy current separation using an air-

Keywords: Eddy current separation; small nonferrous particles; heterogeneous mixtures;

movement direction of the object [13].

oriented, as shown in Figure 1.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Eddy currents separation in air and water

zone of the eddy current separator with permanent magnets.

process into two parts, as follows:

several variables, according to the relation [1,16]:

deflection of particle trajectory in the direction of rotation.

process. The trajectory of a clockwise spinning particle in water is sketched in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Separation forces acting in water.

electrodynamic force acting on particles.

2.2 Considerations regarding the modeling of a separation process

mixture of n different materials in quantities mi, where m =  i =1 mi , being in proportions of

fi = mi m , subjected to a process of separation, as sketched in Figure 5:

compartments. If the amount of the compound collected in a compartment k is noted by M k , the

separation parameters, as follows:

fraction in the compartment k.

2. Yield, representing the performance or effectiveness of the separator related to component

During the calculations, we used the following set of notations:

• the amount of the components i ≠ x collected in compartments j, other than k:

component i collected in the compartment j.

The evaluation of Mk from equation (9) gives:

component x in compartment k becomes:

compartments 1 and 2, equation (10) becomes:

GA1 = f A (1 + Q21 ) − Q21 (1 − GB 2 ) (12)

GB 2 = f B (1 + Q12 ) − Q12 (1 − GA1 ) (13)

In the formulas (12-15), the following notations have been used:

- YA1 : the yield of component A collected in compartment 1,

- f B : the concentration of component B at the inlet of the separator,

recipient are as follows: h = 25 cm, d1 = 5 cm, d2 = d3 = 2.5 cm.

supplementary deflection, and, consequently, produces an additional and more efficient

In the separation experiments conducted in our laboratory, a quantity of 200 g of a heterogeneous

small compared to those usually separated by classical ECS.

sample containing 600 particles.

used in our experiments are given in Table 1 [9]:

Radwag PS 110/C/2 (precision 0.001 g) for more refined measurements.

Table 2a: Values obtained for Al using a classical separation in air

respectively. Every point on the graph corresponds to three different experimental

the case of air-water separation (right).

case of the complementary air–water separation method.

efficiency of the separation process.

very low concentration of useful material, such as mining waste.

Cu electrotechnical waste. By using a complementary separation process, with a first stage

nonferroous metallicc particles.

installattion with whhich the expperiments were perform

[2] Schuubert, H.A. (1996) Aufbbereitung feester Stoffe, B

[3] Ruaan, Jjun; Q

and Reccycling 87: 1109.

[4] Setttimo, F.; Beevilacqua, P.;

Particles from Bulkk Streams. P

[5] Wanng, Di; Ma, Xiushui; Zhi,