A Lecture on Pressure Screening James A. Olson Pulp and Paper Centre Mechanical Engineering Department Univerisity of British Columbia Ph, 604.822-5705 Email: olson@mech.ube.ca August 21, 2003 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Contaminants 2 3 History 3 4. Pressure Screening Equipment 3 4.1 Configuration rt 42 Rotors. . . wee 4 43° Screen Plates . . . 4 4.3.1 Holed apertures . 5 4.3.2. Slotted apertures 5 43.3 Contours «s+ 1 6 5 Theory of Screening 6 5.1 Probability and barrier screening . 6 5.2 Mechanisms of particle passage 6 5.3 Performance Equations 7 5.3.1 Consistency changes... 8 5.3.2 Probability screening effi- ciency 0... 9 5.3.3 Probability and. barrier screening efficiency 10 5.34 Estimating passageratio. . 10 5A Screening Systems sseeseeee UL 5A] Example..+.-+++2.. 11 54.2 Automating the analysis... 12 5.5 Capacity sssseaseeeeaee 13 6 Pressure screen control 13 6.1 Control Strategy of Today s.e.. 13 6.2. Motivation for New Control Strategy 14 7 Summary 14 8 Acknowledgements 15, A Derivation of Olson’s Passage ratio approximation 15 1 Introduction ‘The primary purpose of screening is to remove contaminants that reduce the appearance and strength of paper, but screens are increasingly used to fractionate or separate fibres for targeted processing and controlled blending Contaminants lead to stress concentrations which may result in paper breaks during paper- making or printing. Contaminants also reduce surface smoothness which is critical for printing grades such as LWC. As well, removing unpulped bits of wood lowers the bleaching quired, ‘The bottom line is, even if everything elseis done right, pulping-bleaching- papermaking, contaminant laden paper is scrap. Fibre Fractionation is the separation of pulp fibres by quality (typically, fibre length, coarse- ness or specific-surface) to improve the value of the product. Value is typically realized by creat- ing specialty produets for niche markets, improv- ing commodities, andimproving uniformity. Fibre fractionation and subsequent processing of each fraction is an efficient means of producing higher quality and more uniform pulp, For this reason, fi- bre fractionation is animportant unit operationin an increasing number of pulping and papermaking. applications. In TMP production, fractionation of high freeness pulp and subsequent long fibre refining has shown to improve strength, whereas, fractionation of low freeness pulp and long fibre refining has shown to improve sheet structure, op- tical and printing characteristies [1, 2}. In recy- led fibre production, fibre fractionation and sub- sequent processing hasshown to improve strength. and brightness and reduce energy consumption [3,4, 5} Insoftwood kraft production, fibre frac- tionation has been used to produce top and base stock from a single high yield cook to make multi- ply board. Tt has also been used for several other applications including improving the reinforcing icals repotential of the pulp by increasing the tensile strength and freeness. 2 Contaminants ‘The most common contaminants are: Shives: Bundles of fibres not separated in pulping. They are longer and several times wider than single fibres. They appear as dirt and create weakness in the paper. Level of contamination may be as high as 2% enter- ing the screening system. Screens are good at removing shives, cleaners are less eficient, bleaching them is expensi ¢ Bark: Found as round pieces, more common insulphite pulping, typically removed by fine slotted screens, Inner bark: stone-cells and sclereids are difficult to see but form trans- parent spots on paper whencalendared. They are a little too small to removed by screens, however, screens have been reported to be somewhat efficent at removing them. Typ- ically, they are removed by cleaners. ¢ Plastic Specks: Found asa trace contaminant (PPB). Plastic particles create a number of problems: Fallout and create pinholes, cre- ate stress concentrations that lead to breaks on the papermachine, become stuck between coating blades and paper creating kilometer Tongstreaks and cutsin the paper, adhere to the ink during printing and create hickey’s Small slotted screens efficiently remove pias- tics, Reverse cleaners are also able to effi ciently remove low density plastics Grit: ‘Typically from grindstones, sometimes in with the wood. Causes abrasion in piping and mill equipment right through to printing holes, ¢ Rust: Cleaners more effective then screens, ¢ Fibre bundles: bundles offibres tightly bound forminga singlecontaminant. They have sev- eral origins, for example, strings are fibres tangled together, knife edge knits are bun- les of fibres compressed togetherby thepulp sheet cutter ofa pulp machine, paper or broke that is not properly disintegrated shows is a contaminant. Vessel Elements: Cause linting on printing machines, Cleaners are sometimes used to re- move them because they have a high surface area, Important for some tropical species. ‘Typically, they are refined down to fines to prevent Tinting ‘© Stiff Fibres: Sometimes seen as a con- taminant, really part of fibre fractionation. Screens can effectively removing them, Sclereid bundle Sclereid bundle pulled apartPlastic particles found in pulp te Coarse fibre on paper surface Figure 1: Typical contaminants found in pulp, From top down: cross-section of shive in pa- per sheet, shive, sclereid bundle, sclereid bundle pulled apart, plastic particles found in pulp at headbox, a fibre string, coarse fibre in paper sheet, 3 History Screening the unpulped bits of wood for further pulping has always been an integral part of the Rock Trap. Accept - TC pitution Figure 2: Schematic of a pressure screen pulping and papermaking process. Initially they started out as ¢ Vibratory flat screen: The original screening system. ‘The feed stock was sprayed onto a flat screen, The entire screen vibrates while an overhead shower would flush reject mate- ial off the screen. Not very efficient, took up thousands of square feet, hard to maintain. ‘¢ Cowan screens: Similar to the modern pres- sure screen but are atmospheric, In Cowan screens the pulp is moved along a flat, perfo- rated plate by baffles and dilution water. The accept typically falls into a trench and then into a tank. One of the biggest problems with these atmospheric screens is foam generation, therefore, they require a large quantity of de- foamer. They are at least 30-years old and there are still lots in use, They are difficult to control and are being replaced by pressure ¢ Pressure Screens: The modern equipment for contaminant removal, The focus of the re- mainder of the lecture, 4 Pressure Screening Equip- ment Pulp and contaminants enter the screen through, the feed port. The pulp then passes over the rock trap, which prevents large debris from entering and damaging the screen and rotor. The pulp flows down between the screen plate and the ro- tor. The pulp fibres preferentially pass through the screen plate and out through the accept port, while the remaining pulp laden with debris, con- tinues down the feed side of the screen plate and out the reject port. Tn the case of fractionation,the short fibres preferentially pass through the screen plate while the long fibres are retained and. pass out the reject port. 4.1 Configuration ‘There are four different styles of pressure screens, depicted in figure 3 below: Outflow The most common screen. Pulp flows from the inside of the screen plate cylinder to the outside, The contaminants are held inside the plate until reaching the reject port at the bottom, The rotor is on the inside of the screen plate. Inflow The second most common screen type. ‘Most often found as a headbox screen. Pulp flows from the outside of the screen cyli der to the inside, The contaminants are held to the outside of the cylinder. The rotor is on the outside of the screen plate. The ad- vantage of these screens is that centrifugal forcespullheavy contaminants away from the screen, protecting the screen. Inflow/Outflow Provides higher screen plate area for the size of the screen. Typically, found as headbox screens. Foils on accept side of plate 4.2 Rotors ‘The primary purpose of the rotor istocreate nege- tive pressure pulses that backflush pulp accumula tions from the screen plate. This is accomplished by having either foils or specialized bumpson the periphery of the rotor moving at a high veloci near the screen plate, The higher the pressure pulse magnitude the higher the screen capacity. Higher capacity can enable small slotted screen plates to be run at practical capacities. The miag- nitude of these pressure pulses is the main difer- ence between the various types of rotor designs available, Pulse magnitude can also be increased by increasing the rotational velocity of therotor or by decreasing the gap between the rotor and the sercenplate, Asrotational velocity is ncreasesthe pulse frequency also increases, increasing capacity by clearing the apertures more often, However, a3 a cautionary note, the higher the pulse mag- nitude the more contaminants are forced through the screen plate, therefore increasing pulse mag- nitude without decreasing the screen plate slot width may increase capacity but decrease contam- inant removal efficiency. For pure barrier screen ing, high pulse rotors are preferred, while for prob- Foil Rotor #ve Pressur ve Pressure Figure 4: Schematic of the pressure pulse caused. by the rotor foil ability screening (fractionation and small shives) a low pulse rotor is preferred. ‘Therotoralsocreates. high tangential fluid velocity at the surface of the screen plate, that decreases the ability of contaminants to enter the screen plate apertures, increasingscreen efficiency. ‘The rotor also fiuidizes the pulp, preventing the area near the plate from having too high a pulp consistency. Rotors come in many configurations, for ex- ample: Foiled rotors Foiled rotors create positive and, negative pressure pulse by passing an airfoil shaped blade over the screen basket surface Anadvantage of the foilzotor is that theam- plitude of the pressure pulsecan be controlled by the foil clearance. Bump Rotors Bumped rotors consist of round, protrusionson a solid core that create the re- quired pressure pulses, Lobe and S-rotors The lobed rotor is a high amplitude pulse rotor, developed for medium consistency applications. 4.3. Screen Plates ‘The screen plate is the most important design choice affecting screen performance. Choosing plate is often a trade off between stopping con- ‘taminants from passing through the screen plate (efficiency) and allowing pulp to pass through the screen plate (capacity), The first screen plates, were all smooth plates with round holes drilled in them, With the advent of contours, protrusions on the feed side of the plate, slots are becoming more common, The trend is to move towards smaller slotted screen basket to increase the removal of oversized contaminants.Inflow / Outflow Foils on accept side of plate Figure 3: Types of available pressure screens 4.8.1 Holed apertures ‘The first pressure screens all used holed screen platesand are till widely used, They areeasierto ‘manufacture then slotted sereen plates and there- fore cheaper. They are also less susceptibleto ero- sion. Because they are cheaper and more durable they are often upstream of fine slotted screen to provide protection. Holed screen plates are usually only used a3 protection or as fractionating screens, because smooth (uncontoured) holed screen plates frac- tionate fibres by length better then slotted screen plates. Despite the fact that they do a poor job of removing contaminants, They only other time they should be used is if there is no installed cap- city to run a narrow slot. Because holed screen plates efficiently frac- tionate, or concentrate, the long fibres into the re- Ject port, they can considerably increase the con- sistency in the reject port, especially at low vol- umetrie reject ratios. High consistency in the re- Jject port can lead to screen failure by plugging up ‘the apertures or the reject port. High reject con- sistency also usually indicates that the screen is, fractionating, Contours are used with holed screen plates to increase capacity, but they also reduce the screens efficiency. Lobed Rotor S-Rotor 4.3.2 Slotted apertures Figure 5: Schematic of some commercial rotors Most screening for contaminant removal is done with slotted screen plates, The advent of contours hasincreased the capacity of slotted screens to the point where slots widths have decreased enough to be effective barrier screens and remove most of the oversized contaminants. Today, state-of- the-art screen can have slot widths as narrow as 0.2mm for softwood kraft pulp and 0.15mm for softwood TMP pulps. Whereas, hole diameters are almost never below 1.0 mm in diameter. There are two methods of manufacturing slotted baskets: conventional milled baskets andFigure 6: Holed plate during construction ‘wedge wire baskets. milled baskets are made by milling slots into a single piece of metal and then rolling them into a cylinder. Wedge-wire bas- kts are manufactured by banding wires together to form a cylinder. Wedge-wire plates were first invented to get around the problem of precisely milling small slots in relatively thick plates (say, 0.1, 0.15 mm wide slots). However, new milling technology has enabled milled slots to get be as small as 0.1mm. The other advantage wetlge-wire platesis theslots is continuous fromthe top tothe bottom of the cylinder, increasing the open area of the screen plate. Manufacturers of milled slotted baskets are milling continuous slots to meet the open area of wedgewire plates. Today, wedge wire platescan give added capacity, but they are more susceptible to fatigue failure and string formation. on the many welds, Because of the manufacturing differences, ‘wedge wire baskets have a higher open area which can be traded for capacity or efficiency. 4.3.3 Contours Contours are roughened pattern on the feed side ofascreen plate that dramatically increase the ca- pacity of the screen (See figure below). The mech- anism by which contours increase capacity are hy- pothesized to be: (1) redirecting the flow into the aperture, (2) fluidizing the pulp, breaking up any flocs near the apertures (3) reduce the fibre con- centration gradient at thesurface of ascreen plate. Contours enable narrow slotted screen plates to be industrially practical, whieh in turn enables better barrier screening. Contoured bas- Kets are more able to pass the long fibre compo- nent, therefore not as good at fractionating, All screen plate manufacturers have their own patented contour design, Below is a diagram of CAB’s Profile contour. Figure 7: Flow pattern over a CAE Profilescreen, contour. ‘The height of the contour varies depend- ing on the application. Moderate of low contour height plates are used for low consistency, fine screening applications, where as big contours are used in higher consistency, pure barrier, screening, applications. 5 Theory of Screening This section discusses the fundamental mecha- nisms of screening and the derivation and appli- cation of performance equation to design and op- timize screens and screening systems. 5.1 Probability and barrier screen- ing ‘Thereare two conceptual types of screening: bar- rier screening and probability screening. In Bar- rier sereening oversized contaminants are removed from the pulp because they are physically larger than the screenplate apertures, and therefore sim- ply unable to pass through the apertures. ‘This type of screening is always 100% efficient. Tn probability screening the contaminants have at Teast. one dimension smaller then the apertures and have some probability of passing through the apertures. For example, small shives (with one dimension smaller then the apertures) are able to pass through the screen if it has the right trajec- tory approaching the aperture. Fibre fractiona- tion is probability screening since every fibre is able to pass through the apertures if properly aligned. Therefore, probability screeningis always Tess than 100% efficent, and sensitiveto screen de- sign and operation. 5.2 Mechanisms of particle passage ‘The mechanisms governing particle passage in probability screeningare stilllargely unconfirmed, however, there are many proposed mechanisms in. the literature.Barrier Screening Probability Screening Figure 8: Probability and barrier screening ‘The mat theory states that the pulp form a mat on screen plate surface which preferen- tially blocks larger contaminants and fibres. This is probably not the case, since high speed video shows that a properly operated screen does not have mat, Most likely this concept is held over from the days of Cowan screens where there is, most definitely a mat of pulp on the screen plate surface, ‘The turning effect is another proposed idea that refers to the inability of long particles (and Jong fibres) to turn sufficiently at an aperture ‘opening to pass through the aperture. ‘The alignment theory is similar to the turn- ing effect but implies that large particles near the screen plateare constrained to be aligned withthe flow. This enhances the turning effect. ‘The wall effect is the existence of a fibre (or contaminant) length dependent concentration gradient at the screen plate surface, that results in short fibres preferentially passing through the apertures because of there closer proximity to the plate, That is, long fibres tend to be farther from the plate and therefore do not pass through the apertures as easily. The concentration gradient is, due to fibres tumblingin theshear near the screen plate and pole-vaulting away fro the plate [6} 5.3 Performance Equations Despite the lack of theoretical understanding of particle passage through a screen, performance equations that describe consistency changes and. contaminant removal have been developed and. used to design and operates screens and screen- ing systems. Figure 9: Mat theory Figure 11: Alignment theory> Zo % Figure 12: Concentration gradient theory 5.3.1 Consistency changes Inpulp screening the accept pulp hasa lower con- sistency than the feed pulp because water flows through the apertures easier than the pulp fir bres, Consequently the rejected pulp consistency increases, This is known as “Reject Thickening”, and can lead toscreen failure, Failurecan occur if the reject pulp isso thick that it blocks the reject pipe, or the pulp consistency on the feed side of the plate increases to the point where the screen plate apertures plug, ie. the screen “blinds”. ‘The change in consistency can be calculated by assuming a flow model within the screening zone and by assuming the probability of particle passage through the screen [7, 8, 9}. The prob- ability of a particle, either contaminants or the pulp passing throug a single aperture is given by passage Ratio, P, defined as the ratio of particle concentration passing through a single aperture divided by the particle concentration in the fuid upstream of the aperture ‘The average passage ratio of the pulp is ex- pressed as — Comnty ‘eval Examining a control volume that is an ele- ‘ment of cross section in the middle of the screen and assume: ¢ the low between thescreen plateand the ro- toris a plug flow (no mixing) ¢ theflowin thetangential directionisperfectly mixed ‘¢ the passage ratio is independent of height within the sereen and reject ratio Performing a mass balance across the con- trol volume results in QC= P,CaQ + (Q—-dQ\(C- aC) Figure 13: Particles (fibres or contaminants) pass- ing through a single screen aperture Reject Close up of Screen Plate Feed Accept ec | row se CS pea G> rea (02020 Vv 4 I Figure 14: Mass balance through a screen cross- sectional elementjet ita ata T Vouurare Reject Fao. Figure 15: Theoretical reject thickening factor, T, asa function of volumetric reject ratio, Ry “ dQ _ dC (UGE integrating from the feed port, where Q = Qy and C = Cy, to the reject port, where Q = Q, and C= Cy, yields the following relationship og eae fo, MOA Ic, 6 “ &_(2)" Cr AQy on T= RPO a) where Ry — Q,/Qy is referred to as volu- metric rejectratio and T =C,./Cy is known as the reject thickening factor. Two common terms used to describe screen operation and performance. Of course, the consistency drop of the ac- cept stream, denoted by D = C,/Cy, can also be calculated and is given by CpG Be CG; IR Figure 15 demonstrates how screen plate aperture diameter and volumetrie reject ratio af- fects the consistency of the reject pulp, as pre- dicted by Equation 1. and Figure 16 gives actual reject thickening data for varying R for four screen plates with hole diameters of 0.8, 10, 1.75, 2.10 mm. , 5.8.2. Probability screening efficiency ‘The contaminant removal efficiency, E, or shive removal efficiency, asit issometimes called, is de- fined as Debris in Feed ~ Debris in Accept Be Debris in Feed s | Aenea . Bal QS Balt . Pol tag Ss Pw} a , Figure 16: Experimental reject thickening factor asa function of volumetric reject ratio or Cer Qn Gey Qy where Ce, is the mass concentration of contam- inants in the reject. stream and Ce, is the mass concentration of contaminants in the feed stream, ‘The efficiency of contaminant removal for particles removed on a probability basis is theo- retically related to reject ratio, following the same analysis as for reject thickening. The probabil- ity of contaminant passing through a single screen aperture is given by the contaminant passage ra- tio, Pe, given by Co. oe where Ce, is the concentration of contaminants passing through an aperture and Ce, is the con centration of contaminants upstream of an aper ture. Assuming P. is constant and a plug flow within the screen results in Ger (@y" Cer NQy. ‘Therefore, in terms of mass reject ratio, Rm, efficiency isgiven as R= B=Raf (2) It isa good excersize to carry out this derivation for yourself. Figure 17 demonstrlates how efficiency varies with reject ratio, as predicted by Equation 2Peon os oe é a tiene. oe. be Mass jet Rati, Pn oe Figure 17; Theoretical contaminant removal effi- ciency, E,as a function of mass reject ratio, Rm. 5.3.3. Probability and barrier screening ef- ficiency ‘The same analysis can be modified to include some barrier screening and some probability screening, except that- now there is a percentage of the con. ‘taminants that are removed with 100% efficiency. ‘We assume that the total contaminant con- centration is the sum of the contaminants that are removed by probability screening, Cy.cyrots and ‘the contaminants removed by barrier screening, Chetar- ie Che 'f-e-prob + Cfue-bar Following the same analysis as before you get: Creobar Che pa RF (1- Seem) (3) Che Figure 18 compares the efficiency of pure. probability screening, Equation 2, with that of both probability and barrier screening, Equation 3 5.3.4 Estimating passage ratio Because of passage ratio’simportanceas ascreen- {ng performance parameter, several fundamental theoretical and experimental studies have been carried out, using model laboratory screens, to determine the factors affecting P [7, 10, 6, U1} Recently, a mechanistic, quantitative model of P for slotted apertures was proposed by Olson and ‘Wherrett based on a fibre length dependent con- centration gradient at the screen plate surface ‘Their analysis yields a simple expression for fibre passage ratio in terms of the key screening vari- ables: oa} 7 Pee pstabiy Boos ea} ° Cy ass Peet Pao, ar Figure 18; Probability screening efficiency com- pared with 50% barrier removal eficiency Ba {8 where Pe; is the Penetration number based on ro- tor tip speed, a dimensionless parameter first in- troduced by Kumar (10), that combines the four basic screening variables: slot velocity, Ve, slot width, W, fibre length { and rotor tip speed, Vi wy, ™ 0 ‘The constant mk is the product of the two con- stants of proportionality and is determined ex- perimentally. In experiments using a laboratory Presure screen inodeled ater aeons ection of Hooper PSV-2100, Equation 4 was shown to pro- ‘ide sesonable geet with experinen and mk was shown to be approximately 0.02. Due to the complexity of the problem and the simplicity of the model, it is expected that Equation 4 will provide only an estimate of the effect of the key screening variables on fibre passage. ‘The average pulp passage ratio, Pp, is given by Equation 4 with 2 = Lu, the length weighted average fibre length, and mk needs to be de- termined experimental, If ahves with one Aliensonstallenough opassthroughthesereen apertures aeremoved by these mechan as Jong fibres and have length 1, then the contami- nant passage ratio, P., can be approximated by Equation 4. Assuming that P. is less than 1/2, P. is given by ifP <1/2 P iP 21/2 @) xk Pe, Pe, Lyw © oak Ve Te © Although Equation 6 is rather speculative, it re- flects the industrial practice that contaminant re- moval is increased by lowering the slot velocity Pe 10| __ FEEDForwanD ea Poot ts a aL g i Loe Figure 19: The four basie system configurations through the screen, and by using smaller slot width screen baskets, 5.4 Screening Systems Pressure screens never operate by themselves, they are always used in conjunction with other sereens forming a screening system, or screen room. The contaminant removal efficiency of the screening system is often referred to as the global or system efficiency. In a screening system the slobal efficiency depends on each screens design and operation as well as how the screens are con- nected. All sereening systems are built of from the four ways of connecting two screen together, which are combinations of feed-forward and feed-back, and series or cascade (See Figure). With a cas- cade arrangement the efficiency is limited to the efficiency of the primary screen, If the primary screen does not provide adequate efficiency as sec~ ond primary screen can be added in series. In some mills the the accepts from the secondary screens arefed forward because theprimary screen is limited. Thiscan result in a greatly re- by probability screening. Examining the choice of design and opera- tion variables, itis evident that each screen has a choice of: Screen plate — Plate type, either slotted or holed = Contour Aperture size 2 Flow rates = Reject ratio = Accept flow rate = Dilution flow rate ¢ Rotor = Pulse magnitude — Rotational speed © Configuration = Feed-back or feed-forward = Cascade or series and each variable affects the consistency, fibre Iength distribution and contaminant level in each stream, and each of these changes affects all of the screen because of the interconnection between screens. For these reasous, engineering screening systems for efficient contaminant removal or frac~ tionation is difficult. An engineering approach to designing screening systems requires the performance equa tions developed previously that enable detailed simulation and optimization of these complex sys tems. ‘The beginning of this advanced approach will be discussed in an upcoming example. In the literature there are a number of rules: of thumb that.can be used when putting together screening systems [13] 1. Accept stock from one stage should become feed of another 2. Mixing should occur between streams with similar composition 3. Dilution requirements should be minimized 4. Cascade-feedback systems provide the best efficiency However, one has to be careful when using such rules, Most systems are designed based on expe- rience. 5.4.1 Example ‘Question: What is the global Efficiency and Reject ratio of this system? Doa material balance for the pulp and for the contaminants around both screen. From this you can calculate the global efficiency. ‘Assume we havea hundred tons of pulp en- tering the screening system, F = 100 t/d, with 1 ton ofshives, $= 1, and the screens operate ata known mass reject ratio and known passage ratios, WwFigure 20: Cascade feedback screening system ex- ample F=100t/d S=1/a Pe/Pp=0.2 lk A Pulp Material Balance: =02 F,=1004 Ay Ri =02F, =F; Ry =0.2F, =0.04F, Ay= Fy—R2=0.2F, 0.04; = 0.167, Fy = 10040167, > Fy = 119¢/d A= Fy — Ry =0.8F, = 95.2t/d Ra =0.04F, =4.76t/d Shive Material Balane screen 1 sFi=ltsdy Poi (2) 07 Ri =0.72(1+ 82) sR Tred a screen 2 sf, - sg oF sR — sg E; oR Solving two equations with two unknowns yields sR, =0.91t/d 8A: =0.34t/d So, what's the “Global Efficiency?" Debris in Feed ~ Debris in Accept Debris in Feed what is the “global reject ratio?" Fibres in Reject Flow _ 4704/4 _ 9 oy = Fibres in Feed Flow ~ Toor/d ~ ‘The system efficiency is lower then the effi- ciency ofasingle screen, Thisis true ofall cascade feedback systems. ‘The secondary screen is used. to recover fibres. ‘The advantages of the system can be easily seen if you compare the efficiency of the system with a singlesereen at the same reject. ratio. The efficiency of the single screen with a R=0.047 is B= RPP = 0.04797 = 0.54 ‘Therefore, the contaminant removal availablewith, a system is higher than an individual screen. 5.4.2 Automating the analysis ‘The assignment for this course will be to auto- mate this process on a computer so that design a screening system for a specific application and to optimize it for “global efficiency ‘¢ Define the equations for each screen (A,F,R) define some input parameters, ¢ Get a system of algebraic equations which can be readily solved on whatever computer pro- gram you like the most (spreadsheet, matlab, mathead, C.) ¢ From thesolved system you can caleulate the efficiency or whatever you need. ¢ Here is an example of a simple cascade ar- rangement For the pulp flow only:Figure 21: Example screening configuration. Screen Equation Screen 1 Ry = RFI Ai=(1=Ru)FI Fi=F+Ay Sereen2 Ra=RyF2 Az=(1= Ry) F2 Screen 3 Alsohavesomeofthesystem variables: R= Ry and A= Aj, and F = A+ R. Usually you specify the Maximum feed and maximum reject rate. The optimizable parameters are the reject ratio’s Ry, of thescreens. Do the same thing for the contaminant flows, using the equation for efficiency Ry.!*/??. 5.5 Capacity ‘The goal ofscreeningistoremove contaminants or fractionate the fibre stream, however, these goals must be achieved under the production require- ments of the mill Screen plates are rated in terms of tons per day permetresquared of screeningsurface. There- fore, total screen capacity is directly related to the size of the screen, i.e. bigger screens have more ca- pacity But many factors influence the maximum, capacity per area of screen plate. One of the primary factors is the plates per- cent open area, OA, the total area of aperutres, divided by the area of the plate. Forslotted plates OA is approximately where I isslot width and Z, is slot length. ‘The maximum capacity of the plate is lim- itedby the blinding phenomena, This refers to the accumulation of fibre flocs in the slots which are not removed by the backflushing pressure pulse of the rotor. This results in screen plugging or blind- ing, ‘The trend to day is to decrease the size of the slots, to increase barrier screening efficiency, while not lowering screen capacity. This is accom- plished in several ways ‘New baskets have contimious slotsdown the entire length of the basket (both wedge wire and. milled baskets). Slots are placed as close together as possible, specified in slots per inch (SPI) typi- cally. However, SPI is limited by the length of the longest fibres in the furnish, If SPT is too small long fibres staple across 2slots, causing thescreen to blind, The style of contour also affects total capacity. Older contour designs can be signifi- cantly lower capacity then modern designs. Re- search continues on contour desgns and finishing techniques which increase capacity. ‘The rotor also plays a substantial role in determining the screens capacity. Increasing the rotor speed, or decrease gap between rotor and screen plate or installing a higher pulse rotor can all increase capacity, substantially, by increasing the size of the rotor pulse which is responsible for clearing the slot of fibres. Reducing the consis- tency at the reject port can also increase capacity. This can be accomplished by increasing the reject rate, or by using dilution, if available. 6 Pressure screen control ‘Main objectives of pressure screen control are : @ To ensure that sereen operate safely and do not fail; ie, maximum pulp produetion while keeping screen from blinding and plugging ¢ To assure that the screen provides the re- quired flows; ie. achieve a high and constant SRE to produce quality accepts. 6.1 Control Strategy of Today In most mills there is still a lack of control strat egy forpressurescreen, Theexistant control strat egy in some mills employ several independant PI (Proportional-Integral) control loops. Dumdie {] 13propose onesuccessfulway ofcontrolling the pres- sure screen system by using one supervisory and. several regulatory loops. By manipulating the reject valve, the reject rate ean be controlled and subsequently the SRE. Many mills operate their pressure screen at exces- sive RR to minimize blinding I is also important to have an inventory control which is to prevent the screen feed tank from running empty or from overflowing during normal operation, There are a number of ways, to achieve this control. However, the method se- lected must be compatible with other objectives such as maintaining screen throughput and accept quality. A more conventional approach to inven- tory control is to manipulate the screen differe tial pressure (DP). This can successfully regulate feed tank level; however it also significantly re- duces throughput when the screen partially blinds. Another method of inventory control is to recycle a portion of the screen accepts to the feed tank Because of the recycling, this method can result in a significant reduction in accepted long fiber and freeness. According to [], the best way for in- ventory control is to manipulate accept valve to control the feed tank level, The problem with this, method is that when the screen is slowly blind- ing under normal conditions, the accept valve will open to maintain the throughput. This however, worsen the blinding and the screen will soon be completely blinded. Then one needs to stop the process to flush the screen, Furthermore, feed stream pressure and con- sistency play an important role in the overall op- eration of a pressure screen systems. Feed pres- sure has an impact on process runnability. The feed valve is manipulated to control the feed pres- The setpoint of this controller establishes the internal pressure in the screen which in turn determines the pressure drops across all screen system valves. The feedstock consistency requires very tight control because it does influence sereen throughput and runnability, it can also affect ac- cept quality and upset the reject rate. Since, feed consistency changes as chip furnish and refiner plate conditions changes, it requires more advance technology. According to [], addition of dilution water to the screen andregulating the consistency. by manipulating the ratio of dilution flow to total feed flow would bean adequate control, However, the consistency control rely on consistency meter which are expensive, therefore most mills avoid this type of control loop. 6.2 Motivation for New Control Strategy How pressure screens are operated today can ba- sically be divided into two categories depend- ing on what the operator puts most weight on, runnability or capacity. In fact there is difi- calties to balance between these two objectives New control strategies is one of the sohitions to this problem. For two reasons the actual control strategies could be improved. First, the process isnonlinear and the operating range is large, thus a linear controller, such as PT controller, is likely to perform very poorly; nonlinear controllers on the other hand, may handle the nontinearities in large range operation directly. Second, the system. is strongly coupled i.e. each control input (the valve position) affect all the outputs (feed pres- sure, accept and reject flows), therefore a multi- variate control strategy could perform better than a univariate one. 7 Summary Pressure screens and screening systems have the ability to significantly improve pulp quality by removing undesireable contaminants and by frac- tionating fibres for targetted processing. Screen- ing technology continues to advance; contami- nant removal efficiency increases by using smaller slots and capacity continues to increase from im- proved contour designs and manufactureing meth- ods. However, efficient fractionation and contam- inant removal depend on the correct design and. operation of the entire system. ‘The performance equations given above provide the tools, and a framework, to apply advanced engineering tech- nology to design these systems. ‘This approach has been extended to account, for the fibre length distribution changes (fraction- ation) caused by the screen, and implemented into advancedsimulation andoptimization tools. How- ever, this beyond the scope of this course. References [1] $.R. Corson, R.F. Wakelin, and M.D, Loyd. ‘TMP furnish development strategies, part 1: fractionation and long fibre removal. Pulp ‘and Paper Canada, 97(12):T446-T449, 1996. [2] S.R. Corson, R.P. Wakelin, and M.D, Loyd. TMP furnish development strategies, part 2: Sheet properties. Pulp ond Paper Canada, 98(1):T41-Tad, 1997, 14[S] GM. Scott and 8. Abubakr. Fractionation of secondary fibre - a review. Progress in Paper Recycling, 3(3):50-59, 1994, [A] J. Mayovsky. Fractionation of occ. how can it help you? In Recycling Symposium, pages 407-416, 1998. | L. Lapierre, D. Pitre, and J, Bouchard. Bleaching of deinked recycled pulp: benefits of fibre fractionation. Pulp and Paper Report 1357, 1998, [6] J.A. Olson. ‘The effect of fibre length on pas- sage through narrow apextures. PLD thesis, Dept. of Chesical Engineering, The Univer- sity of British Columbia, 1996. [7] RW, Gooding. The passage of bres through slots in pulp screening. Master's thesis, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 1986. [8] R.W. Gooding and R.J. Kerekes, Deriva- tion of performance equations for solid-solid screens. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 67:801-805, October 1989. [9] RW. Gooding andR.J. Kerekes. Consistency changes caused by pulp screening. Tappi J., ‘75(11):109-118, 1992, [10] A. Kumar. Passage of fibres through screen apertures, PhD thesis, Dept. of Chen cal Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 1991. [11] J.A. Olson and RJ. Kerekes, Fibre passage ‘through a single sereen aperutre, Appita J., 51(2):122-126, 1997, [12] J.A. Olson and G.J. Wherrett, A model of f- bre fractionation by slotted screen apertures. Pulp and Paper Report 1308, 1997. [13] B. Steenberg. Principles of screening system design. Svensk Papperstidning, 56(20):171 178, 1953, [14] W. Tangsaghasaksri. Uber die Sortierung von Fasersuspensionen mittels geschlitzter Siebe. PID thesis, Darmstad, 1994, [15] C. Yu and R. DeFoe. Fundamental study of screening hydraulics, part 1: Flow patterns at the feed-side surface of screen baskets; ‘mechansim of fibre-mat formation and remix- ing. TAPPI Journal, 77(8):21 1994 [16] C. Yu and R. DeFoe, Fundamental study of screening hydraulics, part 2; Fiber orienta- tionin the feedside ofascreen basket. TAPPI Journal, 77(9):119-124, 1994, Oy ey Figure 22: A fibre approaching a single slot in a. cross flow [17] J.A. Olson and R.J. Kerekes. Fibre passage ‘through a single screen aperutre. In 51st. Ap- pita Conference, Melbourne Aus., 1997 8 Acknowledgements Many thanks to Geoff Wherrett of CAB Sereen- Plates Inc. and Maryam Khanbaghi of Paprican for contributing to these lecture notes: A Derivation of Olson’s Pas- sage ratio approximation ‘To understand the factors affecting screening, sev- eral fundamental studies of fibre passage ratio have been carriedout usingmodel pressurescreens [6, 14, 10, 7, 15, 16, Kumar [10] studied f- bre passage through narrow screen apertures us- ing a Cross Sectional Screen (CSS), a laboratory sereen that simulates a cross-section of a Hooper PSV pressure screen. These studies demonstrated ‘that fibre passage ratio is strongly affected by slot width, 1, fibre length, 1, slot velocity, V, and the average fluid velocity upstream of the slot, V, Kumar showed that, under ideal conditions, fibre passage ratio was well characterized by a dimen- sionless penetration number, Pe, given by veWw War 0 ‘The passage of fibres through narrow aper- tures under the condition of pressure screening i complox. bre iaterect wh the Auld the tpertae, and each other As wel the Bahl and pestle dow ls highly tcbulat searwel, noo Eemogeneow and anisotropic, with mean fow that period du othe oor pls Forti ‘east he along analy of re passage tio relies on several simplifying assumptions. Fibre passage ratio is calculated by consid- ering the flow near a simple aperture in a steady cross flow (See Figure 22), Performing a fibre and Pe= 15fluid mass balance and following the analysis of Olson [6, 17], fibre passage ratio can be expressed. SWB () where o(y) is the particle velocity profile upstream of the aperture, c(y) is the upstream fibre concen- tration profile, cy is the average upstream fibre concentration, and &(y) is the probability of fibre passage as a function of fibre centre height above the sereen plate wall. Application of Equation 8 requires the unknown functions, u(y), e(y) and Ely) to be expressed in terms of the key screening variables: V.,Va,l, and WV. This is accomplished as follows: 1. As a first order approximation, the particle velocity profile near the screen plate wall is assumed to be independent of height above the screen plate and is proportional to the tip speed of the rotor, Vi, ie., =v, ) ‘The constant of proportionality, k, is ex- pected to be dependent on rotor type and ro- tor clearance. From the continuity of the uid and assum- ing a constant velocity profile, the exit layer height, H, is calculated as vy)= wy, eT, (10) During every pressure pulse from the rotor passage, the slot velocity will vary. ‘Therefore, A, is an average exit layer height, calculated from an average slot velocity and average up- stream fluid velocity. From Equations 7 and 10, Pe can be physi- cally interpreted as the average height of the exit layer relative to fibre length, i-e., Pe=2 (11) 2.In turbulent flow, fibres near a wall rotate and impact with the wall. This impact and rotation, transports the fibre away from the wall creating a fibre concentration gradient that is proportional to the fibre length [6]. It is reasonable to assume that this mechanism ‘occurs at the screen plate surface, and the resulting concentration profile has a similar form, given by oy) _ f u/6 ify1/2 16where mk is the product of the two experimen- tally determined constants, P = 1/2 corresponds to H = 6, and Per is the Penetration number based on the rotor tip velocity, i., Ws P= a7) ‘This analysis demonstrates that for a con- stant mk passage ratio is a function of Pe alone, with two regimes: (1) P is proportional to Pe when the exit layer is less than the height of the concentration gradient (i.e, H <6 or P< 1/2), and (2) P isinversely proportional to Pe, when the exit layer is greater than the height of the concen- tration gradient. 17