This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository

(https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the

following Creative Commons Licence conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
 1

EQUIPMENT SELECTION AND PROCESS DESIGN FOR SOLID/LIQUID SEPARATION

E.S. Tarleton ([email protected])

Department of Chemical Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire,
LE11 3TU, UK.

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a survey of the methods of equipment selection and process design for
solid/liquid separation. It is shown how a combination of automated analysis, laboratory scale test
work and computer aided calculations provide the most reliable results. Current best practice is
highlighted, both in terms of the computer software available (e.g. Filter Design Software) and the
advantages offered by automated filter apparatus for data generation. Worked examples and
example data are presented to show the capability of the overall process.

INTRODUCTION
Many of the stages involved in the choice of filtration equipment require the use of
experimentation, mainly because of the difficulties involved in routinely determining the behaviour
of solid/liquid mixtures from first principles. For instance, experiments provide a basis for improved
selection and scale-up, which ultimately facilitates more accurate simulation and hence more
reliable equipment specification. Basic liquid filtration data can be obtained in laboratories with
relatively elementary equipment, an example being the single leaf filter operating at either constant
under- or over- pressure. In some cases it is possible to collect data for sequential operations
such as those constituting a filter cycle, though performing these experiments manually can
introduce significant errors unless great care is taken. The need to manually perform tests and
adjust operational parameters to maintain chosen experimental conditions are variables that, in
conjunction with variations in data analysis, can lead to:
• Extensive use of ‘rules-of-thumb’
• Inappropriate sizing of filters
• Required production rates not being achieved
• Unforeseen difficulties in filter cycle operations.
The introduction of more sophisticated filtration apparatus would clearly facilitate both improved
test methodologies and more detailed measurements. These raised levels of sophistication
introduce new research opportunities, allow more consistent and accurate data to be obtained and
provide an impetus for accompanying developments in computer software. A methodology which
shows how equipment selection, scale-up and simulation are integrated with experiments and data
analysis is represented by Figure 1. Whilst it is evident that filter manufacturers could also be
consulted at various stages in the process, pilot-scale work could be included and ‘years of
experience’ are invaluable, the opportunities for improved knowledge and understanding for the
end-user that can be derived from the features of Figure 1 are substantial.
This paper details developments in equipment for the automated testing and monitoring of cake
filtration and the filter cycle, and shows how the level of sophistication can be varied according to
requirements. The integration of reliably obtained test data with interactive computer software is
used to illustrate a robust approach to equipment selection. The paper also shows how such
information can subsequently be used in conjunction with process modelling to simulate detailed
filter cycle operations on cake filters. The combined use of state-of-the-art test apparatus and
software such as Filter Design Software™ (FDS, 2005) is already a reality in some industry sectors
and has the potential for widespread application within most of the process and related industries.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 2

EQUIPMENT SELECTION
To perform equipment selection according to Figure 1, a number of different schemes have been
proposed. Although some literature appeared as early as the 1920’s (e.g. Sperry (1924)), the few
publications before the 1960’s primarily concerned details of filters, their qualitative performance
and/or general guidance towards their use (see, for example, Grace (1951) and Smith (1955)).
Since 1964, however, the scope and number of selection procedures has widened and followed a
number of diverse, and sometimes confusing, routes. The information available may be
categorised into five groups:
a) General information: Hicks and Hillgard (1970), Maloney (1972) and Alt (1975).
b) Non-ranked table: Equipment is placed in a list relative to some characterising parameter or
performance indicator such as feed concentration, particle size in the feed or standard cake
formation time. Tables have been produced by Flood et al. (1966), Davies (1970), Purchas
(1970; 1972a; 1978; 1981), Hawkes (1970), Emmett and Silverblatt (1975), Day (1974),
Dahlstrom (1978), Gaudfrin and Sabatier (1978), Trawinski (1980), and Purchas and
Wakeman (1986).
c) Ranked table: Equipment performance is rated by one or more numerical indices to
produce ranked lists. Indices are typically valued between 0 and 9 (best) and related to
operational parameters such as solid product dryness, crystal breakage etc. Contributions
have been made by Davies (1965), Purchas (1972b), Fitch (1974, 1977), Moos and Dugger
(1979), Komline (1980) and Ernst et al. (1991).
d) Logic diagram: A decision tree guides a user through a series of yes/no choices towards a
potentially suitable generic class of separation equipment. Logic diagrams have been
produced by Davies (1965), Tiller (1974) and Pierson (1990).
e) Expert system: Rule-based computer programs select and rank potentially suitable
separation equipment. Expert system approaches have been independently developed by
Korhonen et al. (1989), Ernst et al. (1991), Garg et al. (1991) and Wakeman and Tarleton
(1991).
The charts, tables and general information contained in categories (a)-(d) can be used as guides
toward an initial selection of solid/liquid separation equipment. The better contributions consider a
wider variety of possible eventualities, and indicate clearly where decisions must be made. The
charts and tables have generally been devised by experts to be fairly comprehensive, and are of
greatest value to the solid/liquid separation expert. They, unfortunately, also illustrate the near-
impossibility of combining comprehensive descriptions with usability. Without ‘expert’ guidance it is
extremely difficult for an end-user to correlate information and decide which equipment is more
suitable for any particular application. Also, having identified potentially suitable equipment, it can
be equally as difficult to check such basic requirements as separator area and likely throughput
rate.
It is clear that there has previously been no accepted standard approach to solid/liquid equipment
selection and the development of computer software is an ideal way to tackle the issue. Whilst
rule-based expert systems appeared to provide the optimum solution at first, it became apparent to
some researchers that inherent restrictions would prevent their widespread application. With
current levels of knowledge, it is necessary for software to be interactive and designed in a way to
be integrated with a basic experimental programme. Such an approach could be eliminated if
measurable microscopic properties of suspensions and filter cakes could be related to their bulk
behaviour. The need for empirical corrections and ‘averaging’ factors would then be eliminated
and all macroscopic properties could be predicted from the individual properties of the particles
and fluid. Although engineers and scientists have pursued this goal for many years, the present
reality necessitates some reliance on experimental data. Thus, interactive computer software,
based on a dual expert system/experiment approach, is required.
Such software has previously been developed to commercial standards (Wakeman and Tarleton
(1991)) and further adapted and expanded for incorporation within FDS (Tarleton and Wakeman

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 3

(2003)). The favoured method, and the one in-built within FDS, is to use a limited amount of data
about the process duty (scale of operation, batch or continuous, principal objective), preliminary
knowledge of separability of the feed stream (experimental data from a simple laboratory scale leaf
filter and/or jar sedimentation) and a form of inference mechanism (selection chart or table,
typically relating to 70+ types of equipment). This combination allows the identification of a range
of equipment that could be expected to carry out the required separation. A longer list is produced
if experimental data are not available. By incorporating the ‘ranked tables’ described in (c) above it
is possible to produce a numerically ranked equipment list. The final shortlist contains those items
which are worthy of further evaluation through pilot testing and/or computer simulation. Full details
are available in Tarleton and Wakeman (2006).

Example of Use
For batch plants where several products are manufactured in small to medium quantities the same
piece of equipment may be required to perform several different separations. In such
circumstances a good deal of heuristic information and detailed knowledge of a wide variety of
separators is needed in order to identify a shortlist of equipment.
Consider a plant which is required to process five separate feeds in batches at rates equivalent to
~15 m3 h-1. At the current stage of process specification it is not clear whether the prime objective
for the separation of two of the feeds is solids dewatering or washing. Sedimentation and filtration
tests have been performed on small samples of feed and analysed using FDS to give the data in
Table 1. Determine if the separation of all five feeds could be achieved effectively using a single
separator.

Solution
The data in Table 1 indicate that the separation characteristics of each feed are quite different. By
repeated use of the automated selection procedures in FDS, the information in Table 2 can be
produced.
The numbers listed under the sub-headings ‘D’ and ‘W’ indicate the relative performance index of
the equipment as a solids dewatering or cake washing device, respectively. Inspection shows that
none of the separators identified are capable of processing all five feeds in an effective manner,
although the pressure Nutsche filter and basket pendulum centrifuge are suited to processing four
of the five feeds. Should only the un-flocculated feeds need to be processed, then the pressure
Nutsche is a good choice for further investigations. Whilst the diaphragm filter press has high
ratings for feeds #2 – #4, difficulties are identified with the processing of feeds #1 and #5 due
respectively to a small proportion of sludge (which infers a low cake volume and long cycle times)
and excessive particle settling in the chambers of the press. The basket pendulum centrifuge is
also eliminated for feed #1 due to the inadequate proportion of sludge. The ultimate choice of
separator(s) may ultimately depend upon either modification to the separation characteristics of, for
instance, feeds #1 or #5 and/or consideration of additional factors.

EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT
The need to generate experimental data to aid equipment selection, and as detailed later to
expedite equipment simulation, has led to the development of more sophisticated filtration
apparatus, improved test methodologies and more detailed measurements; examples include
Fathi-Najafi (1994), Green et al. (1998), Jämsä-Jounela and Oja (2000), Teoh et al. (2001), Usher
et al. (2001), Johansson and Theliander (2002), Townsend (2002), Anderson et al. (2004) and
Cambridge Reactor Design (2010).
In the case of the authors work, manual operation has been replaced by a mechatronics
philosophy that combines electronics, computer technology and automatic control to facilitate
experiments over any chosen pressure/flow regime. Figures 2 and 3 show examples of state-of-

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 4

the-art, laboratory scale experimental apparatus capable of automated data acquisition during
sequential filtration, displacement washing and gas deliquoring phases of a filter cycle; the level of
hardware and software sophistication can be varied according to requirements. For details of
development see Tarleton and Hancock (1996, 1997), Tarleton and Willmer (1997), Tarleton
(1998, 1999a, 1999b), Tarleton and Hadley (2003) and Tarleton and Wakeman (2006); the latter
also provides detail of advanced equipment for determinations of compression deliquoring.
The basic hardware comprises of a stainless steel (s/s) deadend Nutsche filter (area 80 → 500
cm2) and a s/s feed suspension storage vessel connected by s/s piping and computer controlled
electro-pneumatic valving; the storage vessel incorporates a stirrer. A heater/cooler system
regulates the temperature of the filter cell and storage vessel by continuously passing a fluid
through their surrounding jackets to facilitate operation over the range 10 → 70ºC. Various
transducers attached to the apparatus allow pressures and other measured parameters to be
recorded and/or controlled by the interfaced computer and dedicated software.
The pressures required to progress filtrations are provided by a compressor and an electronic
pressure regulator over the range 10 → 1000 kPa. The regulator is adjusted by the computer and
the filtrate flow rate is semi-continuously transmitted to the computer via successive timed readings
of mass from the electronic balance. By monitoring the flow rate in such a manner, use of a
suitable software control algorithm allows either constant pressure, stepped pressure, constant
rate or variable pressure/variable rate filtration to be performed without changing the suspension
properties through inappropriate pumping operations. This approach overcomes the long-standing
difficulties of performing variable pressure filtrations at the small scale. The rate and magnitude of
the pressure adjustments is dependent on the nature of the feed, the compressibility of the filter
cake and the desired process conditions.
In order to monitor (in real time) the rate of cake growth, filter cake structure (during filtration),
solute concentration profiles in the cake (during any washing phase) and/or cake saturation profiles
(during any deliquoring phase) a series of small electrodes can be fitted internally within the filter
cell. The electrodes which may protrude a short distance into the cell are arranged in single
vertical planes or, if maximum data are required, in sequences of horizontal rings. Signals to
electrode pairs are switched by the attached computer via electronic circuitry to facilitate
measurements. Alternatively, micro-pressure transducers can be used in place of electrodes to
determine cake structure and these are capable of delivering measurements of liquid pressure
within 0.3 mm of the filter medium. With seven transducers within ~3 mm of the filter medium the
initial stages of cake formation, i.e. the most important, can be well monitored.
The use of computer control allows sequential filter cycle data to be acquired in a repeatable and
reliable manner with a minimum of operator interference. By defining the desired cycle phases
through a software algorithm, a cake formation phase can be directly followed by the chosen
combination of washing and deliquoring. The real time measurement of experimental parameters
also allows continuous display of results and the use of on-line analysis techniques as an
experiment proceeds.

Example Data
Whilst many data could be shown, Figure 4 provides a typical illustration of those measurable
together with their reproducibility. Measured volume of filtrate (V) vs. time (t) data are reproducible
and for the four experiments shown the specific cake resistance, filter medium resistance and cake
porosity were respectively determined as 1.46x1011±2x109 m kg-1, 3.7x1011±1x1010 m-1 and
0.67±0.005. There is usually slightly more, but still acceptable, variation in the liquid pressures
measured with the micro-pressure transducers. The data can be interpreted as follows. At the
start of filtration (t = 0 s) a suspension is in its original homogenously mixed state and liquid
pressures are equal to the applied filtration pressure. For a 400 kPa filtration pressure, after 10 s a
cake of just over 2 mm had formed. At this stage many of the particles comprising the cake are (at
least) in point contact to raise the solids compressive pressure and induce a corresponding
reduction in liquid pressure. Near to the filter medium the solids pressure is at its greatest (as is
the local cake resistance) whilst further away from the medium the solids pressure is lower and at

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 5

the ultimate cake height equal to zero. As time progresses in the filtration, cake thickness
increases and the moderately compressible talc cake becomes more compact due to the continual
flow of liquid through the cake interstices and the increasing weight of particles above those
already constituting the cake. Towards the end of cake formation (t = 125 s) the cake thickness
approaches 9.3 mm as evidenced by the falling liquid pressure at that height.

DATA ANALYSIS
It is probably fair to say that a significant proportion of previous filtration research and data
acquisition has been blighted by experimental difficulties and/or the skill (or otherwise) with which
experiments are performed. Whilst use of the experimental apparatus described will undoubtedly
help to improve the situation, it is equally necessary to provide consistent and robust data analysis
procedures to ensure that the correct data are acquired for inputs to equipment selection and
simulation procedures. Computer software, such as FDS, can be used to correctly analyse leaf
filtration, jar sedimentation and piston press experiments to give both basic values for equipment
selection and scale-up coefficients for equipment simulation (see also Figure 1). In such a way,
common errors are eliminated.
Constant pressure tests are most frequently used to obtain laboratory data that characterise filter
performance and scale-up as experimental arrangements are relatively straightforward. It is
conventional practice to record cumulative time and volume of filtrate and convert these into a
‘Characteristic Plot’ of time/volume vs. volume. Ideally a straight line is produced from which cake
resistance and filter medium resistance can be calculated. In reality, however, deviations from this
ideal are frequently observed as shown in Figure 5. Non-linearities close to the start of filtration
are normally due to interactions between the filter medium and the initial layers of particles forming
the cake and/or poor drainage characteristics of the test filter; the latter can render experiments
worthless. Non-linearities toward the end of filtration can occur if:
• the filtration is carried out in a filter with a fixed volume chamber, then when the chamber is
full of cake the filtrate volume collected in any time interval is reduced
• a cake is formed and the feed slurry is completely used, then the applied pressure
difference serves to deliquor the cake and again the filtrate flow rate is considerably
reduced
• settling of the solids has occurred during the test, then the data sequence tends
to assume a horizontal plateau as permeation (rather than filtration) proceeds.
Any of the above deviations from linearity can lead to significant errors when calculating cake and
filter medium resistances as well as final cake moisture – errors are thus magnified when
sequences of data obtained at different constant pressures are used to calculate the scale-up
coefficients required for simulation. To promote better data analysis and more reliable scale-up it
is recommended that:
• Careful observations are made during an experiment, particularly toward the end so that
the final cake condition is known
• Suitable corrections are applied to account for the loss of liquid from the final cake due to
any deliquoring
• The linear region of the time/volume vs. volume is chosen carefully.
In computer software like FDS, moveable line cursors are used to identify a linear or transition
region on the Characteristic Plot and these are initially positioned by the software via numerical
inference techniques. However, the user has facility to interact with the software and move the
cursors as appropriate in order to overcome their potential misplacement due to excessive data
scatter. In this way the analysis can be amended as many times as required and optimised.
Even with well conducted tests some of the necessary input data can be missing, yet the best
possible analysis must still be done with the available information. Computer software such as
FDS deals with this situation in two ways. Firstly, when the input data are entered they are

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 6

checked as far as is possible and if incorrect data are suspected then a warning is issued; in many
cases a range of acceptable values for the data is also displayed as a guide to the user. Secondly,
the calculation sequences are hierarchical as, depending on which data are missing, a sequence
of assumptions are made in order to carry out the calculations.

EQUIPMENT SIMULATION
With selection performed to produce a ranked list of potential suitable equipment, and data
analysis performed to generate scale-up coefficients which quantify the variation of cake resistance
and cake structure with pressure, the simulation of filtration equipment can be undertaken (see
Figure 1). Although detailed equations and calculations will not be shown, the interested reader is
directed to Tarleton and Wakeman (2006), it is clear that the use of computer simulations of a filter
cycle involving filtration, deliquoring and/or washing can bring benefits both in terms of knowledge
gained and money saved provided that appropriate levels of user interaction and ease of
information transfer are maintained.
Early efforts to model the filter cycle, for example Carman (1938), were followed in the years up to
1990 by several attempts to produce charts for selecting solid/liquid separation equipment (as
detailed above). During the same period attempts were also made to model aspects of the filter
cycle on devices such as rotary vacuum filters and centrifuges (see, for example, Nelson and
Dahlstrom (1957), Kelsey (1965), Rushton (1978), Wakeman (1979, 1981), Wakeman and
Mulhaupt (1985), Shirato et al. (1987), Yelshin et al. (1989) and Wakeman and Wei (1995)). In
more recent years efforts have led to further simulations of rotary vacuum filters (Stahl and
Nicolaou (1990), and Nicolaou (2003)) as well as investigations of the belt press filter (Kobayashi
et al. (1993)) and the rotary disc filter (Nyström (1993)). Perhaps the greatest progress was made
by the introduction of FDS in 2003 and other rival software; details of the development of FDS can
be found in Wakeman and Tarleton (1990, 1994) and Tarleton and Wakeman (1994, 2006).
Software like FDS is typically capable of simulating 20+ types of vacuum and pressure filters to
give filter area and performance indicators for filter cycles involving cake formation at both fixed
and variable pressure/flow conditions, compression and gas deliquoring as well as displacement
washing. Typical vacuum filters are Nutsche, multi-element leaf, belt, drum, disc, table and tilting
pan filters, whilst typical pressure filters include single and multi-element leaf filters, diaphragm and
filter presses as well as the tube press. Again, a combined experimental (evaluation of scale-up
coefficients) and theory is required to give the best results.

Example of Use
A pressure driven Nutsche filter is to be used to separate batches of a crystalline pharmaceutical
product from a propanol based suspension. Variations in upstream formulation mean that
crystallisation of the β-form, which is more difficult to filter, can occur in place of the α-form. In
each batch, 50 kg of solids are present at a concentration of 6% v/v and it is envisaged that cake
formation will occur to a maximum depth of 50 mm. In order to meet product specifications this
new filter installation requires a sequential cycle comprising filtration, displacement washing and
gas deliquoring. Preliminary tests in the laboratory suggest that the cake formed in each cycle
needs to be treated with 3.5 wash ratios of pure propanol to remove unwanted solute residues
after which deliquoring (with pressurised nitrogen) proceeds for 1500 s to dry the cake ready for
discharge with the plough.
The cake characteristics for both the α and β particle forms in suspension have been determined
experimentally and analysed using FDS. These are shown in Table 3 along with other suggested
operational parameters.
For the α-form, determine the required filter area, the solid, liquid and solute throughput rates, the
filter cycle time and other performance indicators. Assess the impact on the filter cycle if β-form
crystallisation occurs.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 7

Solution
Repeated simulation with FDS shows that for the α-form the required filter area is 2 m2 for the
specified 50 kg of solids per batch and 50 mm cake thickness. Each cake discharged from the
Nutsche contains ~16.6 kg of propanol and (theoretically) no undesirable solutes. A total of 637 kg
of propanol passes through the filter per batch, including 178 kg of wash liquid and 5.14 kg of
solutes are removed with the filtrate (4.57 kg) and washings (0.57 kg). As shown in the
penultimate row of Table 4, the total cycle time is 2775 s.
According to Table 4, the β-form produces a cake of higher compressibility as evidenced by the
constitutive equations for cake resistance and solids volume fraction. If simulations are performed
for the β-form with the 2 m2 Nutsche then the results summarised in Table 4 are obtained. Due to
different intrinsic properties, a cake containing 50 kg of solids exhibits a thickness of 47.4 mm
rather than the 50 mm observed with the α-form. The approximate fourfold increase in specific
cake resistance with the β-form more than doubles the total cycle time and leads to a significantly
wetter cake at the end of deliquoring (i.e. 28.6% compared with 24.9% for the α-form). To achieve
a 24.9% moisture content would require either a deliquoring time of ~4300 s at the original 200 kPa
pressure or a raised deliquoring pressure of 480 kPa applied for the specified 1500 s. The
implications of processing the β-form of particle are significant in terms of either longer cycle times
and/or raised equipment specification.
It is evident that a reduced maximum cake thickness would lead to reduced filtration and
deliquoring times, albeit at the expense of a larger filter area and the potential limitation of
increased channelling (during washing) with excessively thin cakes. Conversely a thicker cake
would lead to a smaller filter but longer processing times.

CONCLUSIONS
Filtration equipment is rarely specified without recourse to extensive laboratory and/or pilot scale
tests. The cost of such testing is high, particularly if the process is taken from initial trials
performed to identify potentially suitable equipment right through to larger scale testing. The lack
of a consistent approach can lead to the poor specification and sizing of filters with the result that
required production rates may not always be achieved and unforeseen difficulties arise in filter
cycle operations. Against such a background this paper has presented the potential benefits of a
combined theoretical and experimental approach to equipment selection, scale-up and simulation.
Provided the necessary simulations are available, a range of scenarios can be examined relatively
quickly and comparisons between equipment types made. ‘What if?’ questions can be readily
answered and the consequences of, for instance, variations in feed properties or processing
different feed types assessed. In principle, near optimum processing conditions can also be
established. A further benefit of using a range of simulations is that an unbiased assessment of
separator performance can be acquired prior to approaching a manufacturer, thus reducing the risk
of incorrect or non-ideal equipment selection.
Overall, the author believes that the approach presented not only allows for better equipment
specification but also an opportunity to educate users in filtration technology.

REFERENCES
Alt C., 1975, Practical problems in choosing filtration process and future developments, in The
Scientific Basis of Filtration, Ed. K.J. Ives, pp.411-444, Noordhoff, Leyden.

Andersen N.P.R., Christensen M.L. and Keiding K., 2004, New approach to determining
consolidation coefficients using cake-filtration experiments, Powder Technology, 142, 98-102.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 8

Cambridge Reactor Design, 2010, Falcon Filtration Robot Assistant brochure,

www.cambridgereactordesign.com

Carman P.C., 1938, Fundamental principles of industrial filtration, Trans IChemE, 16, 168-188.

Dahlstrom D.A., 1978, How to select and size filters, in Mineral Processing Plant Design, Eds. A.L.
Mular and R.B. Bhappu, pp.578-600, AIME, New York.

Davies E., 1965, Selection of equipment for solid/liquid separations, Trans IChemE, 43, 256-259.

Davies E., 1970, What is the right choice of filter or centrifuge, Filtration and Separation, 7, 76-79.

Day R.W., 1974, Techniques for selecting centrifuges, Chem. Engng., 81, 98-104.

Emmett R.C. and Silverblatt C.E., 1975, When to use continuous filtration hardware, Filtration and
Separation, 12, 577-581.

Ernst M., Talcott R.M., Romans H.C. and Smith G.R.S., 1991, Tackle solid-liquid separation
problems, Chem. Eng. Prog., 87, 22-28.

Fathi-Najafi, M., 1994, Cake filtration – A study of non-reversible compressible materials, PhD
Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.

Filter Design Software, 2005, Filtration Solutions, UK. (www.filtrationsolutions.co.uk).

Fitch B., 1975, Current theory and thickener design: Part 3 – Design procedures, Filtration and
Separation, 12, 636-638.

Fitch B., 1977, When to use separation techniques other than filtration, AIChE Symposium Series,
73(171), 104-108.

Flood J.E., Porter H.F. and Rennie F.W., 1966, Filtration practice today, Chem. Eng., 73, 163-181.

Gaudfrin G. and Sabatier E., 1978, Tentative procedure to choose a filtration equipment, Proc.
Symposium on Liquid/Solid Filtration, pp.29-47, Soc. Belge de Filtration, Amsterdam.

Garg M.K., Douglas P.L. and Linders J.G., 1991, An expert system for identifying separation
processes, Can. J. Chem. Engng., 69, 67-75.

Grace H.P., 1951, What type of filter and why, Chem. Eng. Prog., 47, 502-507.

Green M.D., Landman K.A., de Kretser R.G. and Boger D.V., 1998, Pressure filtration technique
for complete characterisation of consolidating suspensions, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 37(10), 4152-
4156.

Hawkes R.O., 1970, Optimum utilisation of equipment characteristics, Filtration and Separation, 7,
311-318.

Hicks C.P. and Hillgard A., 1970, Pressure filtration or centrifugal separation - complementary or
competitive, Filtration and Separation, 7, 456-460.

Kelsey G.D., 1965, Some practical aspects of continuous rotary vacuum filters, Trans IChemE, 43,
T248-T255.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 9

Kobayashi Y., Ohba S. and Shimuzu K., 1993, Analysis of dewatering performance of belt press
filter, Proc. 6th World Filtration Congress, pp. 778-781, Japanese Filtration Society, Nagoya.

Komline T.R., 1980, Sludge dewatering equipment and performance, AIChE Symposium Series,
76(197), 321-332.

Korhonen E., Lahdenperä E. and Nyström L., 1989, Selection of equipment for solid-liquid
separation by expert systems, Proc. Filtech Conference, pp.436-443, The Filtration Society,
Karlsruhe.

Jämsä-Jounela S.L. and Oja M., 2000, Modelling module of the intelligent control system for the
variable volume pressure filter, Filtration and Separation, 37(2), 39-49.

Johansson C. and Theliander H., 2002, Measuring concentration and pressure profiles in dead-end
filtration, Proc. European Conference on Filtration and Separation, pp.156-164, Nordic Filtration
Society, Göteborg, Sweden.

Maloney G.F., 1972, Selecting and using pressure leaf filters, Chem. Engng., 79(11), 88-94.

Moos S.M. and Dugger R.E., 1979, Vacuum filtration: Available equipment and recent innovations,
Minerals Engineering, 31, 1473-1486.

Nelson P.A. and Dahlstrom D.A., 1957, Moisture-content correlation of rotary vacuum filter cakes,
Chem. Eng. Prog., 53(7), 320-327.

Nicolaou I., 2003, An innovative computer programme for analysing filtration data and filter
calculation, Proc. Filtech Conference, pp.191-199, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Nyström L.H.E., 1993, Simulation of disc filter for the pulp and paper industries, Filtration and
Separation, 30, 554-556.

Pierson H.G.W., 1990, The selection of solid/liquid separation equipment, in Solid-Liquid

Separation, 3rd Edn., Ed. L. Svarovsky, pp.525-538, Butterworths, London.

Purchas D.B., 1970, A non-guide to filter selection, Chemical Engineer, 237, 79-82.

Purchas D.B., 1972a, Guide to trouble-free plant operation, Chem. Engng., 79, 88-96.

Purchas D.B., 1972b, Cake filter testing and sizing. A standardised procedure, Filtration and
Separation, 9, 161-171.

Purchas D.B., 1978, Solid/liquid separation equipment. A preliminary experimental selection

programme, Chemical Engineer, 328, 47-49.

Purchas D.B., 1981, Solid/Liquid Separation Technology, Filtration Specialists, UK.

Purchas D.B. and Wakeman R.J. (Eds.), 1986, Solid/Liquid Separation Equipment Scale-up, 2nd
Edn., Uplands Press & Filtration Specialists Ltd, London.

Rushton A., 1978, Pressure variation effects in rotary drum filtration with incompressible cakes,
Powder Technology, 20, 39-46.

Shirato M., Murase T., Iritani E., Tiller F.M. and Alciatore A.F., 1987, Filtration in the chemical
process industry, in Filtration, Eds. M.J. Matteson and C. Orr, Marcel Dekker, New York.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 10

Stahl W. and Nicolaou I., 1990, Calculation of rotary vacuum plant, Proc. 5th World Filtration
Congress, pp.37-44, Société Française de Filtration, Nice.

Smith J.C., 1955, How to approach your separation problem, Chem. Engng., 62(6), 177-184.

Sperry D.R., 1924, What is the most suitable filter, Chem. Metall. Engng., 31, 422-428.

Tarleton E.S., 1998, A new approach to variable pressure cake filtration, Minerals Engineering,
11(1), 53-69.

Tarleton E.S., 1999a, Using mechatronics technology to assess pressure filtration, Powder
Technology, 104, 121-129.

Tarleton E.S., 1999b, The use of electrode probes in determinations of filter cake formation and
batch filter scale-up, Minerals Engineering, 12(10), 1263-1274.

Tarleton E.S. and Hadley R.C., 2003, The application of mechatronic principles in pressure
filtration and its impact on filter simulation, Filtration, 3(1), 40-47.

Tarleton E.S. and Hancock D.L, 1996, The imaging of filter cakes through electrical impedance
tomography, Filtration and Separation, 33(6), 491-494.

Tarleton E.S. and Hancock D.L., 1997, Using mechatronics for the interpretation and modelling of
the pressure filter cycle, Trans IChemE, 75(A), 298-308.

Tarleton E.S. and Wakeman R.J., 1994, The simulation, modelling and sizing of pressure filters,
Filtration and Separation, 31, 393-397.

Tarleton E.S. and Wakeman R.J., 2003, New computer software for the selection of solid/liquid
separation equipment, Proc. Filtech conference, pp.200-207, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Tarleton E.S. and Wakeman R.J., 2006, Solid/Liquid Separation: Equipment Selection and Process
Design, Elsevier, Oxford.

Tarleton E.S. and Willmer S.A., 1997, The effects of scale and process parameters in cake
filtration, Trans IChemE, 75(A), 497-507.

Teoh S.K., Tan R.B.H., He D. and Tien C., 2001, A multifunction test cell for cake filtration studies,
Trans Filtration Society, 1(3), 81-90.

Townsend I., 2002, Pressure filtration, Paper presented at ‘Solid/Liquid Separation Plant Design’
conference, 13 pages, The Filtration Society, Birmingham.

Tiller F.M., 1974, Bench scale design of SLS systems, Chem. Engng., 81, 117-119.

Trawinski H.F., 1980, Current solid/liquid separation technology, Filtration and Separation, 17, 326-
335.

Usher S.P., de Kretser R.G. and Scales P.J., 2001, Validation of a new filtration technique for
dewaterability characterisation, AIChEJ, 47(7), 1561-1570.

Wakeman R.J., 1979, The performance of filtration post-treatment processes: 1. The prediction
and calculation of cake dewatering characteristics, Filtration and Separation, 16, 655-660.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 11

Wakeman R.J., 1981, The analysis of continuous countercurrent washing systems, Filtration and
Separation, 18, 35-41.

Wakeman R.J. and Mulhaupt B., 1985, Process design and scale-up of multi-stage washing
pusher centrifuges, Filtration and Separation, 22, 231-234.

Wakeman R.J. and Tarleton E.S., 1990. Modelling, simulation and process design of the filter
cycle, Filtration and Separation, 27, 412-419.

Wakeman R.J. and Tarleton E.S., 1991, Solid/liquid separation equipment simulation and design -
an expert systems approach, Filtration and Separation, 28, 268-274.

Wakeman R.J. and Tarleton E.S., 1994, A framework methodology for the simulation and sizing of
diaphragm filter presses, Minerals Engineering, 7, 1411-1425.

Wakeman R.J. and Wei X., 1995, Simulating the performance of tilting pan filters, Filtration and
Separation, 32, 979-984.

Yelshin A. and Tiller F.M., 1989, Optimising candle filters for incompressible cakes, Filtration and
Separation, 26, 436-437.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 12

TABLES AND FIGURES

Selection parameter in FDS Feed

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5*
Primary separation objective D D D D or W D or W

(Sedimentation test data)

Settling rate (cm s-1) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1-5 >5
Clarity of supernatant poor poor good good good
Sludge proportion (%) <2 > 20 > 20 2-20 2-20

(Filtration test data)

Cake growth rate (cm min-1) < 0.02 < 0.02 0.02-1 0.02-1 >1
D ≡ dewatered cake, W ≡ washed cake; #5 is flocculated from #4
*

Table 1: Settling and filtration characteristics of five batch feeds.

Equipment identified by FDS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

D D D D W D W
Filter press 6 6 - - - - -
Single leaf (pressure Nutsche) filter 6 6 6 6 8 - -
Multi-element tubular candle filter 5 - - - - - -
Multi-element leaf (vertical element) filter 5 - - - - - -
Multi-element leaf (horizontal element) filter - - - - 8 - -
Diaphragm filter press - 8 8 8 8 - -
Multi-element leaf vacuum filter 5 - - 5 5 - -
Tube press - 8* 8* 8* 4* - -
Basket (pendulum) centrifuge - 9 9 9 6 9 6
Basket (peeler) centrifuge - - 9 9 6 9 6
Circular basin thickener - - - - 2 - 2
Screen classifier - - - - 4* - 4*
Gravity Nutsche filter - - - 4* 7* 4* 7*
D ≡ dewatering index; W ≡ washing index; *marginally acceptable; “-” ≡ unsuitable.

Table 2: Equipment potentially suited to the processing of the five batch feeds.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 13

Parameter Value
Septum characteristics
Filter medium resistance (m-1) 4x1010
Operating conditions
Filtration, washing and deliquoring pressures (kPa) 200
Solute concentration in the feed (kg m-3) 9
Particle and fluid properties
Density of filtrate and wash (kg m-3) 802
Viscosity of filtrate and wash (Pa s) 0.0023
Surface tension of filtrate and wash (N m-1) 0.025
Solute diffusivity (m2 s-1) 6x10-10
Particle and cake properties specific to α-form
Density of solids (kg m-3) 1370
Constitutive equations for filtration. Δpf in kPa αav = 5.6x109 Δpf 0.2 m kg-1
Cav = 0.28 Δpf 0.05 v/v
Particle and cake properties specific to β-form
Density of solids (kg m-3) 1420
Constitutive equations for filtration. Δpf in kPa αav = 4.5x109 Δpf 0.5 m kg-1
Cav = 0.27 Δpf 0.06 v/v

Table 3: Characteristic parameters for the Nutsche filter simulation. Δpf is filtration
pressure; αav is specific cake resistance; Cav is cake solids concentration.

Parameter α-form β-form

Filtration phase
Duration (s) 707 2363
Specific cake resistance (m kg-1) 1.62x1010 6.36x1010
Cake solids volume fraction (v/v) 0.365 0.371
Cake thickness (mm) 50 47.4
Cake moisture content (%) 50.5 48.9
Washing phase
Duration (s) 568 1959
Fractional solute recovery 1 1
Deliquoring phase
Duration (s) 1500 1500
Final cake moisture content 24.9 28.6
All phases
Total cycle duration (s) 2775 5822
Total volume of liquids produced (m3) 0.773 0.736

Table 4: Comparison of filter cycle performance for two particle forms in a

Nutsche filter. Δpf = 200 kPa; Af = 2 m .
2

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 14

Figure 1: Flowsheet showing the integration of experimentation and computer software in

the selection, sizing, simulation and optimisation of solid/liquid separation equipment.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 15

Figure 2: An example apparatus for investigating filtration and gas deliquoring. (1) suspension feed vessel;
(2) filter cell, which can be fitted with a range of pressure/electrode sensors; (3) electronic balance; (4)
pressure regulator. The addition of a wash feed vessel, sequencing valves and a rotary indexing table
facilitates automated measurements of cake washing.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 16

Figure 3: Schematic top view of an example filter cell showing a 10 micro-pressure transducer
arrangement together with a single vertical plane of electrode pairings.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 17

0.0010 18
60 s
16 360 s
4 repeat tests

Height above filter medium (mm)

0.0008
Cumulative filtrate volume (m3)

14

12
0.0006
10

8
0.0004
6

4
0.0002

0.0000 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Time (s) Liquid pressure (kPa)

16 16

0s 100 kPa
14 10 s 14 500 kPa
Height above filter medium (mm)

30 s
Height above filter medium (mm)

12 60 s 12
125 s

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Liquid pressure (kPa) Normalised liquid pressure (kPa)

Figure 4: Constant pressure data for aqueous talc suspensions. Repeat V vs. t data at 400 kPa filtration
pressure (top left); repeat experiments showing liquid pressure profiles at 100 kPa filtration pressure (top
right); liquid pressure profiles in a forming cake at 400 kPa filtration pressure (bottom left); normalised liquid
pressure profiles after 60 s filtration time (bottom right).

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.
 18

Figure 5: Typical forms of the t/V vs. V plot showing examples of where non-linearities
can be observed and possible reasons for their occurrence.

Cite paper as: Tarleton E.S., 2011, Equipment selection and process design for solid/liquid separation, Proc. Filtech Conference,
pp.61-77, Filtech Exhibitions, Wiesbaden, Germany.