Filter screen

Abstract

Provided is a filter screen having a plurality of slots, each slot having a longest principal axis A1 that has a length L, and each slot having a second axis A2 that is perpendicular to A1 and that has a length W, wherein the distance between adjacent slots in the direction of the axes A2 is XP; wherein XP is greater than W; wherein the distance between adjacent slots in the direction of the axes A1 is YP; either wherein L is 800 micrometers or less and XP is 350 micrometers or less, or wherein L is 1600 m or less and XP is 180 m or less. Also provided is a method of filtering feed water using such a filter screen.

Claims

1. A filter screen having a plurality of slots, each slot having a longest principal axis A1 that has a length L, and each slot having a second axis A2 that is perpendicular to A1 and that has a length W, wherein the slots are arranged so that all the axes A1 are parallel to each other; the slots are disposed in a plurality of rows, wherein the distance between center points of adjacent slots in the direction of the axes A2 is XP; wherein XP is greater than W; the slots are disposed in a plurality of columns, wherein the distance between nearest circumference points of adjacent slots in the direction of the axes A1 is YP; wherein L is 800 micrometers or less, wherein XP is 350 micrometers or less, wherein W is 50 micrometers or less, and wherein the filter has a curved surface.

2. The filter screen of claim 1, wherein the curved surface is enclosed by top and bottom surfaces.

3. The filter screen of claim 1, wherein XP is 200 m or smaller.

4. The filter screen of claim 1, wherein within each row the axes A2 are collinear.

5. The filter screen of claim 4, wherein within each column the axes A1 are collinear.

6. The filter screen of claim 1, further comprising: one or more brushes engaged with the filter screen.

7. The filter screen of claim 1, wherein the slot has a shape along the Z axis that is substantially uniform.

8. The filter screen of claim 1, wherein 90% or more of the slots have W that has a quotient of W/Wav of from 0.8 to 1.2, and wherein Wav is the average width of the slots in that screen.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING

(1) The following is a brief description of the drawings.

(2) FIG. 1 is a top view of a filter screen that is an embodiment of the present invention.

(3) FIG. 2 is a top view of a single slot in the filter screen. FIG. 3A is a perspective partially cut away view of a filter assembly. FIG. 3B is a perspective view of the filter assembly of FIG. 3A including a cleaning assembly.

(4) FIG. 4 is a side view of a single slot, showing a single particle.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

(5) The following is a detailed description of the invention.

(6) The present invention involves the use of a filter screen. Preferred filter screens are made of metal, preferably corrosion-resistant metal, more preferably corrosion-resistant steel, more preferably corrosion-resistant nickel steel. Preferably the thickness of the filter screen is 0.2 to 0.4 mm. The filter screen has a top surface, across which feed water will flow, and a bottom surface, away from which permeate will be removed. The solid portion of the filter screen is herein referred to as the substrate.

(7) The filter screen has a plurality of holes. Each hole is an opening that passes through the entire thickness of the filter screen. The shape of the opening of the hole at the top surface may be the same or different from the shape of the opening at the bottom surface. Preferably the opening of the hole at the bottom surface is larger than the opening of the hole at the top surface.

(8) The holes may be produced by any method. A preferred method is laser percussion drilling.

(9) It is useful to characterize the hole by the opening at the top surface, herein referred to as the slot. It is useful to characterize the slot by determining the longest principal axis (A1), which is the longest line segment that passes through the center point and that has its end points on the circumference of the slot. The center point is determined as follows: an imaginary disk is envisioned that has a uniform cross section in the shape of the slot; an axis is determined that is perpendicular to the cross section and that passes through the center of mass of the disk. The location of that axis on the cross section is the center point. The length of axis A1 (i.e., the length between the end points that lie on the circumference of the slot) is L. A second axis (A2) is perpendicular to A1, passes through the center point, lies in the plane of the slot, has its endpoints on the circumference of the slot, and has length W. Preferably, the slot has a shape that is oval or ellipsoidal.

(10) Preferably, W is 10 m or larger; more preferably 25 m or larger. Preferably, W is 60 m or smaller; more preferably 50 m or smaller; more preferably 40 m or smaller.

(11) Preferably, L is 100 m or larger; more preferably 200 m or larger; more preferably 300 m or larger. Preferably, L is 1600 m or smaller; more preferably 800 m or smaller; more preferably 700 m or smaller; more preferably 650 m or smaller.

(12) The slots are arranged in rows and columns. Within each row, the axes A2 of the slots are collinear. The distance between slots, herein labeled XP, is the distance from the center point of one slot to the center point of the nearest slot in the same row. Because the slots are distinct from each other, XP is larger than W. Preferably, XP is 50 m or larger; more preferably 75 m or larger; more preferably 100 m or larger. Preferably, XP is 350 m or smaller; more preferably 300 m or smaller; more preferably 200 m or smaller; more preferably, 150 m or smaller.

(13) Two preferred embodiments are envisioned, herein labeled A and B. In A embodiments, L is 1600 m or less, while XP is 180 m or less. In A embodiments, L is preferably 1200 m or less. In A embodiments, XP is preferably 150 m or less. In B embodiments, L is 800 m or less, and XP is 350 m or less. In B embodiments, L is preferably 650 m or less. In B embodiments, XP is preferably 200 m or less. The A and B embodiments are identical to each other when L is 800 m or less and XP is 180 m or less.

(14) Within each column, the axes A1 of the slots are collinear. Within each column, the separation between slots, herein labeled YP, is the shortest distance from any point on the circumference of a slot to any point on the circumference of the nearest slot in the same column.

(15) Preferably, YP is 500 m or longer; more preferably 700 m or longer; more preferably 900 m or longer. Preferably YP is 1400 m or less; more preferably 1200 m or less; more preferably 1000 m or less.

(16) A filter screen of the present invention is illustrated in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2., which both show an overhead view of the top surface of a filter screen 1. The filter screen 1 has various slots 2 arranged in rows (horizontal in FIG. 1) and columns (vertical in FIG. 1). The slots 2 are the openings in the top surface of the substrate 4 of the filter screen 1. The definitions of axes A1 and A2 are illustrated in FIG. 2. The parameters W, L, XP, and YP are illustrated in FIG. 1.

(17) Preferably, all the slots in the filter screen are effectively identical. It is contemplated that some variation in size of the slots will exist. Preferably, 90% or more of the slots will have L that has a quotient of L/Lav of from 0.8 to 1.2, where Lav is the average length of the slots in that screen. Preferably, 90% or more of the slots will have W that has a quotient of W/Wav of from 0.8 to 1.2, where Wav is the average width of the slots in that screen. Preferably, 90% or more of the XP values will have XP that has a quotient of XP/XPav of from 0.8 to 1.2, where XPav is the average of all the XP values in that screen. Preferably, 90% or more of the YP values will have YP that has a quotient of YP/YPav of from 0.8 to 1.2, where YPav is the average of all the YP values in that screen. Herein, when the slots of the filter screen are characterized as having W, L, XP, and YP, the values Wav, Lav, XPav, and YPav are meant.

(18) The filter screen of the present invention is preferably used in a cross flow filtration method of removing undesirable particles from water. As used herein, feed water is water that contains undesirable particles. Feed water is intended to be filtered by the process of the present invention. Particles are solid at 25 C. A spherical particle has diameter Dp. A particle that is not spherical is said herein to have diameter (Dp) equal to the minimum Feret diameter (also known as the minimum caliper diameter) of the particle.

(19) Preferred feed water contains undesired particles. Preferably the feed water contains particles having diameter of 100 m or smaller; more preferably 60 m or smaller; more preferably 40 m or smaller; more preferably 25 m or smaller; more preferably 15 m or smaller. Preferably, the feed water contains particles of diameter 5 m or larger. In addition to these preferred particles, the feed water may also contain some undesired particles that are larger than these preferred particles. These statements about the presence of particle diameters are not statements about average sizes. For example, a statement herein that the feed water contains particles of diameter 5 m to 100 m means that such particles are present in the feed water, regardless of whether additional particles are present or not.

(20) Performing the cross flow filtration is illustrated in FIG. 1. The feed water is passed over the top surface of the filter screen. The direction of travel 3 of the water across the top surface of the filter screen is parallel to the axes A2. As illustrated in FIG. 4, a particle with Dp that is much smaller than W can readily pass through the slots, along with some of the water from the feed water. The water, possibly including some small particles, is collected and is labeled herein the permeate. Particles that have Dp significantly larger than W will be retained in the feed water. After the feed water passes over the surface of the filter screen one or more times, the feed water, still containing relatively large particles, is then removed from contact with the filter screen, and the feed water is then referred to herein as retentate.

(21) One suitable apparatus for performing cross flow filtration is known as a hydroclone, and a suitable example is described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,663,472. The relevant portion of a hydroclone is shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B. The filter assembly 26 is located within a vortex chamber (not illustrated), and water circulates around the outside of the filter screen 1, as shown by the clockwise arrows in FIG. 3B. The hydroclone may include a cleaning assembly 68 for removing debris from the surface of the filter screen 1 of the filter assembly 26. A representative embodiment is illustrated in FIG. 3B wherein the cleaning assembly 68 is mounted on the top surface of the filter assembly 26 and includes one or more spokes 70 extending radially outward. A brush 72 extends downward from the end of the spoke 70 and engages (e.g. touches or comes very near to) the surface of the filter screen 1. While shown as a brush 72, alternative cleaning means may be included including wipers, squeegees or scrappers. From 2 to 50 brushes, and preferably from 18 to 24 brushes are used in most embodiments. As represented by curved arrows, the cleaning assembly 68 rotates about filter assembly 26 such that the brush 72 sweeps the surface of the filter screen 1 and removes debris, e.g. by creating turbulence near the surface or by directly contacting the surface. One or more paddles 74 may be mounted to the end of at least one spoke 70 such that fluid flowing into the vortex chamber rotates the cleaning assembly 68 about the filter assembly 26. Spacing paddles 74 evenly about the filter assembly adds stability to the rotating movement of the cleaning assembly 68 and may help maintain vortex fluid flow in the vortex chamber. While shown as extending radially outward from the surface of the filter screen 1, the paddles may be slanted, (e.g. from 5 to 30 or 5 to 30 from the radial axis) to increase rotational velocity.

(22) While the present invention is not limited to any specific theory, it is considered that the present invention takes advantage of a phenomenon known as particle skimming, which is described for example in two articles by Dinther et al. in the Journal of Membrane Science (vol. 371, pages 20-27, 2011; and vol. 440, pages 58-66, 2013). With reference to FIG. 4, it is considered that, without the phenomenon of particle skimming, particles having Dp less than W would pass through the slot into the permeate, while particles having Dp greater than W would be retained. However, under the correct conditions, such as, for example, those that can be present in a hydroclone, particles with Dp somewhat smaller than W will be retained.

(23) The passage of a particle 5 past a slot 2 is illustrated in FIG. 4. Feed water, including a particle 5, is swept along the surface of the substrate 4 at velocity Vt. The velocity Vt is in the same direction 3 as the large arrow 3 in FIG. 1 that indicates the direction of flow. A particle 5 that passes through the slot 2 will travel in with velocity Vr along with the water that also passes through the slot 2.

(24) When a brush 72 is used, the speed of the brush determines Vt. In such embodiments, Vt=F*2**R, where F is the rotational frequency of the cleaning assembly 68 (in cycles per second), and R is the radius of the filter assembly 26, from the rotation axis to the feed side of the filter screen 1, as shown in FIG. 3A.

(25) The velocity Vr is determined by the rate at which permeate is removed from the apparatus. Typically, permeate is removed with a pump. The velocity Vr=M/S where M is the permeate rate (cubic centimeters per second), and S is the total surface area of the slots. It is useful to characterize the operation of the apparatus by the velocity quotient VQ=Vt/Vr. Preferably VQ is 1 or higher; more preferably 2 or higher; more preferably 5 or higher; more preferably 10 or higher. Preferably VQ is 100 or lower; more preferably 75 or lower; more preferably 50 or lower; more preferably 30 or lower.

EXAMPLES

(26) The following are examples of the present invention.

Example 1: Experimental Tests and Empirical Models Based on Data

(27) Screens with different horizontal spacing XP and slot length L were made for testing. The slot width W and vertical spacing YP were kept constant at 40 m and 500 m respectively. The velocity quotient was kept constant at approximately 30.

(28) The test set up consisted of a TEQUATIC PLUS filter (which is a cross flow filter) connected to a 100 gallon water tank which enabled preparing a controlled test water mixture. The test water was filtered using TEQUATIC PLUS filter and samples of test water, and filtered water were collected for particle size distribution (PSD) testing. PSD gives a breakdown of relative proportions of various sized particles that are present in a fluid suspension. PSD was determined using equipment called QICPIC that uses the principle of dynamic image analysis (DIA) to determine the PSD.

(29) For each screen, at each particle diameter of undesirable particles, a filter efficiency is determined. The filter efficiency is the percentage of the particles of that diameter that remains in the retentate.

(30) One important aspect of the filter efficiency results of a given experiment is the 80% cutoff, which is the particle diameter above which 80% or more of the particles are retained in the retentate. For particles of very small diameter, nearly all will pass through the slots, very few particles will remain in the retentate, and filter efficiency will be very low. For particles of very large diameter, nearly all will remain in the retentate, and filter efficiency will be near 100%. For some specific diameter, 80% of the particles will remain in the retentate, and the filter efficiency for that diameter is 80%. Smaller particles will have lower filter efficiency, while larger particles will have higher filter efficiency. The diameter at which 80% of the particles remain in the retentate is the 80% cutoff. A lower value of 80% cutoff is desirable, because a lower 80% cutoff means that more undesirable particles remain in the retentate, making the permeate closer to pure water.

(31) The test water mixture for these experiments consisted of water and sand (specific gravity 2.65) consisting of particle sizes from 5 to 40 m.

(32) Filter screens with different slot length (range 400 to 1600 m) and X-pitch (range 150 to 450 m) were made and tested. The substrates were stainless steel with nickel chromium coating. The thickness of the filter screen was 0.2 mm. Slots were formed by laser percussion drilling, on a rectangular array as shown in FIG. 1. The slots had an oval shape. Filter efficiency curves and 80% cut offs were determined for each screen. Each screen was subjected to 4 to 6 replicate tests. The average 80% cutoff values for each screen were as follows:

(33) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Experimental Measurements Screen Number L (m) XP (m) 80% cutoff (m) 1 1200 350 27 2 400 150 22 3 1600 450 26 4 800 450 29

(34) An empirical model was then built by a linear least-squares fit to the above data. The empirical model was as follows:
(80% cutoff (m))=7.5808+0.02848*(Slot length (m))+0.05647*(X-Pitch (m))+(0.00007484)*(Slot length (m))*(X-Pitch (m))

(35) The model led to various conclusions. For example, when the slot length was below 750 m, lowering XP leads to improved filter efficiency (i.e., lower 80% cutoff). Some representative conclusions from this model for two screens, both having L=600 m, and with XP=150 m or 350 m, are shown in Table 2.

(36) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Conclusions from Empirical Model L = 600 m Filter Efficiency (%) Diameter (m) XP = 150 m XP = 350 m 5 8 4 15 35 20 24 80 68 28 87 80 35 95 92
At each particle size, the empirical-model screen with lower XP had higher filter efficiency than the screen with higher XP. The screen with lower XP had 80% cutoff of 24 m, while the screen with higher XP had 80% cutoff of 28 m.

(37) This effect is more pronounced at smaller values of slot length. That is, for slot length values below 600, using a smaller slot length leads to a greater dependence of 80% cutoff value on XP, with lower XP values resulting in lower 80% cutoff values. It is noted that using a filter screen with low XP can result in low 80% cutoff values, without the need for a high VQ value and without the need for reducing W.

Example 2: Computational Modeling

(38) A meso-scale Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model was developed, which focused on a small number of slots in the screen, and the fluid region on both sides of the screen surface, utilizing periodic and symmetry boundary conditions. The particle motion was captured using a Discrete Element Model (DEM) method. The coupled transient, CFD-DEM, turbulent simulation was run using in the Star-CCM+software package, v11.02 (Siemens PLM Software).

(39) The computational volume included a representative volume element (RVE) portion of the screen positioned near the vertical center of the geometric region. The injection points for the particles were near the slots. The model included four rows of ten slots each with periodic and symmetry boundaries to represent the remainder of the screen geometry. The centrifugal flow pattern will pass through the periodic faces, so that both the fluid and particles that exit the back set of periodic faces, will reappear on the front side with the same velocity vectors. The centrifugal forces due to the curvature of the screen is captured as a source term, Fc, in the momentum equation for the fluid and particles. The geometric parameters for the slots (see FIG. 1 and FIG. 4) include the screen/slot depth, D; the slot growth angle, A; the slot width, W; the slot length, L; and both the widthwise, XP, and lengthwise, YP, pitches (spacing). D, A, and W remained constant during this computational study. The values of D, A, and W were as follows: D=216 m A=10 degrees W=40 m

(40) As defined above, Vt=F*2**R, and Vr=M/S, and the velocity quotient is VQ=Vt/Vr.

(41) The fluid properties (density and viscosity) were those of water. The particle properties were those of silicon dioxide (sand). The particles were assumed to be spherical sand particles with six distinct diameters: 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 40 m; with an approximate initial particle size distribution of: 20, 20, 20, 20, 10, and 10% respectively. Stainless steel material properties are applied to the screen.

(42) The computational model predicts filter efficiency as a function of time. The indicative prediction is at 0.04 seconds, which represents the time at a given slot from one stroke of a brush to the next. This prediction is used herein as the computational model's prediction of filter efficiency.

(43) The computational model was able to make predictions about the effects of various parameters. For example, the following predictions were made for L=828 m and YP=985 m.

(44) At VQ=10, the computational model predicts the following filter efficiency results (filter efficiency at 0.04 sec). FE=filter efficiency V-screen=virtual screen

(45) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Computational Predictions: Filter efficiency VQ = 10 VQ = 30 V-Screen XP FE at FE at FE at FE at # (m) Dp = 15 m Dp = 20 m Dp = 15 m Dp = 20 m V1 185 62.1% 99.5% 71.2% 97.6% V2 135 68.8% 99.8% 82.4% 99.3%

(46) The screen with XP=135 m is predicted to perform better, especially for particles of Dp=15 m. Also, the VQ of 30 gave better filter efficiencies at Dp=15 m.

(47) Another useful way of analyzing the predictions of the computational model is to observe that the model can predict filter efficiency (at 0.04 sec) as a function of particle diameter, and therefore the model can predict the 80% cutoff for each virtual screen. The 80% cutoffs for the two virtual screens described above were as follows:

(48) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Computational Predictions: 80% Cutoffs VQ = 10 VQ = 30 V-Screen # XP (m) 80% Cutoff 80% Cutoff V1 185 17.4 m 16.7 m V2 135 16.8 m 14.6 m
The lower XP value led to the more-desirable lower 80% Cutoff values. The higher VQ value led to the more-desirable lower 80% Cutoff values.

(49) It is expected that the same trend would occur for screens with L of 800 m or less. That is, it is expected that screens that fell within the boundaries of the present invention would also show lower 80% cutoff values when the XP was reduced.