0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Ingredient-Wise Study of Flux Characteristics in the Ceramic Membrane Filtration of Uncontaminated Synthetic Metalworking Fluids, Part 2: Analysis of Underlying Mechanisms

[+] Author and Article Information
Steven J. Skerlos, Richard E. DeVor, Shiv G. Kapoor

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

N. Rajagopalan

Illinois Waste Management and Research Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

V. Don Angspatt

IRMCO Advanced Lubricant Technologies, Evanston, IL 60201

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 122(4), 746-752 (Nov 01, 1999) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1286131 History: Received March 01, 1999; Revised November 01, 1999
Copyright © 2000 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
FE-ESEM image of an aluminum oxide membrane exposed to synthetic MWF (5 percent) compared to similar membrane exposed to lubricant additive (0.25 percent)
Grahic Jump Location
Flux vs. pressure of base fluid mixture in a new membrane (Experiment C7) vs. after significant exposure to specialty additives (Experiment A27)
Grahic Jump Location
Types of physical obstruction to permeation. (a) Pore constriction due to adsorption. (b) Pore blocking due to physical lodging of particulate. (c) Cake formation due to size-exclusion.
Grahic Jump Location
Electron microscopy images of pore blocking and cake formation. (a) Example of pore blocking caused by 0.22 μm polystyrene beads on a membrane of 0.20 μm pore size. (b) Transition region between cake layer formed by a 0.025 percent dispersion of defoamer in water and portion of membrane not exposed to defoamer.
Grahic Jump Location
Illustration of the concentration polarization phenomenon and characteristic flux vs. pressure response
Grahic Jump Location
Linear and higher-order models for steady-state flux vs. pressure data. Also, comparison of steady-state flux vs. pressure (A1–A6) to transient flux vs. pressure after steady-state flux was achieved at 40 psi (A7).
Grahic Jump Location
FE-ESEM image of an aluminum oxide membrane exposed to synthetic MWF (5 percent) compared to a new membrane

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In