## 3 Results and Discussion
### Optimization Design of the Bag Filter
#### 3.2.3 Comparative Analysis of Full-Scale Optimization Models
Among these models, the flow distribution coefficient curve of Scheme 3 is the smoothest, indicating the most uniform internal airflow distribution. The flow distribution of Scheme 4 is also improved considerably, but the \(K_{qi}\) is slightly larger for the filter bags (row \(Z_{1}\)) in the region close to the outer chamber wall. Additionally, the airflow uniformity indices and pressure drop between the inlet and outlet for the original single-chamber model and each optimized model were calculated, as summarized in Table 4.  
As shown in Table 4, the original model exhibits a relatively high standard deviation of the filtered air volume, with a \(C_{v}\) value of 25.33%, which significantly exceeds the expected standard of 15%. Additionally, the RMS value \(\sigma\) is greater than 0.25, indicating poor airflow distribution uniformity and highlighting substantial potential for optimization. In comparison, the airflow distribution in each of the optimized models shows improvement. Among the three models with different deflector lengths, the overall optimization order is as follows: Scheme 2 \(<\) Scheme 1 \(<\) Scheme 3. For the models with varying deflector spacings, the optimization order is as follows: Scheme 5 \(<\) Scheme 1 \(<\) Scheme 4. Notably, as the deflector lengths increase, the airflow distribution improves significantly compared to the original model. On the other hand, adjusting the spacing between the deflectors has a relatively minor impact on the overall flow field distribution. Following a comprehensive analysis of the flow field distribution in each model, a combination of deflector designs from Schemes 3 and 4 was considered, resulting in the Three Deflectors Scheme 6 model. This model features deflector lengths of 1304-1554-1804 mm, with deflector spacings of 905-945-985-1025 mm. Numerical simulation results, as shown in Table 4, revealed that, except for the \(\Delta K_{qi}\) index, other performance indices did not show significant improvement compared to Scheme 4. While Scheme 3 outperforms Scheme 4 in terms of the airflow uniformity evaluation indices (\(\Delta K_{qi}\), \(\Delta\overline{K}_{\xi}\), \(\sigma\), and \(C_{v}\)), the results of previous studies on discrete-phase motion indicate considerable inconsistency in particulate abrasion within the filter bags in Scheme 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Schemes** & \(\Delta K_{qi}\) & \(\Delta\overline{K}_{\xi}\) & \(\sigma\) & \(Cv\) (\%) & \(\Delta P\) \\ \hline Original Model & 1.181 & 0.190 & 0.253 & 25.334 & 523.67 \\ Three Deflectors Scheme 1 & 0.682 & 0.103 & 0.130 & 13.086 & 535.43 \\ Three Deflectors Scheme 2 & 0.823 & 0.120 & 0.151 & 15.124 & 527.80 \\ Three Deflectors Scheme 3 & 0.526 & 0.097 & 0.119 & 11.882 & 532.31 \\ Three Deflectors Scheme 4 & 0.705 & 0.100 & 0.122 & 12.263 & 465.02 \\ Three Deflectors Scheme 5 & 0.763 & 0.113 & 0.143 & 14.335 & 523.48 \\ Three Deflectors Scheme 6 & 0.564 & 0.110 & 0.132 & 13.244 & 533.46 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Evaluation indices of airflow uniformity for different schemes in full scale. Furthermore, Table 4 shows that the modeled inlet and outlet pressure drop for Scheme 4 decreased compared to the original model, whereas the pressure drop in Scheme 3 was even higher than that of the original model. Based on the evaluation of airflow uniformity and particulate matter trajectory analysis, it can be observed that the Three Deflectors Scheme 4 model demonstrates notable improvements compared to the other models analyzed. This model achieves a more balanced airflow distribution, with a 40.3% improvement in the \(\Delta K_{qi}\) index, a 47.4% improvement in the \(\Delta\overline{K}_{\xi}\) index, a 51.8% improvement in \(\sigma\), and a 51.6% reduction in the \(\mathbb{C}_{\textsc{p}}\) index, compared to the original model. Additionally, the inlet and outlet pressure drop decreased by 11.2%, leading to reduced energy consumption.