100%(4)100% нашли этот документ полезным (4 голоса)

1K просмотров13 страницSlurry-Flow Pressure Drop in Pipes With Modified Wasp Method (Ej) [MALI; KHUDABADI Et Al] [SME Annual Meeting; 2014-02] {13s}

Jun 20, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Slurry-Flow Pressure Drop in Pipes With Modified Wasp Method (Ej) [MALI; KHUDABADI Et Al] [SME Annual Meeting; 2014-02] {13s}

© All Rights Reserved

100%(4)100% нашли этот документ полезным (4 голоса)

1K просмотров13 страницSlurry-Flow Pressure Drop in Pipes With Modified Wasp Method (Ej) [MALI; KHUDABADI Et Al] [SME Annual Meeting; 2014-02] {13s}

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

METHOD

Tanaji Mali, Andritz Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore, India

Vijay Khudabadi, Andritz Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore, India

Rana A.S, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India

Arihant Vijay, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India

Adarsh M.R, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India

Presented at SME Annual Meeting/Exhibit, February 24-26, 2014, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Abstract

Over the last many decades, a significant amount

of research has gone into the domain of slurry

transport. However, design engineers still face many

challenges with respect to prediction of pressure

drop, critical velocity and other design parameters as

a function of Solids % and Particle Size Distribution

(PSD). The industry requirement is to transfer the

slurry at the maximum concentration as possible

(above 30% (volume %)) to make slurry transport

more economically viable and to reduce water consumption. To facilitate the design and scale-up of

slurry transport in pipelines and in process plants,

there is a need for a correlation that can predict slurry pressure drops over a wide range of operating

conditions and physical properties of different slurries. The objective of this study is to overcome the

limited range of applicability and validity of existing

correlations and to develop a generalized but more

rigorous correlation applicable to a wider range of

slurry systems. The existing Wasp et al. (1977) method is based on multi-phase flow modeling approach.

This study attempts to modify this approach by considering material-specific values of Durands equation co-efficient and by defining flow regimes based

on particle Reynolds number. When compared with

experimental data, the modified Wasp method proposed in this study predicts the pressure drop for

slurry flows more accurately than other available

correlations. Also, the proposed method requires

minimal test/experimental data for a particular slurry

system and can be extended over different input conditions.

An iterative computer algorithm is developed to

calculate the critical settling velocity and pressure

drop in a pipe as a function of Solids % and PSD. The

solution method can easily be implemented in designing slurry pipes, design validation, and studying the

different slurry transport scenarios. The modified

method can also be extended to accurately predict

pressure drops in dynamic pressure flow networks

used in commercial process simulators.

www.andritz.com

volumetric concentration, Pressure drop, Wasp

Method, Drag Coefficient, friction factor, critical

velocity, Durands equation

Introduction

Slurry transport involves huge capital investment.

Therefore, at present many organizations throughout

the world are carrying out research and development

to abate these costs. Literature survey reveals that

studies on slurry transport have followed one of these

three major approaches:

(a) The empirical approach

(b) The rheological based continuum approach

(c) The multiphase flow modeling approach.

Amongst the above mentioned approaches, the

empirical approach is the simplest, and hence has

been widely used and applied. This has led to formulation of the correlations for prediction of pressure

drop and for delineation of flow regimes. The rheological approach is best applicable to slurries of ultrafine non-colloidal particles. The multiphase flow

modeling approach, which considers liquid, particle

and boundary interaction effects, requires significant

computational effort and is best suitable for describing heterogeneous solid-liquid mixture flows.

In this study, multiphase flow modeling approach

has been followed. It considers various important

design parameters such as particle size distribution,

volumetric concentration and pipe roughness in predicting the pressure drop.

Slurry Flow in Pipe

For a pure liquid, the pressure drop in a pipe depends on the flow velocity. The change of pressure

drop with respect to flow velocity is monotonic in

nature. However, in case of slurries, it is not monotonic (Vanoni 1975; Govier and Aziz 1977), as shown

in Figure 1. When the flow velocity is sufficiently

high, all solid particles are suspended with the parti-

1 of 13

decreases below V4 (see Figure 1) (Govier and Aziz

1977), all of the solids are still suspended, but their

distribution becomes heterogeneous. When the velocity further decreases to the critical velocity V3,

some solids start to move along the pipe bottom as a

bed load. At this point, the pressure drop is usually

minimum. When the velocity decreases further very

few solids are transported as the suspended load, and

more amount of solid is transported as the bed load.

At further reduced velocity, V2, the bed load starts to

generate a stationary bed. The stationary bed further

increases the apparent pipe fraction factor, resulting

in increased pressure drop. Finally, at further reduced

velocity, V1, all solids stop moving.

particles.

Heterogeneous flow

When the slurry velocity decreases, intensity of

turbulence and lift forces also decreases due to which,

there is distortion of the concentration profile of the

particles. In this flow regime more of the solids,

particularly the larger particles are contained in the

lower part of the pipe. Thus, there is a concentration

gradient across the pipe cross section with a larger

concentration of solids at the bottom. This flow is

also called asymmetric flow

Saltation flow

In this regime the slurry velocity is low and the

solid particles tend to accumulate on the bottom of

the pipe, first in the form of separated dunes and

then as a continuous moving bed.

Stationary bed flow

In this regime the slurry velocity is further reduced which leads to the lowermost particles of the

bed being nearly stationary. Thus, the bed thickens

and the bed motion is due to the movement of the

uppermost particles tumbling over one another (saltation).

pressure drop

To achieve the optimum performance i.e. minimum pump pressure requirement, the slurry should be

transported at critical velocity (V3). When a higher

proportion of particles start to move as bed load, a

higher pump pressure is required to move them. If the

pump pressure is not high enough, danger of plugging

the pipeline arises. Thus, to overcome the risk of

pipeline plugging, slurry transfer through the pipeline

must be operated above the critical velocity, V3.

Flow Regimes

In slurry transport, different patterns of solid

movement are observed depending upon the nature of

the slurry and the prevailing flow condition. As

shown in Figure 2, the patterns are dependent on the

particle size, volumetric concentration of the solids

and the flow velocity. In horizontal pipes, the patterns

can be conveniently be classified into the following

four regimes:

Homogeneous flow

This regime is also called symmetric flow. In this

flow regime there is a uniform distribution of solids

about the horizontal axis of the pipe, although it may

not be exactly uniform. In this regime, turbulent and

other lifting forces are capable of overcoming the net

terms of particle size vs. velocity (after Shen,1970)

and pictorial representation of flows

www.andritz.com

2 of 13

Where

4.

B represents heterogeneous flow regime

C represents homogeneous flow regime

5.

Over the years, two principal research works have

been developedone around the DurandCondolios

approach and the other around the Newitt approach.

The former evolved gradually and Wasp modified it

for multilayer compound systems (Abulnaga, BE

2002). The latter gradually evolved to yield the twolayer model (Abulnaga, BE 2002).

Wasp and Durand methods are useful tools for

concentrations of coarse particles up to 20% (volume

fraction) (Abulnaga, BE 2002). This covers, in fact,

most dredged gravels and sands, coal in a certain

range of sizes, as well as crushed rocks (Abulnaga,

BE 2002). It is also worth noting that Zandi and

Govatos (1967) worked on sand samples up to 22%

(volume concentration).

The two-layer models have made it possible to

work with volumetric concentrations of 30%

(Abulnaga, BE 2002). But these models have many

limitations and still considerable amount of work has

to be done to overcome these limitations.

the friction loss.

Although this method works well for water-coal

mixture, it over predicts pressure drop for mineral and

rock slurry systems. To overcome this limitation, the

following two modifications have been proposed in

the paper:

1. The value of k, i.e., Durands equation coefficient, is material-specific. For different materials, different values of k should be used

and the value is calculated as described in

algorithm given in next section (step 9). This

modification is needed because the pressure

drop predicted by the heterogeneous part

does not match with the experimental results.

2. Different flow regimes have been defined

based on the assumption that particle size

having Reynolds number less than 2 will always contribute toward homogeneous losses

and particle size having Reynolds number

greater than 525 will always contribute toward heterogeneous losses in horizontal slurry flow pipe for all flow velocities as proposed by Duckworth (Jacobs 2005).

These modifications have been described in the

following section. We refer to these modifications as

the Modified Wasp Model.

Wasp Method

Wasp et al. (1977) method is the most widely used

method for slurry transport applications around the

world because it is applicable for all kinds of flow

regime and accurately predicts the pressure drop,

considering the PSD of the slurry which is an important parameter accounting for pressure drop calculation. Wasp method is an improvement of DurandCondolios approach which predicts pressure drop

accurately for both slurry systems in which particles

have narrow as well as wide size range.

Wasp method accounts for large particle size distributions and pressure drop by dividing the slurry

into homogenous (due to vehicle) and heterogeneous

(due to bed formation) fractions. The solids in the

homogenous fraction increase the density and viscosity of the equivalent liquid vehicle. Wasp method also

considers the effect of pipe diameter and pipe roughness on pressure drop in slurry pipes.

The iterative method proposed by Wasp et al.

(1977) is summarized as follows:

1.

2.

3.

of solids based on friction losses estimated

in steps 2 and 3 (where C/CA is the ratio of

volumetric concentration of solids at 0.08D

from top to that at pipe axis).

Based on the value of C/CA, the fraction size

of solids in homogeneous and heterogeneous

flows is determined.

(1977) Method

The example below illustrates the modifications

proposed in this paper to the Wasp et al (1977) method. This algorithm has been developed in MS Excel

and all the cases described later in this work have

been validated using this newly developed algorithm.

Example 1

Nickel ore slurry was tested in a 159-mm pipeline with a roughness coefficient of 0.045 at a

weighted concentration of 26.3%. The results of pressure drop versus velocity are presented in Table 1.

fraction is divided into a homogeneous and

heterogeneous fraction.

The friction losses of the homogeneous fraction are calculated based on the rheology of

the slurry, assuming Newtonian flow.

The friction losses of the heterogeneous fraction are calculated using Durands equation.

Table 1. Pressure drop versus Speed in a 159mm ID Steel Pipe at a Weight Concentration of

26.3%

Velocity

Pressure drop

(m/s)

(Pa/m)

1.5

175

3

www.andritz.com

3 of 13

1.9

2.3

2.7

3.1

3.5

4.0

the slurry. Any particle with size greater than dcut will

settle down (heterogeneous):

270

360

525

688

847

1046

V6

d cut = D

3

6

1.404

* [2 gD( S L ) / L ]

( 3.525 ) * C v

(1)

Table 2.

Where

Table 2. Particle Size versus Wt. % solids in the

slurry

Particle Size

(m)

Wt.

%

-450

-200

-95

-61

-44

1.88

2.2

1.65

1.17

93.1

v

D

Cv

dcut

= Pipe inside diameter (m)

= Volumetric concentration of solid

= Cut size

= Specific gravity of solid

Based on the cut size, i.e., dcut, four cases have

been considered. They are as following:

Case 1: Cut size - dcut > dRe max and dRe max < d100

Based on the Particle size distribution (PSD) of

solids present in the slurry, plot the PSD curve. Particle size vs. cum. wt. % passing is presented in Table 3

and Figure 3 shows the PSD curve.

slurry

Particle Size

Weight

Cumulative

(mm)

%

Weight %

Passing

-0.85 + 0.40

1.88

100

-0.40 + 0.20

2.20

98.12

-0.20 + 0.105

1.65

95.92

-0.105 + .044

1.17

94.27

-0.044

93.1

93.1

Total

100.00

number 525 and d100 is the maximum particle size

present in the slurry.

In this case, particles having size greater than dRe

max will remain in the heterogeneous part and contribute moving bed losses, whereas particles having size

less than dRe max will remain suspended and contribute

toward homogeneous losses.

This is based on the assumption proposed by

Duckworth that the minimum Reynolds number at

which particles will settle by saltation without continuous suspension is approximately 525 (Jacobs 2005).

Hence particles having Reynolds number greater than

or equal to 525 will always be in the heterogeneous

part of the mixture. This is the proposed modification

in the existing wasp method. As a result of this modification, the new cut size dcut will now be dRe max.

Case 2: Cut size - dcut < dRe min

Step 2: Determine cut size. dcut using Wasps

modified Durand equation.

This is the most important step as it determines

the flow regime of the slurry. The following is the

correlation given by Wasp et al. (1977) to calculate

the cut size, dcut, i.e., the maximum size of the particle

that will remain suspended in the slurry (pseudo-

Where, dRe min is the particle size having Reynolds

number 2.

www.andritz.com

4 of 13

The single particle settling velocity vt is calculated using the Stokes equation:

will remain suspended in the slurry and contribute

toward the losses, whereas particles having size

greater than dRe min will settle down and contribute

toward the heterogeneous losses.

This is another proposed modification in the existing wasp method. As a result of this modification, the

new cut size dcut will now be dRe min.

vt =

vt d Re

(4)

Re =

vL

Where

Case 3: Cut size - dcut lies between dRe max and dRe

min.

dRe

(Re min = 2 and Re max = 525)

= kinematic liquid viscosity

L

Reynolds number 2 and 525, substitute the values in

equations (4), (3) and (2) and calculate dRe.

For this particular example, dRe max = 2.2 mm and

dRe min = 0.150 mm; therefore, Case 3 of the flow regime will be considered.

will remain suspended and contribute toward homogeneous losses, whereas particles with size greater

than dcut will settle down and contribute toward heterogeneous losses.

Case 4: Cut size - dcut is > d100 and dRe max > d100

homogeneous fraction based on the rheology of the

slurry, assuming Newtonian flow.

Friction losses of the homogeneous fraction are

calculated using Darcys formula:

2

Loss (Pa/m) = f DV m

2D

loss will be due to the homogeneous part only and

losses due to the heterogeneous part will be zero. No

iteration is needed in this case; therefore, loss is calculated directly considering pseudo-homogeneous

flow. This usually happens when velocities are very

high and particle size present in the slurry is very

small.

For this particular example, the mean slurry velocity under consideration is 1.9 m/s, solid specific

gravity = 4.074, liquid specific gravity = 1, and pipe

diameter is 0.159 m.

Thus, calculated cut size, dcut = 152 micron.

(5)

Where

fD = Darcy friction factor.

v = Mean velocity of slurry (m/s).

m = Density of carrier fluid (kg/m3) (including

the particles less than dcut).

D = Inside diameter of pipe (m).

The Swain-Jain equation may be used in the range

of 5000 < Re < 107 to determine the friction coefficient of the homogeneous part of the mixture:

fD =

the flow regime of the slurry.

In order to calculate the particle size having

Reynolds number 2 and 525, the following equation

are used:

The drag co-efficient cD is calculated using the

Reynolds number by the following equation (Manfred

Weber):

cD = (

d g

4

* ( Re ) * ( S L / L ) (3)

3

cD

0.25

(6)

2

log[( /Di ) / 3.7 + 5.74 / Rem0.9 ]

Where

Di = Inside diameter of the pipe (m).

Rem is the Reynolds number for the slurry which is

calculated using Thomas (1965) correlation for slurry

viscosity m as given below:

24

4

)+(

) + 0.4 (2)

Re

Re

www.andritz.com

5 of 13

Re m =

( mV m D )

moving bed or heterogeneous part of the mixture.

In this particular example, dcut is 152 micron,

therefore, particle size between 850 micron and 152

micron contributed toward heterogeneous losses.

Redistributed particle size is presented in Table 4.

(7)

m

= 1 + 2.5Cvf + 10.05Cvf2 +

l

(8)

0.00273 exp(16.6Cvf )

Size

Average

Cv in

Cv bed in

( mm)

Particle

Solthe slurry

size (mm)

ids

(at

(%)

overall

solids Cv of

mixture at

8.035%)

(%)

-0.85

0.63

1.88

0.151

+ 0.40

-0.40

0.30

2.20

0.177

+ 0.20

-0.20

0.18

0.92

0.074

+0.152

Total

5

0.402

Where

Cvf = volumetric concentration of solids in homogeneous part of mixture

l = liquid viscosity

m = slurry viscosity

For this particular example, dcut, as determined in

step 2 is 152 micron. Therefore, from the PSD curve,

95% by weight solids are less than 152 micron;

hence, they contribute to the homogeneous losses.

Next, calculate the volumetric concentration Cvf of

solids in the homogeneous part of the mixture as

(Abulnaga, BE 2002):

Cv total = Cw*( m / s ) (9)

and drag coefficient for each size range.

It is essential first to determine the drag coefficient and the particle Reynolds number for each size

fraction to calculate the loss due to each size fraction

in the heterogeneous part of the mixture.

To calculate the particle Reynolds number, the

density of the slurry m, viscosity of the slurry m and

the speed of the carrier fluid V are used. The equation

to calculate the particle Reynolds number is as following:

Cvf = 0.95*Cv total = 7.633%

Where

m

s

= slurry density

= solid density

= total volumetric concentration of sol-

Cv total

ids

Cw = total solids concentration by weight

ReP =

slurry, 7.633% solids by volume are in suspension

and contribute toward the homogeneous losses.

Next, m can be calculated using the Cvf and it is

calculated as 1.2598 and corresponding Rem is

2956192. Substituting the value of Rem in Swain-Jain

equation to determine the fD, which is equal to 0.017.

Therefore, loss (Pa/m) due to homogeneous part of

the mixture from Darcys formula is calculated as

238.46 Pa/m. The lab test measured 270 Pa/m; the

losses due to the moving bed are therefore 31.54

Pa/m.

Vd P m

(10)

Where

dp = the average particle size of each size fraction.

To calculate the drag coefficient, CD, of a sphere,

the Turton equation is used:

CD = (( 24 )*(1+0.173*Rep0.657)) +

Re P

0.413

1 + 11630 * (Re P

considering the cut size dcut.

To calculate the losses due to the moving bed or

heterogeneous part of the mixture, the size distribution of the heterogeneous part (size greater than dcut)

is divided into various size fraction and then loss due

to each size fraction is calculated and sum of all the

1.09

(11)

www.andritz.com

6 of 13

in Example 1

Particle

AvParticle

Drag

size

erage

Reynolds

coefficient

(mm)

Particle

number

(Cd)

Size

(Rep)

(mm)

-0.85 +

0.63

1160

0.455

0.40

-0.40 +

0.30

557

0.550

0.20

-0.20 +

0.18

327

0.662

0.152

solids in moving bed

AvPartiDrag

Cv

Preserage

cle

coeffisure

bed

Particle

Reyncient

(

Loss

Size

olds

(Cd)

%)

(Pa/

(mm number

m)

)

(Rep)

0.63

1160

0.455

0.

14.51

151

0.30

557

0.550

0.

14.74

177

0.18

327

0.662

0.

5.36

074

Total

34.61

heterogeneous fraction using Durands equation.

Wasp et al. (1977) recommend using Durands

equation for each size fraction of solids to determine

the increase in pressure losses due to moving bed:

Pbed

gD ( ) /

L

L

= 82 PL C vbed i s2

V CD

(12)

fraction size of solids in homogeneous and

heterogeneous flows.

By comparing with the measured 270 Pa/m, the

calculations for the bed are higher and can be refined

by the method of concentration1 using equation

(Abulnaga, BE 2002):

1.5

Where

log10 [

PL

liquid.

= Volumetric concentration of bed porCv bed

tion of a particular size fraction.

Di = Inside diameter of the pipe

v = Mean slurry velocity.

CD = Drag coefficient of a particular size fraction.

1.8Vt

C

]=

(13)

CA

K xU f

Where

= the ratio of volumetric concentration

C/CA

of solids at 0.08D from top to that at pipe axis,

= the dimensionless particle diffusivity and

is taken as 1.0

Kx = 0.4 and is defined as von Karman coefficient

Uf = the friction velocity calculated from the

pressure drop in first iteration

Vt = settling velocity of a particular size particle calculated using standard drag relationships.

equation coefficient of 82 is too high for nickel suspensions. Therefore, for this particular example, a

value of 23 is used as the modified Durands equation

coefficient. The value of the constant is determined

by iteration based on the test results. Step 9 explains

how to determine the value of this constant.

Results of the calculation for this particular case

are presented in Table 6:

The total friction loss is therefore 239.46 Pa/m +

34.61 Pa/m = 274.07 Pa/m. This value is compared

with the experimental pressure drop, i.e., 270 Pa/m, it

is observed that these values do not match. Therefore,

an iterative technique is used to refine the value of

pressure drop. This is explained in the following

steps.

velocity using the Stokes equation:

Vt =

4( S L )gd g

3 L C D

(14)

calculated as:

Total loss = 2 f f V 2 /Di (15)

fN =

Ptotal Di

(16)

2V 2

To calculate Uf, the following Equation (Abulnaga,

BE 2002) is used:

Uf = V (fN /2) (17)

www.andritz.com

7 of 13

pressure drop was calculated and compared with

the experimental results.

To validate this method for different volumetric

concentration of solids in slurry, data points from the

open literature was collected and pressure drop using

the Modified Wasps method was calculated. The Cv

value ranged from 9.4% to 51.7% and the speed

ranged from 1 m/s to 5 m/s. The Pipe inside diameter

for this case was 54.9 mm and the solid specific gravity was 2.47. Results of this case study are presented

in Table 15

each size fraction is calculated directly by multiplying

original Cv bed by C/CA. Iterated pressure drop for each

size fraction is calculated using this new Cv bed. This is

repeated till the value converges.

For this particular example, the refined pressure

loss after 1st, 2nd and 3rd iteration is represented in

table 7, 8 and 9 respectively.

After iteration, pressure loss due to heterogeneous part converges to 29.93 Pa/m, and hence total loss

due to the slurry flow is 238.46 + 29.93 = 268.4 Pa/m

which is very close to experimental value, i.e., 270

Pa/m.

coefficient, k.

The value of the Durands equation coefficient is

material-specific. To determine its value, just one test

result data is required and the modified value of k is

calculated using iteration. For the 1st iteration, pressure drop using k=82 is calculated. If the total calculated pressure drop does not match with the experimental pressure drop then a modification in the value

of k is required. To determine the modified value of

k, a ratio R is defined.

Solid particles can be moved upward when the fluid velocity (V) exceeds the hindered settling velocity

of the solids (wS).

V >> w S

Where

w S = v t ( 1 cV ) (18)

= Hindered settling velocity of particle

= constant.

vt = Single particle terminal velocity (from

equation 14)

wS

(for k=82).

An Iterated value of k is determined by multiplying k by ratio R, which is re-iterated until the value of

R converges to 1. After iteration, a value of k is obtained for which R = 1, which is then defined as the

modified Durands equation coefficient.

taken into account while calculating the pressure

drop. Fig.4 gives the influence of the concentration

according to Maude and Whitmore (1958).

(1977) Method

Case study 1: Verification of Modified Wasps

method for different flow regime.

The modified Wasp method was verified for all

the cases of flow regime, i.e., case 1, case 2, case 3,

and case 4 and results are presented in Table 10. The

calculated pressure drop was very accurate and within

10% error in prediction.

Figure 8. Influence of the concentration on settling

velocity according to Maude and Whitmore (1958)

replotted from Weber (1974).

from open literature.

In this case study, various experimental points

have been collected from several sources spanning

the years 1942-2002 [refer to Table 12]. This wide

range of databases includes experimental information

from different physical systems. Table 13 suggests

the wide range of the collected databank for pressure

drop. Results of the case study are presented in Table

14.

(2),(3) and (4) corresponding to particle diameter d100

(=dRe). Using this Reynolds number, the value of is

calculated from the above curve. Hindered settling

velocity of the particle is calculated corresponding to

the value of obtained, using equation (18). If the

fluid velocity is lesser than hindered settling velocity

of particle (ws), chocking condition occurs and there

is no movement of solids along the vertical section. If

different volumetric concentration of glass beads

www.andritz.com

8 of 13

velocity of particle (ws), then the pressure drop is

calculated as described in the next section.

The flow regime of the vertical section depends

on critical deposition velocity (ucri), which is calculated by Wasp Modified Durands equation (19).

1/ 6

d

u cri = 3.525cv0.234 100

D

2 Dg

s L

L

(19)

Homogeneous or pseudo-homogenous flow regime occurs when mean slurry velocity (V) is greater

than the critical deposition velocity (ucri). At this condition there is almost no slip between particles and

fluid, therefore particle velocity is approximately

equal to mean slurry velocity. Pressure drop for the

vertical homogenous regime is calculated using the

following equation (20).

p = f D

m

2

V2

Lvert

+ m gLvert

D

(20)

Where

us = velocity of solids

Lvert = length of vertical section under consideration

www.andritz.com

9 of 13

Average

Particle Size

(mm)

0.63

0.30

0.18

Total

Drag Coefficient

(Cd)

0.455

0.550

0.662

29.89

Average

Particle Size

(mm)

0.63

0.30

0.18

Total

Average

Particle Size

(mm)

Terminal

-1.8

C/CA

Velocity

vt/KxUf

(m/s)

0.201

-0.0844

0.823

0.127

-0.0532

0.884

0.089

-0.0371

0.918

Drag Coefficient

(Cd)

0.455

0.550

0.662

29.89

Drag Coefficient

(Cd)

0.63

0.30

0.18

Total

0.455

0.550

0.662

29.89

Iterated

Cv bed

(%)

0.125

0.157

0.068

Iterated

Pressure loss

(Pa/m)

11.94

13.03

4.92

Terminal

-1.8

C/CA

Velocity

vt/KxUf

(m/s)

0.201

-0.0837

0.824

0.127

-0.0528

0.886

0.089

-0.0368

0.919

Iterated

Cv bed

(%)

0.1248

0.1569

0.068

Iterated

Pressure loss

(Pa/m)

11.96

13.05

4.92

Terminal

-1.8

C/CA

Velocity

vt/KxUf

(m/s)

Iterated

Cv bed

(%)

Iterated

Pressure loss

(Pa/m)

0.201

0.127

0.089

-0.0837

-0.0528

-0.0368

0.824

0.886

0.919

0.1248

0.1569

0.068

11.96

13.05

4.92

Table 10. Pressure drop vs. speed in a 159-mm ID Steel pipe at a weight concentration of 26.3% at 20o C

Cv

VelociDi

ExperiCalculat- % Error

Flow

L

L

S

(%)

ty

(m)

mental

Loss

ed

Regime

3

(kg/m3) (kg/m ) (mP

(m/s)

(Pa/m)

Loss(Pa/

a.s)

m)

8

1.5

.159

4074

1000

1

175

195

11

Case 2

8

1.9

.159

4074

1000

1

270

268

-0.7

Case 3

8

2.3

.159

4074

1000

1

360

354

-1.6

Case 3

8

2.7

.159

4074

1000

1

525

472

-10

Case 4

8

3.1

.159

4074

1000

1

688

616

-10

Case 4

8

3.5

.159

4074

1000

1

847

779

-8

Case 4

8

Cv

(%)

4

4

4

4

4

8.1

8.1

8.1

8.1

12.8

4.0

Velocity

(m/s)

1.2

2.8

3.2

3.6

4

1.6

2

3.6

4

1.6

www.andritz.com

.159

Di

(m)

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

4074

1000

1046

1008

ExperiCalculated

L

L

S

mental

Loss

3

(kg/m3) (kg/m ) (mPa.s)

Loss

(Pa/m)

(Pa/m)

2820

1000

1

232

227

2820

1000

1

1006

897

2820

1000

1

1316

1165

2820

1000

1

1652

1469

2820

1000

1

2013

1808

2820

1000

1

438

366

2820

1000

1

619

500

2820

1000

1

1781

1579

2820

1000

1

2168

1942

2820

1000

1

468

448

-3.6

Case 4

% Error

Flow

Regime

-1.81

-10.9

-11.4

-11.0

-10.1

-16.5

-19.5

-11.3

-10.4

-4.3

Case 3

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 3

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 3

10 of 13

12.8

12.8

19.1

19.1

19.1

26

26

26

26

3.6

4

2

3.6

4

2

3.2

3.6

4

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

.105

No

1

2

Pipe Dia

(m)

0.019-0.495

[1]

2820

2820

2820

2820

2820

2820

2820

2820

2820

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1953

2317

722

1962

2375

774

1703

2104

2529

1700

2092

638

1868

2298

741

1636

2059

2531

-12.9

-9.7

-11.6

-4.74

-3.22

-4.23

-3.98

-2.14

0.04

Case 4

Case 4

Case 3

Case 4

Case 4

Case 3

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Author

No

Author

Wilson (1942)

11

Gillies et al. (1983)

Durand & Condolios(1952)

12

Roco & Shook(1984)

13

14

Ma (1987)

Shook et al.(1968)

15

Hsu (1987)

16

17

Ghanta (1996)

18

19

Schaan et al.(2000)

10

20

Table 13. Slurry system[1] and parameter range from the literature data

Particle Dia Liquid denSolids denLiquid

Velocity U

(micron)

sity

sity

viscosity

(m/s)

(kg/m3)

(kg/m3)

(mPa.s)

Solids Conc.

(fraction) f

38.3-13000

0.014-0.333

1000-1250

1370-2844

0.12-4

0.86-4.81

Cv

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Table 14. Results of data points collected from open literature having flow regime of case 4

VelociDi

ExperiCalcu%

Flow

L

L

S

ty

(m)

mental

lated

Error

Regime

3

3

(kg/m ) (kg/m ) (mPa.s) Loss (Pa/m)

(m/s)

Loss

(Pa/m)

3

0.0549

2470

1000

0.85

1990

2210

-11.1

Case 4

4

5

3

4

5

3

1.1

1.11

1.3

2.59

2.34

2.01

1.78

1.59

0.0549

0.0549

0.0549

0.0549

0.0549

0.0549

0.019

0.0526

0.0526

0.2085

0.2085

0.2085

0.2085

0.2085

2470

2470

2470

2470

2470

2470

2840

2330

2330

1370

1370

1370

1370

1370

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3430

5350

2230

3790

6390

3410

1250

294

543

267

226

177

147

123

3726

5599

2706

4536

6786

3645

1114

321

609

318

263

196

158

129

-8.6

-4.7

-21.3

-19.7

-6.2

-6.9

10.9

-9.2

-12.2

-19.1

-16.4

-10.7

-7.5

-4.9

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

11

www.andritz.com

11 of 13

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

1.37

1.66

1.66

1.66

2.9

3.5

2.9

3.5

2.9

3.5

2.9

3.5

3.16

3.76

3.07

3.76

2.5

2.5

3

1.9

2.8

2.7

2.01

Cv

Velocity

(m/s)

0.2085

0.0515

0.0515

0.0515

0.263

0.263

0.263

0.263

0.263

0.263

0.263

0.263

0.495

0.495

0.495

0.495

0.1585

0.1585

0.1585

0.0507

0.04

0.04

0.04

Di(m)

1370

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2650

2270

2270

2270

S

(kg/m3)

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1250

1250

1250

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1.3

1.3

0.12

1

4

4

4

99

666

900

1136

261

334

305

382

355

453

414

526

143

186

157

254

475

630

648

1175

3926

3580

2217

Experimental

L

L

Loss (Pa/m)

3

(kg/m ) (mPa.s)

98

671

791

930

272

392

313

443

353

505

392

560

151

211

161

271

421

532

526

1140

4022

3487

1939

WASP

modified

loss

(Pa/m)

222

1.8

-0.8

12.1

18.1

-4.0

-17.4

-2.4

-15.9

0.5

-11.4

5.2

-6.4

-5.7

-13.6

-2.5

-6.4

11.4

15.6

18.9

3.0

-2.4

2.6

12.5

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

Case 4

%

Error

Flow

Regime

14.9

Case 4

9.4

0.0549

2470

1000

261

10.06

0.0549

2470

1000

847

781

7.7

Case 4

10.41

0.0549

2470

1000

1754

1642

6.3

Case 4

10.44

0.0549

2470

1000

2868

2783

3.0

Case 4

10.93

0.0549

2470

1000

4153

4230

-1.9

Case 4

19.22

0.0549

2470

1000

341

263

22.6

Case 4

20.48

0.0549

2470

1000

1051

932

11.3

Case 4

20.4

0.0549

2470

1000

1981

1937

2.2

Case 4

19.52

0.0549

2470

1000

3263

3225

1.1

Case 4

20.45

0.0549

2470

1000

4666

4927

-5.6

Case 4

30.3

0.0549

2470

1000

373

323

13.4

Case 4

30.02

0.0549

2470

1000

1037

1101

-6.2

Case 4

31.19

0.0549

2470

1000

2037

2330

-14.4

Case 4

30.75

0.0549

2470

1000

3291

3889

-18.2

Case 4

30.24

0.0549

2470

1000

4851

5783

-19.2

Case 4

38.95

0.0549

2470

1000

2420

2731

-12.9

Case 4

40.64

0.0549

2470

1000

3865

4760

-23.2

Case 4

39.56

0.0549

2470

1000

5761

6933

-20.0

Case 4

51.7

0.0549

2470

1000

2099

2002

4.6

Case 4

12

www.andritz.com

12 of 13

49.24

0.0549

2470

1000

mean slurry velocity (V) is less than critical deposition velocity (ucri). Although the distribution of solids

is homogeneous, considerable slip exists. Therefore,

the local concentration cV has to be calculated for

each velocity with respect to the delivered concentration and given solid mass flow rate, before calculating

the pressure drop.

3082

1 t

V

+ 4 c vtotal

Case 4

vt

V

(21)

calculate the slurry viscosity by using Thomas correlation (eq. 8). This results in a modified value of slurry Reynolds number (eq. 7) and Darcy friction factor

(eq. 6). This value of Darcy friction factor (fD) is used

to calculate pressure drop using equation (20).

-19.7

applicability of this method is thus not constrained

due to unavailability of extensive experimental data.

It can be easily applied to new slurry systems with

minimal laboratory effort.

i.

V vt

cV =

1+

2Vt V

3689

involving iterations.

Accurately predicts the pressure drop over a

wide range of input parameters for all types

of slurry system like coal/water, nickel

ore/water, sand/water, copper ore/water, etc.

Effectively predicts pressure drop as a function of Particle Size Distribution (PSD) and

solid percentage.

ii.

iii.

study, this method delivers a comparatively smaller

error percentage as compared to other existing models

for prediction of pressure drop in slurry flows.

References

pressure drop for all the data points considered in this

study is shown in Figure 9. It is observed that pressure drop calculation by the Modified Wasp method

gives better prediction and is in good agreement with

experimental data. The best fit is the straight line

having slope = 1, which means the predicted values

are equal to the experimental values. It is observed

that most of the predicted values lie very close to

straight line and maximum error observed is less than

15%, which confirms that prediction is better using

this method.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

k is corrected (Durands equation coefficient) for

calculating pressure drop using this method. The k

value for any specific slurry system can be determined with method described by Wasp.

This method requires one experimental value of

pressure drop for a unit length at a given solid % and

PSD. Once this slurry specific k is available the

same value can be used for predicting the pressure

Handbook, McGraw-Hill.

Shou George, Solid-liquid flow system

simulation and validation, Pipeline Systems

Incorporated, USA

Manfred Weber, Liquid-Solid Flow

Lahiri SK and Ghanta KC,Prediction of

Pressure drop of slurry flow in Pipeline by

Hybrid Support vector Regression and Genetic Algorithm Model, Department of

Chemical Engineering, NIT, Durgapur, India.

Kaushal and Tomita, Solids concentration

profiles and pressure drop in pipeline flow

of multisized particles slurries, Department

of Mechanical Engineering, Kyushu Institute

of Technology, Japan.

Kaushal and Tomita, Effect of particle size

distribution on pressure drop and concentration profile in pipeline flow of highly concentrated slurry, Department of Mechanical

Engineering, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Japan.

Jacobs BEA (2005), Design of Transport

Systems, Elsevier Applied Science, England.

13

www.andritz.com

13 of 13

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.