Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

SLURRY-FLOW PRESSURE DROP IN PIPES WITH MODIFIED WASP

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

Keywords: Particle size distribution, Slurry flow,


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

cle distribution being homogeneous. As the velocity


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.

body forces as well as the viscous resistance of the


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).

Figure 1. Plot of transitional mixture velocity with


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

Figure 2. Flow regimes of heterogeneous flows in


terms of particle size vs. velocity (after Shen,1970)
and pictorial representation of flows

www.andritz.com

2 of 13

Where

4.

A represents saltation flow regime


B represents heterogeneous flow regime
C represents homogeneous flow regime
5.

Research Work & Different Methods


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.

Steps 2 to 5 are re-iterated until convergence of


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.

A ratio, C/CA, is defined for the size fraction


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.

Algorithm for Modified Wasp et al.


(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.

By using Durands equation, the total size


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

homogeneous) at a given operating flow velocity of


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)

The particle size distribution of the ore is presented in


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

= Operating velocity of slurry (m/s)


= Pipe inside diameter (m)
= Volumetric concentration of solid
= Cut size
= Specific gravity of solid

L = Specific gravity of the liquid


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

Step 1: Plot the PSD curve.


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.

Figure 4. Cut size for flow regime Case 1

Table 3. PSD Data of the solids presents in the


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

Where, dRe max is the particle size having Reynolds


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

Figure 3. Particle size distribution curve


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-

Figure 5. Cut size for flow regime Case 2


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:

In this case, particles having size less than dRe min


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 =

The Particle Reynolds number Re is then calculated :


vt d Re
(4)
Re =
vL
Where

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

=Particle size having Reynolds number Re


dRe
(Re min = 2 and Re max = 525)
= kinematic liquid viscosity
L

Figure 6. Cut size for flow regime Case - 3

To calculate the value of particle size having


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.

In this case, particles having size less than dcut


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

Step 4: Calculate the friction losses of the


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

Figure 7. Cut size for flow regime Case 4

2D

In this case, no particles will settle, and the total


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 =

Step 3: Calculate dRe max and dRe min to determine


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

= Roughness coefficient (m).


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 )

size fraction loss gives the combined loss due to the


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 )

Table 4. Redistributed particle size for heterogeneous part of the mixture


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)

Step 6: Determine the particle Reynolds number


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:

Cv total = 26.3*(1244/ 4072) = 8.035%


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 =

Therefore, out of total 8.035% solids by volume in


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

Step 5: Calculate the redistributed particle size


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)

Results are summarized in Table 5.

www.andritz.com

6 of 13

Table 5. Drag Coefficient for single particle size


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

Table 6. Calculated Losses for each fraction of


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

Step 7: Calculate the friction losses of the


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)

Step 8: Based on the value of C/CA, determine the


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 [

= Pressure drop due to flow of carrier


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.

Ellis and Round (1963) indicated that Durands


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.

Where Vt is defined as the single particle size terminal


velocity using the Stokes equation:
Vt =

4( S L )gd g
3 L C D

(14)

The equivalent fanning factor (Abulnaga, BE 2002) is


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

in slurry flow was collected and Modified Wasp


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

By determining the value of C/CA ,new Cv bed for


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.

Vertical Slurry Flow in Pipes

Step 9: Determine the value of Durands equation


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

R = total experimental loss / total calculated loss


(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.

Hindering effect of solids concentrations must be


taken into account while calculating the pressure
drop. Fig.4 gives the influence of the concentration
according to Maude and Whitmore (1958).

Validation of Modified Wasp et al


(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).

Case study 3: Verification of data sets available


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.

Reynolds number is calculated using equations


(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

Case study 4: Kaushal and Tomita {2003} data for


different volumetric concentration of glass beads

www.andritz.com

8 of 13

the fluid velocity is greater than the hindered settling


velocity of particle (ws), then the pressure drop is
calculated as described in the next section.

Pressure Drop Calculation


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

p =total pressure drop for vertical slurry flow


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)

Table 7. 1st iteration results


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

Table 8. 2nd iteration results


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

Table 9. 3rd iteration results


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

Table 11. Calculated pressure drop for case study 2


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

Table 12. Literature sources for pressure drop


Author
No
Author
Wilson (1942)
11
Gillies et al. (1983)
Durand & Condolios(1952)
12
Roco & Shook(1984)

Newitt et al. (1955)

13

Roco & Shook(1985)

Zandi & Govatos (1967)

14

Ma (1987)

Shook et al.(1968)

15

Hsu (1987)

Schriek et al. (1973)

16

Doron et al. (1987)

Scarlett & Grimley (1974)

17

Ghanta (1996)

Turian & Yuan (1977)

18

Gillies et al. (1999)

Wasp et al. (1977)

19

Schaan et al.(2000)

10

Govier & Aziz (1982)

20

Kaushal and Tomita(2002)

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

Slurry system: coal/water, copper ore/water, sand/water, gypsum/water, glass/water, gravel/water.

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

Table 14. Results of the case study


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

Heterogeneous vertical flow regime occurs when


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

Results and Discussion

Case 4

The Modified Wasp Model:

vt
V
(21)

The new value of volumetric concentration is used to


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

drop for different pipe sizes, solid % and PSD. The


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

Is easy to implement, has direct calculations


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.

Thus, with the modifications proposed in this


study, this method delivers a comparatively smaller
error percentage as compared to other existing models
for prediction of pressure drop in slurry flows.

References

The parity plot for experimental and predicted


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.

Figure 9. Experimental vs. Predicted pressure drop


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

Abulnaga, Baha E (2002), Slurry Systems


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