DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL VELOCITY

FOR SLURRY TRANSPORT IN PIPELINE

A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree
- of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

M
FIERY MOUN HEPY

•DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE
ROORKEE -247 667 (INDIA)
JUNE, 2008
 CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

I hereby certify that the work, which is being presented in the

dissertation entitled "DETERMINATION OF . CRITICAL VELOCITY
FOR SLURRY TRANSPORT IN PIPELINE" in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of degree of Master of Technology in Water
Resources Development in the Department of Water Resources Development
and Management of Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, is an authentic
record of my own work carried out during a period from July 2007 to June''
2008 under the supervision of Prof. M.L. Kansal, Professor of Water
Resources Development and Management Department, and Dr. Z. Ahmad,
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee, India.

I have not submitted the matter embodied in this dissertation for the
award of any other degree.

Dated : June 03 , 2008

(FERY MOUN HEPY)
Place : Roorkee

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the above mentioned statement made by the
candidate is correct to the best of my knowledge.

Prof. M.L. KANSAL 6

Associate Professor, Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Water Resources
I.I.T. Roorkee Development and Management
Roorkee-247667 I.I.T. Roorkee
INDIA Roorkee-247667
INDIA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I want to thank to my .God the Almighty, who give me all the
things I need: blessing everyday that comfort me whenever I am awake or sleep. -
I particularly thank to Prof. M.L. Kansal, Professor of Water Resources
Development and Management Department, Dr. Z. Ahmad Associate Professor of
Civil Engineering Department Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, my supervisors
for their guidance, encouragement and suggestions at every stage of this dissertation, in
spite of their busy schedule, without which it would been very difficult to complete this
work in time.
I express my heartfelt thanks to Prof. Ram Pal Singh, Professor and Head of
Department for his kind cooperation, encouragement and motivation during I study in
this institute. I am also grateful to all Faculty Members of Water Resources
Development and Management Department, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
and my colleagues of 51th WRD and 27th IWM Batch and staff members of WRD&M
Department.
I express my respect and gratitude to Government of India for giving me an
opportunity to undergo M.Tech. course at Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee.;;
I express my heartfelt thanks to Dr. M.Ali Kokpinar, Associate Professor of
State Hydraulic Works, Technical Research and Quality Control Department, Hydraulic
f
Model Laboratory, Ankara, Turkey for providing me the experimental data.
I wish to express my wholehearted gratitude to the Ministry of Public Works,
Director General of Water Resources Development and Head of Public Work
Service of Central Kalimantan Province, which gave me opportunity to study at this
premiere institution for M.Tech degree.
Last . but not least, unforgettable a special and sincerest thanks to my ' wife
Veralisa Rudji and my loving son Benedict, Nevan and Brian for their persistent
support, encouragement and prayers throughout of my study in India. Also I am highly
indebted to my parents and my family for their praying and support, and all the help
when I'm in need.

Place : IIT Roorkee,

Date : June 03 , 2008 (FERY MOUN HEPY)-
ii
 ABSTRACT

Slurry is a mixture of solid and liquid. Slurry transport is one of the most
important engineering activity in various industries like mining, food and chemical
industry. The characteristic of slurry are dependent on many factors such as size
and distribution of particles, concentration of solids in the liquid phase;; size of
conduit, temperature, density of liquid and solid particles, viscosity of liquid and
solid particles and all the things mentioned above known as properties of slurry.

There are two types of slurry Newtonian and non Newtonian slurry. This study
deals with Newtonian slurry. There are four regimes of flow in slurry transport.
Heterogeneous and flow with a moving bed and saltation are the critical regimes -
flow, because the critical flow velocity occurs in this condition. Many methods to
define the friction factor in laminar, transition and turbulent condition when it
occurs in heterogeneous and homogeneous regimes flow. Critical now velocity is
one of the most important or primary parameter for design slurry transport in
pipeline. The simply definition of critical flow velocity V,_ is defined as the
minimum velocity to maintain the solid particle in.suspension condition. The other
important parameter to determine the critical velocity is settling velocity' This is
the minimum velocity needed to maintain particles in suspension, particularly in a
process of mixing or thickening.

The data for critical was collected from literature of some investigators~.such as
such as Durand (1952), Yotsukura (1961), Sinclair (1962), Wicks (1968), Graf et
al. (1970), Avci (1981) and Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) for observed critical
velocity. The Black and blue granular plastic particle as uniform solids 'material
and fine sand, fine tuff and coal as non-uniform solids particles. The;; settling
velocity for solid particles such as sand, coal, anthracite, polystyrene, coarse sand,
coal, blue plastic, black plastic, fine tuff, coarse tuff and size of particles 1.09 mm
to 5.34 mm were collected from Kokpinar and Gogus (2001).

The main aim of this study is to propose the relationship for critical flow velocity
by using the relatively known data. The equations for critical velocity proposed by
various investigators have been checked for their accuracy using the collected
data in the present study. Limitations of various proposed equations was studied

Hi
and new equation is proposed to estimate the critical flow velocity. Various
parameters such as settling velocity of particle in clear water (w) and in mixture
flow (Wm), diameter of pipe (D), diameter of particles (ds ), coefficient of drag (CD),
specific gravity (s) and particle Reynolds number are used in the proposed
equation. Some of these parameters are known and some of these are unknown.

Out of 100 data points that collected from Iiterature, 80 data points are used to
establish a new relationship for critical velocity and the remaining unused, 20 data
points are used to validate it. It was found the proposed equation and Kokpinar and
Gogus (2001) equation give the better result to estimate the critical velocity.

iv


CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION .................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... iii
CONTENTS .....................................................................................................'.. v
LIST OF NOTATIONS ...................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ xii
LISTOF TABLES .............................................................................................. xiv
ABBREVIATIONS .....................

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 Critical Flow Velocity .......................................................2
1.1.2 Settling Velocity ........ ....................................................... 3
1.2 Objective of Study ...................................................................... . 3

CHAPTER II- MECHANICS OF SLURRY AND LITERATURE REVIEW''

2.1 INTRODUCTION 1, 4
2.2 SLURRY PROPERTIES ........................................................... ~4
2.2.1 Density .............................................................................. 4
2.2.2 Concentration of Particle ........................................:......... 5
2.2.3 Viscosity ........................................................................... 5
2.3 SLURRY FLOWS ...................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Newtonian Slurry .............................................................. 7
2.3.2 Non-Newtonian Slurry ..................................................... 7
2.3.3 Time Independent Non-Newtonian Mixtures ................... 9
2.3.3.1 Bingham plastics ................................................. 9
2.3.3.2 Pseudoplastic slurries ........................................ 11
2.3.3.3 Dilatant slurries ................................................... 12 ',
 2.3.3.4 Yield pseudoplastic slurries ................................ 13
2.3.4 Time Dependent Non-Newtonian Mixtures ..................... 15
2.3.4.1 Thixotropic .........................................
2.3.4.2 Rheopexy ............................................................ 16
2.4 DRAG FORCE AND LIFT FORCE .......................................... 16
2.5 BUOYANCY OF FLOATING OBJECT ..................................... 17
2.6 REGIMES OF FLOW .................................................:............ 18
2.6.1. Flow with a Stationary Bed ............................................ . 19
2.6.2 Flow with a Moving Bed ................................................ 19
2.6.3 Heterogeneous Flow ....................................................... , 19
2.6.4 Homogeneous Flow ........................................................ .. 20
2.7 TRANSITIONAL VELOCITY ................................................ . 20
2.7.1 Transitional Velocity V1 and V2 ...................................... . 21
2.7.2 Transition Speed between Heterogeneous and
Pseudohomogeneous Flow (V4) .................................... , 21
2.8 FRICTION LOSS IN HETEROGENEOUS FLOWS ............. 22
2.9 FRICTION LOSS IN HOMOGENEOUS FLOWS ................. 22
2.9:1 Friction Loss for Bingham .............................................. .. 22
2.9.1.1 Friction factor in laminar regime ..................... • 22
2.9.1.2 Transition from laminar to turbulent
flowregime ...................................................... " 22
2.9.1.3 Friction factor in turbulent regime ................... 23
2.9.2 Friction Losses for Pseudoplastic ................................... ' 23
2.9.2.1 Laminar flow ................................................... 23
2.9.2.2 Transition regime ............................................. 24
2.9.2.3 Turbulent flow ................................................. . 25
2.9.3 Friction Losses for Yield Pseudopalstic ......................... 26
2.9.3.1 The Hanks and Ricks method ... 26
2.9.3.2 The Heywood method ..................................... - 26

vi
 2.10 CRITICAL VELOCITY ........................................................... 26
2.10.1 Equations for Critical Velocity ..................................... 28
2.10.1.1 Durand(1953) ................................................ 29
2.10.1.2 Zandi and Gavatos (1967) ............................. . 30
2.10.1.3 Wasp et al. (1970) .......................................... 31
2.10.1.4. Babcock (1971) .............................................. - 31
2.10.1.5 Robinson and Graf (1972) ............................. .. 32
2.10.1.6 Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) .......................... .. 32
2.10.1.7 Kokpinar and Gogus (2001)
2.10.2 Settling Velocity, co ...................................................... 33
2.10.2.1 Mitzmager (19640) method ........................... . 34
2.10.2.2 Cheng method ................................................. :, 36
2.11 CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................. ........ .: 36

CHAPTER III - DATA COLLECTION

fc~IM]IIir[sh
3.2 CRITICAL VELOCITY DATA ................................................ 38
3.2.1 Durand (1952) .............................................................. : 38
3.2.2 Yotsukura (1961) ......................................................... .. 38
3.2.3 Sinclair (1962) ............................................................. 39
3.2.4 Wicks (1968) ................................................. ....... ' 39
3.2.5 Graf et al. (1970) ......................................................... 39
3.2.6 Avci 1981 ............................... ' 39
3.2.7 Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) ......................................... 39
3.3 SETTLING VELOCITY DATA ............................................... 40
3.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................ ........ 41

CHAPTER IV - DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................... ................. 42
4.2 CHECKING THE ACCURACY OF THE
EXISTING EQUATION FOR CRITICAL VELOCITY............ 42

vii
 4.3 PROPOSED EQUATION FOR CRITICAL VELOCITY........ .58
4.3.1 Dimensional and Regression Analysis ............................ 58
4.3.2 Validation of Proposed Equation .................................... 59

CHAPTER V : CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Conclusions ....................................................................... 165

.......................... 67
REFERENCES ....................................................................... .

ANNEXURE-3.1 Collected data related to Critical Velocity ........................ 69 ,

ANNEXURE-3.2 Collected data related to Critical Velocity .........................171

ANNEXURE-4.1 Determination of critical velocity by existing equations 72
ANNEXURE-4.2 Validation of the proposed equation ................................. 75 ;

I;
viii
 LIST OF NOTATIONS

a = pivot axis
= Thomas constants (after Mitzmager et al, 1964)
AT,BT
A = surface area
CD = drag coefficient
CL = lift coefficient
CV = concentration by volume
Cvb = volume fraction solids in the bed
CW = concentration by weight
ds = diameter particle
d• = nondimensional particle diameter for mixture flow
d* = nondimensional particle diameter for clear water
d50 = sediment size of which 50% is finer
do = nominal particle diameter of uniform solid particles
D = inner diameter of pipe
f, fl, f2.. = function of
FBF = buoyancy force
fD = Darcy friction factor
FL = Durand velocity factor
fN = Fanning friction factor
fNC = Fanning friction factor at transition between laminar and turbulent
fNL = laminar component of Fanning friction factor
fNLY = laminar component of Fanning friction factor for yield pseudoplastic
fNT = turbulent component of Fanning friction factor
fPLT = Tomita laminar friction factor
Fr = Froude number
g = acceleration of gravity
H = head due to loss
He = Hedstrom number for Bingham plastic
Hemod = modified Hedstrom number for yield pseudoplastic
Ia = index of accuracy
K = the power law of consistency factor.
L = Length of pipe
ix
n = the power law behavior index
AP/L = pressure gradient
R = correlation coefficient
ReB = Reynolds number for Bingham plastic
Rec = Reynolds number at transition
ReBc = critical transition Reynolds number for Bingham plastic
Rem = Reynolds number based on settling velocity of solid particle in the mixture
ReMR = modified Reynolds number
RePL = Tomita Reynolds number
Rew = Reynolds number based on settling velocity of solid particle in clear water
RW = cross sectional area of the bed divided by the bed width
s = ratio of density of solids to density of fluid
SF = Shape factor
V = flow velocity
V, = critical flow velocity of solid-liquid mixture
c0 = particle settling velocity in clear water
co m = particle settling velocity in mixture flow
xC = ratio of the yield stress to the wall shear stress at the transition from laminar
to turbulent flow.
= volume concentration of solid
dy/dt = wall shear rate or rate of shear strain with respect to time
11 = the coefficient of rigidity or non-Newtonian viscosity
0 = half the angle subtended at the pipe center due to the upper surface of the
bed
X = coefficient of static friction of the solid particles against the wall of the pipe
µa = apparent viscosity
µm = viscosity of the slurry mixture
µr relative viscosity
= viscosity of the carrying fluid
µ~ = Bingham plastic limiting viscosity, or apparent of a pseudoplastic fluid at
very high shear rate
AP = pressure drop
pf = density of the fluid
Pm density of the mixture
x
Ps = density of the solid
tO = yield shear for Bingham plastic or yield pseudoplastic
iW = wall shear stress
iyp = yield stress for pseudopalstic
v' = kinematic viscosity of mixture
vW = kinematic viscosity of water

Subscripts
c = critical
f = fluid
m = mixture
n = uniform solid particles
s = solid
v = volume
w = water

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

Fig. 2.1 Scheme of slurry flow ! 7
Fig. 2.2(a) Shear stress versus shear rate of time independent non
Newtonian fluids 9
Fig. 2.2(b) Viscosity versus shear rate of time independent non
9
Newtonian fluids.
Fig. 2.3(a) Shear rate versus Shear stress for pseudoplastic slurry 11
Fig. 2.3(b) Shear rate versus viscosity for pseudoplastic slurry. 11
Fig. 2.4(a) Shear rate versus Shear stress for dilatant slurry , 13
Fig. 2.4(b) (b) Shear rate versus viscosity for dilatant slurry. ~ 13
Fig. 2.5 A thixotropic fluid undergoes a decrease in viscosity with time. 16
Fig. 2.6 Rheopexy fluid undergoes a viscosity in viscosity with time 16
Fig. 2.7 Lift and drag forces on moving objects. 17
Fig. 2.8 Illustration of particle distributions and solids concentration 18
j
profiles in a pipe for different slurry regimes.
Fig. 2.9 Durand velocity factor versus particle size. 27
g 2.10
Fig. Variation of (F)°23( )
d/D ( )0-25 R
0.14 with C °.y s-1 33
Fig. 2.11(a) Graphical solution of constant A [after Mitzmager et al. (1964)] 35
Fig. 2.11(b) Graphical solution of constant B [after Mitzmager et al. (1964)].
! 35
Fig. 2.12 Graphical solution of ratio settling velocity, wm/B [from 35
Mitzmager et al. (1964)].
Fig. 4.1 Comparison between calculated and observed critical flow 42-47
velocities
Fig. 4.2 Percentage of data P [%] versus percentage error Z [%] in ' 48-49
computation of critical flow velocity
Fig. 4.3 Variation of percentage of error with (a) C; (b) s; (c) D/d; (d) Rew 51-53
and (e) Rey, parameter (Larsen,1968)
Fig. 4.4 Variation of percentage of error with (a) C,,; (b) s; (c) D/d; (d) Re 53-55
and (e) Re, parameter (Gogus and Kokpinar,1993) 1

xii
Fig. 4.5 Variation of percentage of error with (a) Cv; (b) s; (c) D/d; (d)-Rew 56-58
and (e) Rem parameter (Kokpinar and Gogus,2001)
Fig. 4.6 Comparison between calculated and observed critical velocity by ; 60
the proposed equation
Fig. 4.7 Comparison between calculated and observed critical velocity by i1 60
i

Larsen (1968) equation

Fig. 4.8 Comparison between calculated and observed critical velocity by 1 61
Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) equation
Fig. 4.9 Comparison between calculated and observed critical velocity by j 61
Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) equation
Fig. 4.10 Percentage of data P [%] versus percentage error Z [%] in critical 62
velocity computation by proposed equation
Fig. 4.11 Percentage of data P [%] versus percentage error Z [%] in critical 62
velocity computation by Larsen (1968) equation
Fig. 4.12 Percentage of data P [%] versus percentage error Z [%] in critical 63
velocity computation by Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) equation
Fig. 4.13 Percentage of data P [%] versus percentage error Z [%] in critical 63
velocity computation by Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) equation
 LIST OF TABLES

DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

Table 2.1 Regimes• of flows for Newtonian and non-Newtonian mixtures
after Govier and Aziz (1972) 8
Table 2.2 Examples of Bingham plastic slurries 10
Table 2.3 Examples of pseudoplastic slurries 12
Table 2.4 Examples of Yield pseudoplastic 15
Table 2.5 Critical Reynolds number and Fanning friction factor versus the
flow behavior Index "n" according to the Ryan and Johnson 25
method
Table 2.6 Critical flow velocity equations 29
Table 2.7 Drag coefficient versus Reynolds number for different Albertson
i 30-31
shape
Table 2.8 Equations for settling velocity 33-34
Table 3.1 The summary of data for critical velocity 40
Table 3.2 The summary of data for settling velocity 40
Table 3.3 Range of collected data for critical velocity 41
Table 4.1 Range of parameters for the suitability of equation for critical 58
velocity

xiv
 ABBREVIATIONS

ASCE : American Society of Civil Engineering

ASTM : American Society for Testing and Materials
USCS : Untied State Customary System

Iv
 CHAPTER II
MECHANICS OF SLURRY TRANSPORT
AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The physical principles of slurries flow are based on the interaction between the
different phases, which may mix well or move in superimposed layers. The
fundamental aspect of the transportation of solids by a liquid is the resisl~tance,
called the drag force and another lift force. Both are complex functions' flow
velocity, the shape of the solid particles, the degree of turbulence and the
interaction between particles and the boundary. The present chapter deals with
mechanics of slurry transport in the pipeline and review of literature related to
critical flow velocity.

2.2 SLURRY PROPERTIES

The slurry is a mixture of solids and liquids. The. physical characteristic of slurry
are dependent on many factors such as size and distribution and size of particles,
concentration of solids in the liquid, size of conduit (open or close), level of
turbulence, temperature and viscosity of the carrier. In nature, it offers simple
examples of slurry flows such as seasonal floods that carry silt and gravel. The
fundamental slurry properties are discussed below:

2.2.1 Density

Certain errors can occur in evaluating the density of solids with heteroge ieous
mixtures. If the heavier slurry particles settle out and a sample is taken, it I may
reflect a greater density of finer particles. Due to these possible sources of error,
the engineer is encouraged to measure the density of the slurry mixture after
proper mixing. The density of a slurry mixture is a function of density of the
carrier fluid and density of the solid particles, and expressed as

_ 100 (2.1)
pm CW /ps+(100—CW)/pc

where pm = density of the mixture phase; C,~, = concentration by weight of solid; Ps

= density of the solid phase; and pf= density of the liquid phase.

'4
2.2.2 Concentration of Particle

Engineers use the term concentration by weight, as it is easier to convert

back into the total tonnage of solids to be transported through a pipeline.
However, the characteristics of the mixture, the mechanics of flow and the
resultant physical properties are more related to the by
volume. The concentration by volume of solids in a mixtu I as

C _CWPm_ 1000,/Ps
V 2)
PS CW /Ps+(100— CW )/ PL

The concentration by weight of solids in a mixture is expressed as

C _C, Pm = CV Ps 2.3
)
W P, CV P5 +(100—C")

2.2.3 Viscosity

The dynamic viscosity of slurry for different volumetric concentration of

solid are mentioned below
(a) Viscosity of slurry for volumetric concentration smaller than 1 %
For solid-liquid mixtures in diluted form concentration smaller than 1
% , Einstein (1906) developed the following formula for dynamic
viscosity of the slurry mixture:

m —1+2.5Cv
µ (2.4)
E.L f

where µf = viscosity of the carrying liquid; and Cv = volume

concentration of solid
(b) Viscosity of slurry for concentration smaller than 20 %
Thomas (1965) used the equation of Einstein with higher voluniletric
concentration of Newtonian mixtures:

+KzCV +K3CV +K4CY +... (2.5)

gf

where K1 is the Einstein constant of 2.5 (from Eq. (2.4)) and K2! has
I
been found to be in the range of 10.05 — 14.1 (Guth and Simha, 1 936).
It is difficult to estimate the higher terms K3 and K4 in Eq. (2.5). Thus
they are ignored for volumetric concentrations smaller than 20 %.

E
 (c) Viscosity of slurry for concentration of solids more than 20 %
For higher concentrations, Thomas (1956) proposed the following
equation with exponential function :

m
µ =1+KiC,, +K2CV +ATexp(BTCv)
gf
(2.6)

where Kl = 2.5; K2 = 10.05 ; AT= 0.00273 ; BT = 16.6; and AT and

BT are Thomas coefficients.

2.3 SLURRY FLOWS

A slurry mixture is essentially a mixture of carrying fluid and solid particles, held
in suspension. The most commonly used fluid is water, but over the years,
attempts have been made to use crude oils with milled coal, and even air in
pneumatic conveying. Slurry may be classified in two types as Newtonian slurry
and non-Newtonian slurry. The mixture of solid and liquid may be classified into
Newtonian slurry since it follows the Newton's viscosity equation. .Non-
Newtonian slurry is not follow the Newton's viscosity equation and may be
classified into time independent and time dependent. In time independent consists
of Bingham plastic slurry, pseudoplastic slurry, Dilatant slurry, and yield
pseudoplastic slurry. In time dependent consists of rheopexy and thixotropic.
The scheme of slurry flow is shown in Fig. 2.1.

The flow of slurry in a pipeline is much different from the flow of a single phase
liquid. Theoretically, a single phase liquid of low dynamic viscosity can be
allowed to flow at slow velocitys from a laminar flow to turbulent flow. However,
a two phase mixture, such as slurry, must overcome a deposition critical velocity
or viscous transition critical velocity. The simple analogy can be made here in the
terms of an airplane: if the velocity drops excessively, the airplane stalls and stops
flying. If the slurry's velocity of flow is not sufficiently high, the particles will be
deposited.
 Newtonian
Slurry I. Thixotropic
Time Dependent 2, 12heopetic
Non Newtonian
1. Bingham Plastic
Time Independent 2. Psudoplastic '
3. Dilatant
4. Yield Pseudoplastic

Fig. 2.1 Scheme of slurry flow.

2.3.1 Newtonian Slurry

Rheological properties of Newtonian slurries are function of both liquid and solids
characteristics, but independent of the magnitude of shear stress. The viscosity of
the Newtonian slurry is often presented as the relative viscosity µr, the viscosity of

gr =µ—m
the mixture µm, normalized with that of the viscosity of the carrying liquid L.

Jtf
(2.7)

The viscosity g, may vary with the volume fraction of solids, particle size and size
distribution, particle shape and temperature.

2.3.2 Non-Newtonian Slurries

Various models have been developed over the years to classify complex two and
three phase mixtures (Table 2.1). In the case of mining, the following mixtures are
often encountered:
a. A fine dispersion containing small particles of a solid, which are unifoil-mly
distributed in a continuous fluid and are found in copper concentrate
pipelines.
b. A coarse dispersion containing large particles distributed in continuous
fluid and encountered in SAG mills, cyclone underflows, and in certain
tailings lines.
c. A macro-mixed flow pattern containing either a frothy or highly turbulent
mixture of gas and liquid, or two immiscible liquids under conditions in
which neither is continuous. Such patterns are found in flotation circuits in
which froth is used to separate concentrate from gangue.

7
 d. A stratified flow pattern containing a gas, liquid, two slurries of different
particle sizes, or two immiscible liquids under conditions in which both
phases are continuous..

Table 2.1 Regimes of flows for Newtonian and non-Newtonian mixturesIk after
Govier and Aziz (1972)

Single Phase flows Multiphase Flows (gas-liquid, liquid-

Flows li guid,gas solid) 1
Pseudohomogeneous Pseudohomogeneous Heterogeneous
True Laminar, transition, Laminar, transition, Turbulent flow
Homogeneous and turbulent flow and turbulent flow regime only
regime regime
Purely viscous Newtonian flow Newtonian flow V-
Purely viscous, Bingham plastic Bingham plastic
non Newtonian, Dilatant Dilatant -
and time Pseudoplastic Pseudoplastic
independent Yield pseudoplastic Yield pseudoplastic
Purely viscous, Thixotropic Thixotropic
non Newtonian, Rheopexy Rheopexy _
and time V
dependent
Viscoelastic Many forms Many forms -
~I

Fibrous slurries such as fermentation broths, fruit pulps, crushed meal animal feed,
tomato puree, sewage sludge, and paper pulp may not contain a high percentage of
solids, but may flow as non-Newtonian regimes. With these materials, thelong
fibers are flexible and intertwine into a close-packed configuration and entrap the
suspending medium. The fibers may be flocculated or may form floes with an
open structure. Based on the volume content of the flocs, the mixture may be
develop high dynamic viscosity. However, because the flocs are compressible,
they may deform with the flow. Flocculated slurries are encountered in flotation
cells circuits, thickeners, and various processes in mineral extraction plants. With
the formation of flocs, the slurry may develop an internal structure. This structure
may develop properties leading to a non-Newtonian flow, shear thinning behavior
(pseudoplastic), and sometimes thixotropic time dependent behavior. When shear
stresses are applied to the slurry, the floe sizes may shrink and become less
capable on entrapping the carrier slurry. At higher shear stresses, the floes may
shrink to the size of particles, and the flow may lose its non-Newtonian behavior.

3
2.3.3 Time Independent Non-Newtonian Mixtures

Certain slurries require a minimum level of stress before they, can flow.; An
example is fresh concrete that does not flow unless the angle of the chute exceeds
a certain minimum. Such a mixture is said to posses a yield stress magnitude{ that
must be exceeded before that flow can commence. A number of flows as
Bingham plastics, pseudoplastics, yield pseudoplastic and dilatant are as
time-independent non-Newtonian fluids. The relationship of shear stress
shear rate is shown in Fig. 2.2a and the relationship between the apparent v
versus the shear rate are shown in Fig. 2.2b.
The apparent viscosity is defined as

µa =Cw /(dy/dt) 8)

where j.ia = apparent viscosity; and dy/dt = wall shear rate or rate of shear
with respect to time.

Bingham Plastic
Bingham Plastic
Dilatant
Pseudoplastic
O

Newtonian
Newtonian
a)

Pseudoplastic
~ Q I Pseudoplastic

Shear rate (y = du/dy)
Fig.2.2(a) Shear stress versus shear
rate of time independent
non-
Newtonian fluids
Shear rate (y =. du/dy)
1?ig.2.2(b) Apparent viscosity
shear rate of time independent
Newtonian fluids

2.3.3.1 Bingham plastics

Bingham plastics essential to overcome a yield stress -CO before the fluid is set in
motion. The shear stress versus shear rate is then expressed as

'z —t0 = rldy / dt (2.9)

E
where ti = wall shear stress; zfl = yield shear for Bingham plastic or yield
pseudoplastic; and rl = coefficient of rigidity or non-Newtonian viscosity. ,
It also related to a Bingham plastic limiting viscosity at infinite shear rate by the
following equation:

(2.10)
(dy/dt)

µ~ = Bingham plastic limiting viscosity, or apparent of a pseudoplastic fluid at

very high shear rate.

The magnitude of the yield stress do may be as low as 0.01 Pascal for sewage
sludge or as high as 1000 MPa for asphalts and bitumen. The coefficient of rigidity
may be as low as the viscosity of water or as high as 100 Pa.s for some paints and
much higher for asphalts and bitumen (Pilpel, 1965). The coefficient of rigidity
may be as low as the viscosity of water for some paints and must higher for
asphalts and bitumen. In case of tar based emulsion or certain tar sands; it is
customary to add certain chemicals to reduce the dynamic viscosity ofj the
emulsion or the coefficient of rigidity of the slurry. Table 2.2 presents the
examples of Bingham slurries, magnitude of yield stress, and coefficient of rigidity
values.
Table 2.2 Examples of Bingham elastic slurries
Coefficient
Yield
Density of Rigidity
Slurry Particle Size d50 Stress,
k~m3 Pa ~ mPa.s
(cP
54.3 % Aqueous suspension of
cement, rock 92 % under 74 p.m
1520 3.8 6.86
Flocculated aqueous China clay
1280 59 13L1
suspension No.1 80 % under 1 p.m
Flocculated aqueous China clay
1207 25 6.7
suspension No.4 80 % under 1 p.m
Flocculated aqueous China clay
1149 7.8 4.0
suspension No.6 80 % under 1 p.m
Aqueous clay suspension I 1520 34.5 4417
Aqueous clay suspension III 1440 20 3218
Aqueous clay suspension V 1360 6.65 ' 19[4
Fine coal 49 % C„r 50 % under 40 m I 5'
Fine coal 68 % C,ti, 50 % under 40 p.m 8.3 40
Coal tails 31 %C 50 % under 70 p.m 2 60
Copper concentrate @ 48 % C,,, 50 % under 35 p.m 19 18
21.4 % bauxite < 200 p.m 1163 8.5 4.1

10
2.3.3.2 Pseudoplastic slurries

Pseudoplasctic or shear thinning fluids are time independent non-Newtonian fluids

that are characterized by the following:
(a) An infinitesimal shear, which is sufficient to initiate motion, and
(b) The rate of increase of shear stress with respect to the velocity gradient
decreases as the velocity gradient increases.

This type of flow is encountered when fine particles form loosely bound
aggregates that are aligned, stable and reproducible at a given magnitude of shear
rate.

The behavior of pseudoplasctic fluids is difficult to define accurately. Various

empirical equations have been developed over the years and involve at least two
empirical factors, one of which is an exponent. For these reasons, pseudoplasctic
slurries are often called power-law slurries. The shear stress is defined in term's of
the shear rate by the following equation:

tiW =K(dy/dt)' 1)

where K = the power law of consistency factor, expressed in Pa.s"; and n =i the
power law behavior index.

The relationship between shear stress and shear rate are shown in Fig. 2.3a and the
relationship between viscosity and shear rate are shown in Fig. 2.3b. Examples of
pseudoplastic slurries are shown in Table 2.3.
The apparent viscosity of a pseudoplasctic is defined in terms of the ratio of the
shear stress to shear rate:

µa = [ t / (dy /dt)] (2)12)

Shear rate ('y = du/dy). Shear rate (y = du/dy).

Fig.2.3(a) Shear stress versus Fig.2.3(b) Viscosity versus ! hear

shear rate for pseudoplastic slurry rate for pseudoplastic slurry
11
Table 2.3 Examples of nseudonlastic slurries
Range of Angle of Flow
Slurry Particle Range of weight consistency
Size, d5o concentration %
/o coefficient behavior index,
K, Ns°/m2 n
Cellulose
acetate 1.5 - 7.4 1.4 -34.0 0.38-
Drilling mud -
14.7 µm 1.0 -40.0 0.8- 1.3 0.43 - 0.162
barite
Sand in drilling
180µ m 1.0-15 0.72-1.21 0.48-0.57
mud
sand using drilling mud with 18 % barite
Graphite 16.1 µm 0.5 - 5.0 Unknown Probably 1
Graphite and 32.2 total (4.1 graphite
magnesium 5 µm and 28.1 magnesium 5.22 0.16'
hydroxide hydroxide)
Flocculated
kaolin 0.75 µm 8.9 - 36.3 0.3 - 39 0.117 - 0.1285
kaolin ulated
0.75 p.m 31.3-63.7 0.011 -0.6 0.82 - 1.56
kaolin
Magnesium
5 µm 8.4 - 45.3 0.5 - 68 0.12 - 0.16
hydroxide

2.3.3.3 DiIatant slurries

Dilatant or shear thickening fluids are time independent non-Newtonian fluids i nd
are characterized by the following:
(a) An infinitesimal shear is sufficient to initiate motion, and
(b) The rate of increase of shear stress with respect to the velocity gradient
increases as the velocity gradient increases.

Dilatant fluids, therefore, use similar equations as pseudoplastic fluids. They are
much less common than pseudoplastics. Dilatancy is observed under specific
conditions such as certain concentrations of solids, shear rates and the shape of
particles. Dilatancy is due to the shift, under shear action, of a close packing of
particles to a more open distribution in the liquid.

Govier et al. (1957) observed the phenomena of dilatancy in suspensions of

magnetite, galena and ferrosilicon in a range of particle size from 5 microns to 70
microns.

It is observed that the slope of the shear stress versus the shear rate increases,
particularly in the range of shear rate from 80 s-I to 120 s. Metzener and
Whitlock (1958) explained the phenomenon of dilatancy as follows.

12
Two mechanisms account for the inflection and subsequent increase in the slope of
the curve. Initially, the shear stress approaches a magnitude at which the size of
flowing particles and aggregates is at a minimum and a Newtonian behavior
develops (at the inflection of the curve). As the level of stress rises, the mixture
expands volumetrically, and entire layers of particles start to slide or glide over
each other. In the interim, the slurry acts as a pseudoplastic until the shear stress is
high enough to cause dilatancy.

The phenomenon of dilatancy is not easy to model. According to Metzener and

Whitlock (1958), it is observed at volumetric concentration in excess, of
27 %-30 % and at shear rates excess of 100 s1 . The relationship between sllear
stress and shear rate are shown in Fig. 2.4a and the relationship between viscosity
and shear rate are shown in Fig. 2.4b

r
a)

Shear rate ('y = du/dy).

Fig.2.4(a) Shear stress versus
shear rate for dilatant slurry

2.3.3.4 Yield pseudoplastic slurries

Yield pseudoplastic fluids are time independent non-Newtonian fluids and are
characterized by
(a) An infinitesimal shear is sufficient to initiate motion,
(b) The rate of increase of shear stress, with respect to the velocity gradient,
decreases as the velocity gradient increases, and
(c) A yield must be overcome at zero shear rate for motion to occur

Examples of yield pseudoplastic are shown in Table 2.4.

The equation, which account for the yield stress is

(2.13)

13
The Eq. (2.13) is known as the Herschel-Buckley equation of yield pseudoplastic
and is accepted by most slurry experts to describe the rheology of yield
pseudoplastic with low to moderate concentration of solids. At high shear rates,
certain complex phenomena such as dilatancy may develop. Certain bentonite
clays develop a yield pseudoplastic rheology at 20 % concentration by volume.
Rheology of a number of inorganic waste slurries such as drilling fluids in
petroleum output, residue mineral materials in tailing ponds, filling of abandoned
mine galleries, etc have been investigated . In the case of clay containing industrial
wastes, the colloidal forces of attraction or repulsion are ever present with
Brownian forces and may cause thermodynamic instability (Krusteva, 19918).
Waste materials such as blast furnace slag, fly ash and material from mine filling
exhibite various forms of a yield pseudoplastic rheology.

The behavior of yield pseudoplastic can be expressed by the Carson model j as

described by Lapasin et al. (1998);

ti° =' +µn. (dy / dt) (2.14)

By binary system, Lapasin meant a mixture of two sizes of particles above

colloidal range by ternary. Alumina powders with average d5 0 diameters of ;0.9
µm, 1.4 µm and 3.9 µm and different specific area (8.23 m2/cm3, 5.4 m2/cm3, a d I
2.65 m2/cm3) were investigated. A dispersing agent was used. Appreciable time
dependent effects were only noticed at a concentration of the dispersing
below a critical value. Multicomponent suspensions were found to have a viscosi
that was dependent on the total volume concentration of . solids Cv and
composition of the dispersed phase expressed as a volume fraction. It was also
dependent on the shear rate of the mixture.

Vlasak et al. (1998) investigated the addition of peptizing agents to kaolin-water

mixtures. These mixtures were described as yield pseudoplastics that follow`Ithe
ly
l
Bulkley —Herschel rheological model. The addition of peptizing agents initially
achieved a rapid drop of viscosity down to 8 % - 10 % of the original value up to
an optimum concentration. As the concentration of the peptizing agent is increased
beyond an optimum value, its effects are neutralized and the viscosity of the slurry
increase again. Soda water-glass as a peptizing agent seemed to achieve the best
reduction in viscosity when added concentration of 0.4 %. The effect was a drastic
drop of viscosity by 92 % of its original value (without the peptizing agent).

14
The optimum concentration of sodium carbonate, another peptizing agent, was 0.1
%. The viscosity was reduced 90 %. These narrow bands of concentration of
peptizing agents can effectively reduce the cost of hydro-transporting kaolin-water
mixtures by reducing viscosity and therefore the coefficient of friction.

Table 2.4 Examnles of yield nseudonlastic

Range of Angle of
Density Yield Stress to, consistency Flow
Slurry
kg/m3 Pa coefficient K, behavior'
Nsn/m2 index, n
Sewage sludge 1024 1.268 0.214 0.613
Sewage sludge 1011 0.727 0.069 0.664
Sewage sludge 1013 2.827 0.047 0.806
Sewage sludge 1016 1.273 0.189 0.594
Kaolin Slurry 1071 1.880 0.010 0.843
Kaolin Slurry 1061 1.040 0.014 0.803
Kaolin Slurry 1105 4.180 0.035 0.719

2.3.4 Time Dependent Non-Newtonian Mixtures

In time dependent non-Newtonian flows, the structure of the mixture and the
orientation of the particles are sensitive to the shear rates. Due to structural
changes and reorientation of particles at a given shear rate, the shear stress
becomes time-dependent as the particles realign themselves to the flow. In
words, the shear stress takes time to readjust to the prevailing shear rate. Some; of
these changes may be reversible when the rate of reformation is the same as
rate of decay. However, in the case of flows in which the deformation is
slow, the structural changes or particle reorientation may be irreversible. (Figs. .5
and 2.6)

2.3.4.1 Thixotropic

When the shear stress of a fluid decreases with the duration of the shear strain, ;
fluid is called thixotropic. The change is then classified as reversible and structural
decay is observed with time under constant shear rate. Certain thixotropic mixtures
exhibit aspects of permanent and are called false thixotropic.
One typical example of a thixotropix mixture is a water suspension in bentonitic
clays. The relationship between viscosity and time are shown in Fig. 2.5

15
 0
r
U

Time (t)
Fig. 2.5 'A thixotropic fluid undergoes a decrease in viscosity with time.

2.3.4.2 Rheopexy

When the rate of structural reformation exceeds the rate of decay under a constant
sustained shear rate, the behavior is classified as rheopexy or negative thixotropic.
The example of rheopetic such as some lubricants. The relationship bet Teen
viscosity and time are shown in Fig. 2.6.

r
-4

0
U

Time (t)

Fig. 2.6 Rheopexy fluid undergoes a viscosity in viscosity with time

2.4 DRAG FORCE AND LIFT FORCE

The simple example to approach the drag force and lift force is the airplane. When
airplane flies in a horizontal plane, it is subject to the forces of downward gravity,
upward lift and drag opposite to its flight path. To maintain steady flight, its
engines must develop sufficient thrust to overcome drag. The airplane must also
fly above stalling velocity.

16
The lift and drag are aerodynamic forces (Fig. 2.7). They are proportional to the
surface area, the density of air, the inclination of the airplane body with respect to
velocity and the square of the velocity. For the airplane wing, these forces are
expressed as:

FL =0.5 CL pfV2A (2.15)

FD= 0.5CDpfVZA (2.116)
1
where pf = density of the fluid; CD = drag coefficient; CL : lift coefficient; I d
A = surface area

Thrust Buoyancy`
Drag

Wing lift

Drag

stabilizer lift Weigh

Thrust
Weight

Weight Drag

Forces on an aircraft in Forces on a rocket in Force on free-falling

steady horizontal flight vertical flight particle immersed in
a fluid

Fig. 2.7 Lift and drag forces on moving objects.

2.5 BUOYANCY OF FLOATING OBJECT

The principle of Archimedes states that the buoyancy of force developed by an
object static in a fluid is equal to the weight of liquid of equivalent volume
occupied by the object. When density of the object is less than the density of the
liquid, the object floats and inverse situation the object sinks.
For a sphere immersed in a fluid of density PL, the buoyancy force is calculated
from the weight of fluid the particle displaces:

FBF= (7c/6)dgpfg (2.17)

where FBF = buoyancy force; d = diameter particle; and g = acceleration of gravity

17
2.6 REGIMES OF FLOW
In 1952, Durand and Condolios of SOGREAH studied the flow of sand and gravel
in pipes up to 900 mm in diameter. Based on the specific gravity of particle with
magnitude of 2.65, they proposed to divide the flow non-settling slurries j in
horizontal pipes into four categories based on average particle size as follows:
i. Homogeneous suspension for particle less than 40 µm.
ii. Suspension maintained by turbulence for particle sizes from 40 µm ( to
0.15 mm.
iii. Suspension with saltation for particle between 0.15 mm and 1.5 mm.
iv. Saltation for particles greater than 1.5 mm.

This initially classification was refined over the next 18 years by Newitt et! al.
(1955), Ellis and Round (1963), Thomas (1964), Shen (1970) and Wicks (1971).
Due to the interrelation between particles sizes and terminal and deposition
velocities, the original classification proposed by Durand has been modified to
four flow regimes based on the actual flow of particles and their size.
i. Flow with a stationary bed.
ii. Flow with a moving bed and saltation (with or without suspension).
iii. Heterogeneous mixture with all solids in suspension.
iv. Homogeneous mixtures with all solids in suspension.

The schematic views of particle spatial distribution and solids

profiles in a pipe for different flow regimes are shown in Fig. 2.8

Homogeneous Flow Heterogeneous Flow Flow with a Moving Bed Flow with a Stationary Bed
0000 0000 0 O 0 0000 oOOOQO 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 000 O 0 0
0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 O 0 0 0 00 0 0
000000$000 0 0 1
o o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 000000000 000000000
0000000000000000000 °°° 0000 0000
0 0 0 0 000000 000000000 0 00 0
0 0 0 0 00000 0 0000000000000000000 0
0000 000000000000000000000°
o o 0 0 0 o 0 00 0 00000 00 00 0 00 0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

y/D 1 y/D y/D y/D 1 i

Solids Concentration Solids Concentration Solids Concentration Solids Concentration

Fig. 2.8 Illustration of particle distributions and solids concentration profiles in a

pipe for different slurry regimes.

18
2.6.1 Flow with a Stationary Bed

When the velocity of solid-liquids flow is low, the bed thickens. As the fluid above
the bed tries to move the solids by entrainment, the . solids roll and tumble. The
particles with the lowest settling velocity move as an asymmetric suspensi i n,
whereas the coarser particles build up the bed. As the velocity drops even further,
the pressure maintain the flow becomes quite high and eventually the pipe blocks
up.

Flow with asymmetric suspension occurs above the velocity of blockage. Thi
means the coarser particles sand up, whereas the finer particles continue to move
Certain tailing lines have exhibited this phenomenon. In fact, when a process plar
is built with a tailing line too large to handle the initial flow, the operator i a,
choose to let the bottom of the pipe sand up to reduce the effective cross sectiop
area of the pipe. This principle has been successfully applied to pipelines in a
variety of countries. E

2.6.2 Flow with a Moving Bed

When the velocity of flow is low and there are a large number of coarse particle,
the bed moves like desert sand dunes. The top particles are entrained in the moiing
fluid above the bed. The upper layers of the bed move faster than the lower layers
in a horizontal pipe. If the mixture were composed of a wide range of
with different sizes and settling velocities, the bed would be composed of ~ the
particles with the highest settling velocity. Particles with a moderate
velocity are maintained in asymmetric suspension.

2.6.3 Heterogeneous Flow

In heterogeneous flow solids are not uniformly mixed in the horizontal plane. A
gradient of concentration exist in the vertical plane. Dunes or a sliding bed may
.I
form in the pipe, with the heavier particles at the bottom and the lighter ones in
suspension, particularly at the critical deposition velocity. The different phases
retain their properties and the largest particles do not necessarily cause the biggest
problems; it really depends on the ratio that they are mixed with finer particles.
Heterogeneous slurries are encountered in many placer mining, phosphate ,rock
mining and dredging applications. Concentration of particles remains ,low,
typically less than 25 % by weight in many dredging applications and below 35 %
by weight in many tailing disposal applications. Heterogeneous flows require a
minimum carrier velocity. In some tailing applications of the Taconite mines of
Minnesota, the typical deposition velocity is in excess of 3.4-4 m/s.

2.6.4 Homogeneous Flow

At velocitys in excess of 3.3 m/s, all solids may move in a symmetric patt
Sometimes this flow called pseudohomogeneous because of its symmetric arc
the pipe axis. Pseudohomogeneous mixtures of fine or ultrafine particles i
occur at velocity as low as 1.52 m/s. One definition of fine and coarse parti
was explained by Govier and Aziz (1972), who proposed the following:

➢ Ultrafine particles: d, < 10 µm, where gravitational force are negligible.

> Fine particles: 10 µm < ds < 100 µm, usually carried fully suspended
subject to concentration gradients and gravitational forces.
> Medium size particles: 1,000 p.m < ds < 10,000 µm. These are seldom
suspended and form deposits on the bottom of the pipe.
> Ultracoarse particles are larger than 10 mm. These particles are
as a moving bed on the bottom of the pipe.

2.7 TRANSITIONAL VELOCITY

There are four transitional velocities defined as:

> Vi : velocity pipes
or above which the bed in the lower half of the i es is
stationary. In the upper half of the pipe, some solids may move by saltation
or suspension.
> V2 : velocity at or above which the mixture flows as an asymmetric mixture
with the coarser particles forming a moving bed.
> V3 or VD or V. velocity at or above which all particles move a i an
asymmetric suspension and below which the solids start to settle and form
a moving bed.
> V4 : velocity at or above which all solids move as a symmetric suspension.

V0 is effectively the deposition velocity, often called in the past as Durand velocity
for uniformly sized coarse particles. It is no longer recommended that it be called

20
the Durand velocity, as tests in the last 20 years have led to new equations that
include the effects of particles size and composition of the slurry.

2.7.1 Transitional Velocity Vl and V2

The transitional velocity Vi is obviously not used for the operation of slurry lines.
It may be of interest in lab research, instrumentation and monitor to start up.
The transitional velocity V2 is determined individually from pressure measurem nt
of the pressure gradient. Wilson (1970) developed a model for the incipient motion
of granular solids at V2.

0s X. (S-1)Cvb (sin0—cosO)g
1 — OP 0-0cosO
RW s. 1
(2.18)
pr L) 4 D L tancprJ]
2

where (AP/L) = pressure gradient; 0 = half the angle subtended at the pipe center
due to the upper surface of the bed; X= coefficient of static friction of the solid
particles against the wall of the pipe; RR,, = cross sectional area of the bed divided
by the bed width; 0, = angle of repose of the solid particle; S = ratio of density of
solids to density of liquid; CO = volume fraction solids in the bed; and D = inner
diameter of pipe.

2.7.2 Transition Velocity between Heterogeneous and Pseudohomogen

Flow (V4)

For the heterogeneous to pseudohomogeneous flows, Newitt et al (1955) expressed

the velocity in terms of the terminal velocity of particles as

V4 = (1800 gDm)"3 (2119)

k

where w = settling velocity

Govier and Aziz (1972)

V4 =38.7D113 4gds(s 1) 6 ; (2.20)

3CD

where CD = 0.44; and ds = particle size

Govier and Aziz (1972) analyzed the works of Spells (1955) on solid particles with
a diameter 80 µm <d < 800 µm and derived the following equation:
D0.633 w1.63 (2.21)
V4 =134C816

21
The Eq. (2.21) was derived in fps units with diameter in feet and velocity in feet
per second. The V,, is discussed in section 2.10.

2.8 FRICTION LOSS IN HETEROGENEOUS FLOW

The loss of head per unit length due to friction (i.e.; hydraulic friction gradient) i<

iw =H 2gD
L =f VZ 2

(22
2

where H = head loss; L = length of pipe; and fD = Darcy friction factor

2.9 FRICTION LOSS IN HOMOGENEOUS FLOWS

2.9.1 Friction Loss for Bingham Plastics

Bingham plastics are characterized by a yield stress that must be overcome to si
flow. Examples of Bingham plastics are listed in Table 2.2.

2.9.1.1 Friction factor in laminar regime j

Buckingham (1921) was the first to develop an equation for fully developed
laminar flow. This equation since has been modified by Hedstrom (1952) and
other to express the friction factor as a function of the Hedstrom and Reynolds
number:

1_f He He4
ReB 16 6ReB + 3fReB
0

16 He He4
fNI = ReB 1
+ 6ReB + 3fReB

where fNL = laminar component for Fanning friction factor; He = Hedstiom

number for Bingham plastic; and ReB = Reynolds number for Bingham plastic.
This would occur below the critical Reynolds number or in transition between
laminar and turbulent flow.

2.9.1.2 Transition from laminar to turbulent flow regime

Hanks and Pratt (1967) analyzed extensive experimental data on critical Reynolds
numbers and proposed a relationship between the Reynolds and Hedstrom
Numbers at transition as:

22
ReBC =Xe l1-3x. +3x4) (2.25)

where ReBC = critical transition Reynolds number for Bingham plastic, x. = ratio of
the yield stress to the wall shear stress at the transition from laminar to turbulent
io
flow, xe _-
,U we

At the transition :

He=16,800 x° (2
(l+x~)3

2.9.1.3 Friction factor in turbulent regime

Hanks and Dadia (1971) developed a semiempirical equation for the turbulent
of Bingham slurries in closed conduits. These equations were modified by
et al (1992) to give a friction factor for the turbulent regime as:

fNT =10a Re (2.27)

where fNT = turbulent component for Fanning friction factor E

a=-1.47[1+0.146exp(-2.9x10-5 He)]; and b= - 0.193.
The values of the parameters a and b are based on empirical data for cld
conduits.

Bingham slurries do not exhibit a sudden change from laminar to turbulent

Darby et al (1992) proposed to combine the laminar and turbulent Fanning fl
factors into the following equation:
1
fN–—
(fm
NL+fm
NT)('fm) (2!28)

where fN = Fanning friction factor; and m=1.7+40,000/ReB .

2.9.2 Friction Losses for Pseudoplastic

Examples of pseudoplastics are listed in Table 2.3.

2.9.2.1 Laminar flow

A number of models have been developed for pseudoplastic flows.

23
(a) The Robinowitsch — Mooney relations

Rabinowitsch (1929) and Mooney (1931) derived a general relationship for the
shear rate at the wall:

_ du 8V(1±3
(2.9)
dr)W D 4a

where a =
ds [in (D AP/4L)]
0)
ds [in (8V/D)1

(b) The Metzner and Reed approach

Metzner and Reed (1955) developed an equation for the Reynolds Number in

_
laminar flow as :

Re D°V2-Q p

where Rem = modified Reynold number; y=K'8 (Q-') (in SI units);

andK'=K
1+3n "
( 4n

(c) The Tomita method

Tomita (1959) defined the Fanning friction factor for power law fluids as:

2D AP (1+2n) (2.33)
3LpmV2
fPLT_ 1+3n

6[[1/n±3] )(D" V2-° Pm (2.34)

RePL = 2
° 1/n+2 K

where fPLT = Tomita laminar friction factor; and RePL = Tomita Reynolds

2.9.2.2 Transition regime

Ryan and Johnson (1959) defined a critical Reynolds Number for purely vis
pseudoplastic as :

(n+2)/(n+1)
646n(n+ 2)
Re = (21.35)
(1+3n)2

24
The friction factor at the transition regime from laminar to turbulent flow called
the critical friction factor is:

fNc = (1 + 3n) 2 1 (2.36)

404n (n + 2)

The critical Reynolds number and Fanning friction factor versus the power
"n" where listed in Table 2.5. The minimum friction factor is 0.0067 at n=0,.5.
However, Heywood (1991) deducted from various test data the minimum value
fNC = 0.004, which is even lower than the values indicated by Eq. (2.36)

Table 2.5 Critical Reynolds number and Fanning friction factor versus the
behavior Index "n" according to the Ryan and Johnson method

Flow Critical
Behavior Reynolds
ng
Critical
Flow
Behavior
Critical
Reynolds
Critical

friction friction
Index "n" number Index "n" number
factor, fN,, factor, fNc
0.1 1577 0.01015 0.9 2158 0.00741
;C
0.2 2143 0.00747 1.0 2099 0.00762
0.3 2345 0.00682 1.1 2043 0.0783,0
0.4 2396 0.00668 1.2 1990 0.00804
0.5 2381 0.00672 1.3 1941 0.00824
0.6 2337 0.00685 1.4 1895 0.008444
0.7 2280 0.00702 1.5 1852 0.00861
r
0.8 2219 0.00720 1.6 1812 0.00883

2.9.2.3 Turbulent flow

Various equations have been developed over the years for turbulent flow of
pseudoplastic in smooth pipes. These equations are based on empirical data. Using
the modified Reynolds number as per Eq. (2.30), Dodge and Metzner (1959)
developed the following semitheoretical equation for turbulent flow:

/2)1- 014
1-
TNT o s log1o[RemodfNT6
6 6

Equation (2.37) has certain limitations, although it has been extensively used.
Measuring the power exponent "n" in laminar flow tests and then trying to apply it
to turbulent flows is asking trouble, particularly for cases when n < 0.5.

25


2.9.3 Friction Losses for Yield Pseudoplastic

Examples of yield pseudoplastics are listed in Table 2.4.

2.9.3.1 The Hanks and Ricks method

In the laminar flow regime, Hanks and Ricks (1978), defined the Fanning friction
factor in terms of the modified Reynolds number:
16
fNPL
= (2.38)
Re mod

(l+x) 2+2x(1—x)+
2 "
where `J=(1+3n)"(l+x)'+" x (2.39)
1+3n 1+2n l+n
2 ,ryp
and x = ! = I~
'Gw fN pf V2

where t = the yield stress for pseudoplastic.

For yield pseudoplastics, Hank and Ricks (1978), Heywood (1991) defined a
modified Hedstrom number as:
2-n/n
DP"' K (2.40)
Hemod =
i

2.9.3.2 The Heywood method

For the laminar flow regime, Heywood (1991) modified the Buckingham equation
for Fanning friction factor

f = 16 f/1 2Hem~ 1 _ 2Hem 1+ 4nHem, 1+ 2nHem~

NLYRemod )
If NLY(Remod 2 L ( n±I) N Y(1 e= )2 I fNLY (Rem )2 )j +I
J1 (2n+1)fNLY(Rem. 2[

2.10 CRITICAL VELOCITY

To define the critical flow velocity in a slurry carrying pipe, first one has to
determine a stationary layer of noncohesive coarse solid particle. Some s?lid
particles at the topper layer tend to move along the flow direction by jumping,
rolling or sliding when the flow velocity increases gradually because of shear
exerted on the particles. In this situation usually a number of bed formations - will
be created. If the flow velocity increases the particle at the lower of pipe start to
move and finally at the critical condition all the particles in the pipe wall move

r:
without any deposition. In this particular condition, solids particle pass from a
saltation regime to heterogeneous regime. In this transition zone, between saltation
and heterogeneous regimes there is a particular velocity, corresponding to
minimum head loss in the horizontal pipeline, this velocity is defined as the critical
velocity V. Simply one can defined critical flow velocity as the minimum velocity
to maintain the solid particle in suspension condition, if the velocity of flow less
than the critical flow velocity, solid particle will be deposited.. It is very difficult~to
determine experimentally, because the critical condition is difficult to discern, and
because the flow becomes unstable near the critical condition.
Critical flow velocity equations were derived empirically in terms of flow, fluid,
and solid particle characteristics.
The physical principles of flow of complex mixtures are based on the interaction
between the different phases, which may mix well or move in superimposed
layers.
Durand and Condolios (1952) derived the following equations for uniformly
sand and gravel:

V. = FL { 2gD[(ps — pf)/pf ] }~' (2.42)

where FL = Durand velocity factor based on grain size and volume

GV=15% a=10%

2.0
For single or
narrow graded
slurries

Based on Schiller
equation using d.
15%
5%

0.0 1 I I I I I I I 1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Particle diameter (mm)
Fig. 2.9 Durand velocity factor versus particle size.

The Durand factor FL varies with a single sized particle and concentration of solids
as shown in Fig.2.9 Since most slurry is mixtures of particles of different sizes, the
FL obtained from Fig.2.9 is considered too conservative. The Durand velocity.
factor has been refined by a number of investigators. Schiller and Herbich (1991)

27


proposed the following equation for Durand velocity factor based on the d 50 of the
particles

FL =~(1.3 C0.'25 )[l—exp(-6.9d50)]} (2.43)

where d50 = sediment size of which 50% is finer

2.10.1 Equations for Critical Velocity

The following variables are involved when slurry (solid-liquid mixture) is flowing
through a horizontal pipeline:

f (V, Ps , ds , pr, tf,, Cv , D, SF, g) = 0 (2.44)

where V = velocity of fl
flow;
SF = Shape factor
;~ P
Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) prefer to represent the settling velocity of a solid
particle in a mixture- instead of in clear water. Thus Eq. (2.44) can be written as

Vc= f1( Ps , ds , pf, .tf,, Cv , D, gym, g) (245)

where w = particle settling velocity in clear water; and wn, = particle settling velocity
in mixture flow and then from nondimensional grouping of Eq. (2.45) result in.

fwmd5 ,_
d5
(21.46)
Vc _fz[(S-1),CV,p
gD µf D
For uniform solid particle ds be replaced with d„ and for nonuniform solid particle
ds can replaced with d50, the nondimensional grouping in Eq. (2.46) can expressed
for uniform particles:

V.
—f3 (s —1), Cv, pf cum dn , do ( 47)
gD µf D i

for nonuniform particles :

(2.48)

Empirical equations for critical velocity based on the above dimensional analysis
are listed in Table 2.6.

28
 Table.2.6 Critical flow velocity equations
Investigator Equation
1. Durand (1953) V = rb~ 2gD(s - I )

2. Wiendenroth (1967) V. =0.6 gD(w2/gd.)°2'

3. Zandi and Gavatos (1967) V. ={[4ocDg(s-1)J/ Cn}°S
4. Larsen (1968) V. = {(17.8 C,Dg(s -- 1)) / C D }°-5

5. Bain and Bonnington (1970) V` 0.5 =2.4607 CV3 C °25

[2 (s
gD -1)]
v°
I
6. Wasp et al. (1970) g
[ 5 =3.399CO 2`56
)]°
2 D(s--1 l D)
7. Babcock (1971) V. _ {[10C vDg(s -
V
8. Robinson and Graf (1972) 0 =0.901 Co.106
[2gD (s-1)]°
[2gD

9. Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) v` o.124(D/a,) °"' c°'~ (s t)°"'(wd./vw)°~°'

gD
l 0.60 de
10. Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) gD 0.055 r D 1c 2' (s - I) 007 pr µ~
l )0",U
D in m; d., in mm ; co and co. in m/s ;gin m/s

2.10.1.1 Durand (1953)

Durand (1953) tried to propose the empirical equation for determine the critical
flow velocity. He conducted experiments in a pipeline system. The diameters of
pipes are ranging from 0.04 to 0.58 m. He used solid particles such as coal and
sand with volumetric concentrations up to 15%. The properties of the ; solid
particles are 2.19 < Vc -52.71 m/s, 5.0 < C„ <15.0 %, 0.44-5 ds < 2.04 mm, D =
0.15 m, s= 2.6, 218 < Rem < 2670, 0.44 < CD 20.2, 0.01 m/s < Wm <0.5 m/s.

V. = FDL 2gD(s -1) (2.49)

Durand velocity factor (FL), depends on the particle diameter (dc) and on the mean
solids concentration (C,,), from Fig. 2.7 we can obtain the value of the Durand
velocity factor. Schiller and Herbich (1991) proposed the following equation for
the Durand velocity factor based on d50 of the particles.
In 1980 a detailed regression analysis doing by Oroskar and Turian from 357
published data (experimental velocities data) showed that the Durand relation
needs correction and that a good empirical correlation of the data:

ye = v-a.o9do.7(i p Pf) o.55D°47 (2.50)

where v is kinematic viscosity of the liquid.

29


2.10.1.2 Zandi and Gavatos (1967)

Zandi and Gavatos (1967) extended the work of Durand to other solids and to
different mixtures. They defined an index number (N) based on their analysis of
test data from 11 references for sand in particle sizes ranging up to 1 inch, in pipes
with a diameter range from 1.5 inch to 22 inch and in volumetric concentration up
VzC"2
to 22% as.: N = D . At the critical value when N = 40, the flow
i
C,Dg(ps /pf -1) 1
transition between saltation and heterogeneous occurs, when N < 40 saltation
occurs and N> 40 heterogeneous flow develops. The critical velocity is

V. = {[40C Dg(s -1)j/ CD }0.5 1(2.51)

CD value can be obtained from Table 2.7 that presents values of drag coefficient
versus Reynolds number based on Albertson shape factor.

Table 2.7 Drag coefficient versus Reynolds number for different Albertson shape
Reynolds Drag Coefficient
Number SF = 0.3 SF = 0.5 SF = 0.7 SF = 1.0
7 7.00 6.00 4.70 4.00
8 6.50 5.50 4.30 3.70
9 6.10 5.10 4.00 3.40
10 5.80 4.74 3.75 3.15
15 4.64 3.70 3.00 2.40
20 3.95 3.20 2.55 2.00
32 3.00 2.60 2.10 1.551
40 2.70 2.28 1.84 1.30
50 2.50 2.08 1.67 1.12
60 2.30 1.94 1.56 1.00
70 2.25 1.74 1.40 0.94;
80 2.20 1.67 1.35 0.844
100 2.08 1.62 1.30 0.80
150 1.87 1.44 1.16 0.68;
200 1.75 1.36 1.11 0.60.
300 1.74 1.33 1.08 0.501
400 1.80 1.34 1.09 0.441
500 1.90 1.38 1.10 0.401
600 1.94 1.42 1.12 0.38
700 1.988 1.47 1.14 0.36
800 2.00 1.51 1.15 0.34
900 2.07 1.54 1.16 0.334
1000 2.10 1.58 1.17 0.33
2000 2.30 1.72 1.22 0.30
3000 2.28 1.73 1.19 0.29:

30
Table 2.7 continued
4000 2.48 1.69 1.16 0.294
5000 2.21 1.66 1.14 0.30
6000 2.20 1.62 1.13 0.31
7000 2.19 1.58 1.13 0.31
8000 2.183 1.55 1.14 0.32
9000 2.18 1.53 1.14 0.32

The range of data are 1.02 < s < 2.65; 99 < Re,,, < 629; 218 < Re., < 2670; 0.44 <
CD < 20.20; and 0.01 m/s < com < 0.50 m/s, 1.02 < s < 2.65. ;I

2.10.1.3 Wasp et al.(1970)

Wasp's method modified the Durand relation (1952) to include the effect; of
particle concentration, ratio between the particle diameter and pipeline diameter;
more diluted concentration. The critical velocity is

=3.399 C o.2156 (dsl (2'152)
[2gD ~s -1
g vc )
1 lD)

The range of data are 1.02 < s 2.65; 99 < Rey,, 629; 608 < Rem < 2670; 0.0106 <
ds/D < 0.0356; 0.44 < CD < 20.20; and 0.01 m/s < co,,, < 0.50 m/s

2.10.1.4 Babcock (1971) .

Babcock (1971) reinterpreted Blatch's work (1906), who worked on particles of a

uniform size. Babcock demonstrated that for finely graded particles the transition
occurred at an index number of 10. It is obvious that a complex mixture of
particles of different sizes can increase the magnitude of the transition index
number. The critical velocity is
o.s
V. _ {[IOC,,Dg(s -1)}/ Cn } (2.53)

The range of data are 180 < Re,,, < 629, 608 < Rem < 2670, 0.44 < CD < 20.20,
0.01 m/S < co,,, < 0.50 m/s

2.10.1.5 Robinson and Graf (1972)

Robinson and Graf (1972) performed experiment in horizontal and inclined pipes
having diameter ranging from 0.10 m to 0.15 m. They used sands of 0.45 mm and

31
0.88 mm median diameter with volume concentrations ranging from 0.01 % to 7.0
%. The critical velocity is

V. =0.901Co.1°6 (2.5,4)
[2gD(s-1)]0.5

2.10.1.6 Gogus and Kokpinar (1993)

Gogus and Kokpinar conducted seven series of experiments to determine obsery

data of the critical flow velocity by observing solid particle motion through a
observation pipe •located on the pipeline unit. To obtain the experimental value of
V,, with sufficient accuracy, each test was repeated at least two or three times ;by
using the same concentration of particles. They proposed

= 0.I24(D/d5) 0.537 C0.322 (s— 1)0.12' (wd5/vw )0.243 (2.55)

The range of data are 1.02 <s < 2.6 , 264 < Rew <629,308 < Rem < 1036, 0:46
< CD <_ 5.86, 0.02 m/s < com < 0.28 m/s, 1.02 < s < 2.6.

2.10.1.7 Kokpinar and Gogus (2001)

Further, Kokpinar and Gogus using (2001) plotted the experimental data on a
semilog graph paper (Fig. 2.10), and proposed the following equation

l
s )-0.60 CV0.27 7 rpf Wm
1)0.0
0.30
dsl '

C V `

—0.055 (d
D
(S-
l µf J (2156)

R = (pf com d5)

The basic parameter used to determined the accuracy of a formula is

(calculated— observed!
%error= x100
observed

Based on the calculation of the data by using Eq. (2.56), it has correlation
coefficient 0.88 and average value or relative error f 15.8 %

32
 0.6
0.7
0.6
0 0.5
0.4
0.3 ■ E. (2 .56)
U-
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 10 100 1000
C,°9(s1)° R

Fig. 2.10 Variation of (F)°.23 (x)°.14 with C„°'9 (s-1)°'25 R

2.10.2 Settling Velocity,cw

This is the minimum velocity needed to maintain particles in suspension,

particularly in a process of mixing or thickening. There are numerous settling
velocity formulas developed by different investigators for spherical or non-
spherical particles (Table 2.8).
Table.2.8 Equations for Settling Velocity
Investigator Equation
Sha (1954) 1 Ads
w=24 g for d, < 0.01 cm ; w=1.14 Agds for ds>0.2 cm

log a +3.790 Z +(logd• 5.777)2 = 39 for d, = 0.01 — 0.2 cm

Mitzmager et al (1964) By graphical method

Van Rijn (1989) 1 0g~2
• w=1g for ds < 0.01 cm

w=1.1 Ogd5 for d5 > 0.1 cm

C0=10 ds (1+0.01 d: —1) (Zanke 1977) for d5 = 0.01 0.1 cm

Zhang (1989) z
a=13.95 +1.09Agd5
j —13.95 V
ds J ds

Ibad-Zade (1992) 1 Og d5
w = for
24 ds < 0.015 cm

w=1.068 Agds for ds > 0.15 cm

co = 67.607 + 0.5202
6 —1 for ds = 0.015 — 0.15 cm
J
Table.2.8 continued
Zhu and Cheng (1993) cod _24cos3a+ 576cos6a+(18cos3a+3.6sin2a)d!
v 9cos3a+l.8sin2a
where a = 0 for d* < 1; and
a=7t/[2+2.5 (logd.)-3 ] for d* > I
Cheng (1997a) cods 5)1.5
_( 25+1.2d: —
V

d•=(-g i d5 ;Tisin °C; 0=(p5--pf)/pf

v J

2.10.2.1 Mitzmager (1964) method

The mixture density p,,, is obtained in the terms of solid particle concentration; i.e.,
Pm = ( Ps - 1) C„ + 1 (g/cm3), and the density difference between solid particles and
the mixture is obtained by Ap = Ps - p,,,. Figs. 2.1 la, 2.11b, 2.12. are to be used for
estimation of w. From Figs. 2.11 a and 2.11 b, a is found by laying a straight edge
connecting pm with Ap and mixture viscosity µm with Ap, then two constants A
and B can be determined by laying a straight edge connecting a with µm and a with
pm, respectively. One A & B are known, settling velocity of a solid particle in a
mixture co rn can be obtained from Fig.2.12.

34
 101 19'
9 19
8
7 7 10 7
6 6 $ 6
5 5 67 S
4 45 4
4
5Fi0 ; 3 10"2 3 3
6 25 2.5 3~~ 2.5
8 2 222 . 2
1.5 //
_.` ].5
.5 n 1.5
E 9~ /
L5 .. 10 8 / 10-i
2 ^E 9 5 // 4.0 0.5 E 9 6
8 6 \ 0.6 8 6 8
3.0 ^ 0.7 4. 7
2.5 a fi // 0.8 4 6 4 6
/ X2.5 E 0.9 /5 3 X 5 -
3 0~~., v~X E 1.0 t2% QE Q R
Q 5 2.0 E
4 /
4 15' Q
1.5
o / 4 2 4
2 4 O 1.5/
41 (21 / 3 4 d 3
2.5 3 x >
a
] / 2.5 25
o .. p 2,0
~E O // 8 E 2
0,9 u~ aE 2.5 Z
.5 5 ++ 0.7 yE 3.0 1.5 1.5
6 a 0.6-1 5 n
1.5 10-' p' 0.5 4.0
10 4 m 16
2 g 0 a g 3 Z 8
a
2.5 6 N 6
62
3 5 2 5 L5 v 5
4 4 3 Q 4 2 4
Q !0
5 3 4 3 3
6 2.5 5 2.5 2.5
7
8 2 7 2 2
9 8
10
I.5 10, 1.5 1.5

10 2 IO 103

Fig.2.11a Graphical solution of Fig.2.11b Graphical solution of

constant A [after Mitzmager et al. constant B [after Mitzmager et al.
(1964)]. (196411.
°./A vs. wm / B
w2 lo° tot lo'
lo'

10'

10°

lo-' 1o° 10' 10 2 103

w,,,B (wm in cm/sec)

Fig.2.12 Graphical solution of ratio settling velocity, co m/B [after Mitzmager et al.
(1964)].

35
2.10.2.2 Cheng method

Cheng (1997a), proposed an explicit relationship for the settling velocity of a

single solid particle in clear water (w). His equation is in the terms of the particle
Reynolds number, cxds/v, and a nondimensional particle diameter,
d,_={(s —1)g/v2}v3d5 .

cod., ;.5
—5 (2.59)
v

From Eq. (2.59) one can determine the settling velocity of the materials. For the
settling velocity including the effect of solid particle concentration Cheng (1 997b),
proposed the other equation. For this case, the nondimensional particle diameter is
113
(1-C,)(s-1)
d _ [1+c '(5-I)] g d (2.60)
(v' )2

where v' is defined by Sha (1956) and (Cheng 1997b) as

v' = 2v (2.61)
2-3C,

From Cheng's method (1997b), the drag coefficient (CD) of a solid particle in a
concentrated medium is
1.5

C_
32 (2.62)
1.5 +1
D L 25±1.2(d -5} ) ]
In case the settling of a solid particle in a mixture c.Om of a constant concentration,
Cheng (1 997b) proposed that could be given in the terms of the settling velocity of
the same particle in clear water a
1.5
cum 2-2Cv 25+1.2(d►)z —5
(2.63)
co 2-3C~ 25+1.2d2 —5

Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) used Mitzmager's method in the analysis of critical
flow velocity in their study.

36
2.11 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The following conclusions have been drawn from the review of literature
1. Slurry may be classified as Newtonian and non-Newtonian slurry. The non-
Newtonian may be time independent or dependent and further classified as
Bingham plastic, Pseudoplastic, Dilatant, Thixotropic etc.

2. There are four regimes in slurry flow such as flow with a stationary bed,
flow with a moving bed and saltation, heterogeneous mixture, and
homogeneous mixtures.
3. There are many methods available in the literature to determine the friction
loss in heterogeneous flow and homogeneous flow.

4. Critical flow velocity (Vu) is the most important parameter to design the
pipeline system. There are many empirical equations to determine Vc such as
: Durand (1953), Wiendenroth (1967), Zandi and Gavatos (1967), Larsen
(1968), Bain and Bonnington (1970), Wasp et al (1970), Babcock (1971),
Robinson and Graf (1972), Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) and Kokpinar and
Gogus 2001)

5. The other important parameter to determine the critical velocity is settling

velocity. Some investigators have proposed the equation to determine the
settling velocity, such as Sha (1954), Mitzmager et al (1964), Van Rijn
(198.9), Zhang (1989), Ibad-Zade (1992), Zhu and Cheng (1993) and Cheng
(1997). For the particle settling velocity in mixture flow Mitzmager method
gives the accurate result.

37
 CHAPTER III
DATA COLLECTION

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The data related critical flow velocity for slurry transport and particle settling
velocity are collected from literature such as Durand (1952), Yotsukura (1961),
Sinclair (1962), Wicks (1968), Graf et al. (1970), Avci (1981) and Kokpinar and
Gogus (2001) for critical flow velocity and Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) for
particle settling velocity data. The data such as diameter of pipe, diameter of solid
particles, concentration of solid particle by volume, specific gravity, drag
coefficient, particle settling velocity in clear water particle settling velocity in
mixture flow and critical flow velocity are collected from literature and given in
Annexure-3.1.

3.2 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY DATA

About 100 data pertaining to the critical velocity were collected from seven
literatures. In these data black and blue granular plastic particles as uniform solid
particles, fine sand, coarse sand, fine tuff, coarse tuff and coal as non-uniform
solid particles were used as solid particles in the slurry flow. The source of data
from some investigator are described below and the data is summarized in Table
3.1.

3.2.1 Durand (1952)

Durand (1952) used one pipe diameter and sand particle of non-uniform size in
his experiment. The number of data was 7. The diameter of pipe (D) = 0.150 m;
diameter of particles (ds) = 0.44-2.04 mm; concentration of solid material by
volume (Cr) = 5-15 %; specific gravity (s) = 2.60 ; critical velocity (Va) = 2.19-
2.71 m/s.

3.2.2 Yotsukura (1961)

Yotsukura (1961) used one pipe diameter and sand particle of non-uniform size in
the experiment. The number of data was 11. The dimension of the data such as
diameter of pipe (D) = 0.108 m ; diameter of particles (ds) = 0.23-1.15 mm;
concentration of solids material by volume (Cv) = 5-25 %; specific gravity (s) _
2.60 ; critical velocity (Vs) = 1.83-2.96 m/s.

38
3.2.3 Sinclair (1962)
Sinclair (1962) used one pipe diameter and coal particle of uniform size in the
experiment. The number of data was 11. The dimension of data such as diameter
of pipe (D) = 0.025 m ; diameter of particles (ds) = 2.205 mm; concentration of
solids material by volume (C") = 3 % - 18 %; specific gravity (s) = 1.74 ; critical
velocity (Va) = 0.32-0.52 m/s.

3.2.4 Wicks (1968)

Wicks (1968) used two pipe diameters and uniform size sand particle in the
experiment. The number of data was 2 points. The diameter of pipe (D) = 0.027
and 0.140 m ; diameter of particles (d.,) = 0.25 mm; concentration of solids
material by volume = (Cv,) 1 %; specific gravity (s) = 2.60 ; critical velocity (Vc)
0.46-0.79 m/s.

3.2.5 Graf et al. (1970)

Graf et al (1970), used two pipe diameters and non-uniform sand particle with
various diameter in the experiment. The number of data was 12. The diameter of
pipe (D) = 0.102 and 0.152 m ; diameter of particles (ds) = 0.45-0.88 mm;
concentration of solids material by volume (C„) = 0.7-7 %; specific gravity (s)
2.65 ; critical velocity (Va) = 1.55-2.42 m/s.

3.2.6 Avci (1981)

Avci (1981) used one pipe diameter and non-uniform sand particle with various
diameter (nonuniform particle) in the experiment. The number of data was 15.
The dimension of data such as diameter of pipe (D) = 0.052 m ; diameter of
particles (d.,) = 0.29-3.2 mm; concentration of solids material by volume (C„) =
5.0-30.0 %; specific gravity (s) = 2.65 ; critical velocity (Sic) = 0.27-1.58 m/s

3.2.7 Kokpinar and Gogus (2001)

For their study, they used one pipe diameter and some kind of particles such as
sand, coarse sand, coal, blue plastics, black plastics, fine tuff, and coarse tuff
particle with various diameter (non-uniform particle) in the experiment. The
number of data was 42. The diameter of pipe (D) = 0.150 m ; diameter of particles
(ds) = 1.09 - 5.34 mm; concentration of solids material (Cv,) = 1.1 — 9.1 %; specific
gravity (s) = 1.04-2.60 ; critical velocity (Va) = 1.06-3.00 m/s

IN
 Table 3.1 The summary of data for critical velocity
No
source
a of (m/s) (%) (mm) (m) s Particles
data
Durand
(1952) 7 2.19-2.71 5.0-15.0 0.44-2.04 0.15 2.6 Sand
Yotsukura
(1961) 11 1.83-2.96 5.0-25.0 0.23-1.15 0.108 2.6 Sand
Sinclair
11 0.32-0.52 3.0-18.0 2.205 0.025 1.74 Coal
(1962)
Wicks
2 0.46-0.79 1.0 0.25 0.027&0.14 2.6 Sand
(1968)
Graf et al
12 1.55-2.42 0.7-7.0 0.45-0.88 0.102&0.152 2.65 Sand
(1970)
Avci Sand,
15 0.27-1.58 5.0-30.0 0.29-3.2 0.052 1.04-2.68 Anthracite,
(1981)
Polystyrene
Sand,Coarse
Kokpinar Sand,Coal,
and Blue plastic,
42 1.06-3.00 1.1-9.1 1.09-5.34 0.15 1.04-2.6 Black
Gogus
(2001) plastic, Fine
tuff, Coarse
tuff
* Specific gravity value was not reported in reference (Wasp et al. 1979), the same is assumed 1.74

3.3 SETTLING VELOCITY DATA.

The settling velocity is one of basic properties in slurry flow. It depends on many
factors such as size, shape, density, viscosity and the amount or concentration of
particles in liquid. The settling velocity for solid particles sand, coal, anthracite,
polystyrene, coarse sand, coal, blue plastic, black plastic, fine tuff, coarse tuff and
size of particles 1.09 mm to 5.34 mm were collected from Kokpinar and Gogus
(2001). The data is summarized in Table 3.2. and detail of data are given in
Annexure-3.2.

Table 3.2 The summary of data for settling velocity

No
sours a (m/s) (o) (mm) (m) s Particles
data
8 0.11 1.4-3.7 1.09 0.15 2.6 Sand,
4 0.35 1.5-3.7 5.34 0.15 2.55 Coarse sand,
Kokpinar 6 0.12 2.2-5.5 3.7 0.15 1.74 Coal
and
Gogus 6 0.09 3.1-7.4 2.25 0.15 1.2 Blue plastics
(2001) 6 0.12 5-6.8 2.25 0.15 1.35 Black plastics
6 0.04 2.9-8.9 1.652 0.15 1.31 Fine tuff
6 0.07 3.5-9.1 3.899 0.15 1.04 Coarse tuff

40
3.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Data related to critical velocity and settling velocity were collected from the
literature. The range of the collected data is given in Table 3.3. Different solid
used in these data are sand, coal, anthracite, polystyrene, coarse sand, coal, blue
plastic, black plastic, fine tuff, coarse tuff. The collected data are analyzed in the
next chapter.
Table. 3.3 Range of collected data for critical velocity
Parameters Range of data
VC (m/s) 0.27 to 3.00
CV (%) 0.7to30
s 1.04 to 2.65
D (m) 0.025 to 0.152
ds (mm) 0.23 to 5.34
w (m/s) 0.04 to 0.3 5

41
 CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The collected data in the Chapter III have been analyzed in this chapter. The
existing equations for the determination of critical velocity have been checked for
their accuracy using the collected data. The settling velocity, which is to be used
by the equations for the critical velocity, has also been calculated. Dimensional
analysis has been performed for the critical velocity and finally a new equation for
critical velocity has been proposed using the collected data.

4.2 CHECKING THE ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING EQUATIONS

FOR THE CRITICAL VELOCITY

The equations for critical velocity proposed by Durand (1953), Wiendenroth

(1967), Zandi and Gavatos (1967), Larsen (1968), Bain and Bonnington (1970),
Wasp et al (1970), Babcock (1971), Robinson and Graf (1972), Gogus and
Kokpinar (1993) and Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) have been checked for their
accuracy using the collected data in the present study and the result given in
Annexure-4. 1. The settling velocity used in the some of the existing equations for
critical velocity is also calculated using Mitzmager's (1964) equation as this
equation gives accurate estimation of settling velocity (Kokpinar and Gogus,
2001)). The calculated value of the critical velocity from the different existing
equations are compared with observed ones in Figs. 4.1.,

Figs. 4.1 reveal that equations proposed by Durand (1953), Wiendenroth (1967),
Bain and Bonnington (1970), Wasp et al (1970), Babcock (1971), Robinson and
Graf (1972) underestimate the values of the critical velocity, and thus not accurate.
However, Zandi and Gavatos (1967), Larsen (1968), Gogus and Kokpinar (1993
and 2001) equations produce better estimate of the critical velocity. The results of
the above four equations are further analysed by calculating the percentage of data
P [%] having error less or equal to Z [%] as shown in Fig. 4.2.


5
(a) Durand (1953) / /•"
+ 30%/+ 10%,7
U
E
4
Line of agreement / / - 10%

• /• /
// i i - 30%

U

1 2 3 4 5
Observed critical velocity (m/s)"

5
(b) Wiendenroth (1 967) / /•
+30%/+10%/'
4 /
Line of agreem ent / / - 10%
I /
a 3 / / /
/ / / / -30%
/ / /
2 /.7_
ca / . j-
• -
U /
A_^ Y AML

0-
0 1 2 3 4 5
Observed critical velocity (m/s)

43
 5
(c) Zandi and Gavatos (1967) / /-
+ 30%/+ 1O%,
7-
/
Line of agreement /

Ak

~
❑
0 1 2 3 4 5
Observed critical velocity (m/s)

(e) Larsen (1968) / /-

+ 30%/+ 10 %,
4
Line of agreement /
U
0

is fa. -< 30%

U
U
0
2 /a.'

Ca /
U
C 1
0

0

~
❑ 1 2 3 4 5
Observed critical velocity (m/s)

44


5
(e) Bain and Bonnington (1970) / /•
+ 30%/
+
N 4 /
EI Line of agreement / /'- 10%
o I / /.
3 /
AC 30%

2 // te ;
/ r

j ~. //:~./~~ A

0 ui tilL 1 1111 1 1111 1 1

0 1 2 3 4 5
Observed critical velocity (m/s)

5
•(f) Wasp et al (1 970) / /•
+ 30%/+ 1O%7 .
4 /
E Line of agreement / /'"- 10%

3 / /
> / / / -30%
• / /
2

U 1
A Y A,
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Observed critical velocity (m/s)

45
 5
(i) Gogus and Kokpinar (19.93) / /•
+ 30%/+
10 %/
4
A.
/ /' /
E Line of agreement 10%

/- / - 30%

Ak

0

1 2 3 4 5
Observed critical velocity (m/s)

5
(j) Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) / /•
+ 30%/+ 10%/

Line of agreement / /"- 10%

/ -a.
✓ ,

7
1 2 3 4

❑C

Observed critical velocity (m/s)

Fig. 4.1 Comparison between calculated and observed critical flow velocities

47
 5
(g) Babcock (1 971) /
+ 30%/+
10 %/.
4 /
E Line of agreement / /'- 10%

0 3
/ / / -30%

2 // //_.//

1- 4At

0
0 1 2 3 4
Observed critical velocity (m/s)

5
(h) Robinson and Graf (1 972) /
+ 30%/ 10 %/
4 /
• Line of agreement / / - 10%

I
/

Y A.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Observed critical velocity (m/s)

46
 100

80

60.

40

20

0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Z (%)

100

80

60

a
40

20

0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Z (%)

48
 100

80

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Z (%).

100

80

60
0
a
40

20

0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00.
Z (%)

Fig.4.2 Percentage of data P [%] versus percentage error Z [%] in computation of

critical flow velocity

WE
Figures 4.2 reveal that out of 100 data point for the determination of critical
velocities from (a) Zandi and Gavatos (1967) equation, 10% of the data are within
± 10% error and 44% of the data are within ± 30% error; (b) Larsen (1968)
equation, 24% of the data are within ± 10% error and 68% of the data are within.±
30% error; (c) Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) equation, 30% of the data are within ±
10% error and 70% of the data are within ± 30% error; (d) Kokpinar and Gogus
(2001) equation , 36% of the data are within ± 10% error and 90% of the data are
within ± 30% error.

An index of accuracy, Ia, which is the sum of product of percentage of data and
inverse of the percentage error, is calculated for error within ±30% for the four
equations.

(a) Zandi and Gavatos (1967)

0)]+ 16x(15 ]+ 44x(3 1=4.3

la = 0x(1 ]+[4xr5 1+ 10x(1
L J J L L J L 0J
(b) Larsen (1968)

la = 2x~1 +L12x~5J] +L24x~lOJJ +I 36x(15)]+ 68x~ =,15.17

L I] L 30Jj

(c) Gogus and Kokpinar (1993)

Ia = Oxl +L14x(5)] +[30x001 42x1 15J]+[70x1 30 I =10.93

1JJ
(d) Kokpinar and Gogus (2001)

la [6x(+D
[ [
1± 22x(*)1+ 36x(i J1 + L 58x(i 1 + L9oxC )1=2o.87
D

The computation of index of accuracy for the above equations, reflect that Zandi
and Gavatos (1967) equation is not so accurate. Out of the remaining three
equations, the equation proposed by Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) is more accurate.
The estimation of critical velocity by the Larsen (1968), Gogus and Kokpinar
(1993, 2001) equations are further analyzed to identify the range of the parameter

50
in which a particular equation gives better eestimate. The variation of percentage
error in the computation of critical velocity from the equations proposed by Larsen

200
(a)
180 ••••••
160 •

140 ••

120 ••

100
• •
80 •
60 • • •~•
40H. • •
• s
20 f•
••• • ••
• •
~ s ~ s •
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
CV

200
180
1.60
140
120
°~- 100
N
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
S

51
 200
c)
180
160
140
120
100
N •
80
60 ••
40 •
20 •
rs: ~ s •
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
D/ds

200
(d)
180
1
•
160
•
140
120
100
N •
80

60

40
'j • •
20 •
• s• • •
0
0 100 200 300 400- 500 600 700
Rey

52


200
(e)

180
F.
160
•
140
$
120

100

•
80 •
•
60 S
•
40

20 ti •
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Rem

Fig. 4.3 Variation of percentage of error with (a) C,; (b) s; (c) D/d; (d) Rey,, and
(e) Re., (Larsen, 1968)

140
(a)

120

100

80
•
60 • • • • •
•
S.
40 S S
$
1i • t .••
• S •
20 •• iS• $• •
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
c„

53
 140 (b)

120

100

80

60
S.
•
40
•
S •

20 • •s
• sss
0
0.0 - 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
s

140
(c)

120

100

80

N 60
••
40

20
• s. • •
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
D/ds

54
 140
(d)

120

100

80

N
60
•

40

20
• • : s i •

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Re

140 (e)

120

100

80

N 60

• •
40 •

20 ~rR •
(s • '
0 '' •s'
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Re m

Fig. 4.4 Variation of percentage of error with (a) Cv; (b) s; (c) D/d; (d) Rew, and
(e) Rem (Gogus and Kokpinar, 1993)

55
 120

100

80

60
N

40

20

0
0.00 . 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
cv

120
(b)

100

80

•
N 60

40

20 • r
• s
0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
s

56
 120
(c)

100

80

60
N

40
•

20 s •
Ls~ i
i
•
:•
:
•

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
D/d s'

120
(d)

100

80

N 60

•
40 N

20 i i

i ~ • $
0
0 100 2Q0 300 400 500 600 700
Re

Fwd
 120
(e)

100

80

•
60
N

40

20 •
• .s
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Rem

Fig. 4.5 Variation of percentage of error with (a) C; (b) s; (c) D/d; (d) Re and
(e) Rem (Kokpinar and Gogus, 2001)

Table 4.1. Range of parameters for the suitability of equations for critical velocity
Parameter C,, s Did Rey„ Re,,,
Larsen (1968) C„? 0.20 1.18<_s_<1.35 100_5D/d,<500 Re,,,>_ 400 5<Rem< 150
1000<_Re,„< 2500
Gogus and C? 0.30 1.3<s<_2.50 D/ds > 600 Re.> 180 600 em<1000
Kokpinar
(1993)
Kokpinar and 0.12<C„<0.30 1.4<s_<2.50 175<D/ds<_500 ReK, ? 250 Re,R ? 300
Gogus (2001)

4.3 PROPOSED EQUATION FOR CRITICAL VELOCITY

4.3.1 Dimensional and Regression Analysis
Review of existing equations for critical velocity reveals that the variables
affecting the critical velocity are D, d, (s-1), g, C, w, o0m, pm, µm, µf . However,
from the Eqs. (2.60), (2.61), (2.63) com is function of µf, C,,, s, v and from Eq.. (2.6)
µm is function of p and C. Thus, the functional relationship for the critical
velocity may be written as

58


Vc— f1( Ps , d, Pf, !Lf,, Cv,, D, wm, g) (2.45)

Dimensional analysis yields

vD =f 2 C (s-1 P
),CV ,µd ' D] (246
.)

Out of 100 data points for critical velocity, 80 data points are used to establish
equation for critical velocity and 20 data points to validate it.
From the regression analysis, the following equation for critical velocity is
proposed:

-0.44 0.22
C0.14(s-1)0.24 Pf d 1 R2 =
° =0.1( 0.76 (4.1)
gD D1) µc

4.3.2. Validation of Proposed Equation

The unused 20 data points for critical velocity have been used to validate the
proposed equation. The calculated critical velocity using the proposed equation are
compare with the observed ones in Fig. 4.6. Fig. 4.6 depicts that the prediction is
accurate and the calculated critical velocity is within ± 25% of the observed ones.
For 20 (unused) data points and it shown in Annexure-4.2, critical velocities are
also calculated from the equations proposed by Larsen (1968), Gogus and
Kokpinar (1993) and Kokpinar and Gogus (2001). The comparison between the
calculated velocity by these equations and observed velocity are shown in Figs.
4.7, 4.8 and 4.9. From Figs. 4.6 to 4.9, it looks that the proposed and Kokpinar and
Gogus (2001) equation yield better estimate of the critical velocity.

Further, percentage of data P[%] having • error less or equal to Z [%] for the
proposed and Larsen (1968), Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) and Kokpinar and
Gogus (2001) equations are shown in Figs 4.10, 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13.

59
 4

n
0 1 2 3 4

Observed critical velocity (m/s)

Fig.4.6 Comparison between calculated and observed critical velocity by the

proposed equation

0 1 2 3 4

Observed critical velocity (m/s)

Fig.4.7 Comparison between observed and calculated critical velocity by Larsen

(1968) equation

60
 5

+25%

I Line of agreement /

3 / /25 %

2 /
N /

0
0 1 2 3 4
Observed critic-al velocity (m/s)

Fig.4.8 Comparison between observed and calculated critical velocity by Gogus

and Kokpinar (1993) equation

0 1 2 3 4
Observed critical velocity (m/s)

Fig.4.9 Comparison between observed and calculated critical velocity by

Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) equation

61
 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30 z (%) P(%)
<_5 30

20 <_10 54
<_ 15 66

10 <25 80

0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Z(%)

Fig. 4.10 Percentage of data P [%] versus percentage error Z [%] in computation
of critical flow velocity by proposed equation

100
90
80
70

60

50

40

30 Z(%) P(%)
< 5 20
20 < 10 34
S15 44
10 < 25 70
0
• 0.00 100.00 1000.00
0.01 0.10 1.00 1
Z(%)

Fig. 4.11 Percentage of data P [%] versus percentage error Z [%] in computation
of critical flow velocity by Larsen (1968) equation ,

62
 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30 Z(%) P(%)
<_ 5 16
20 <_ 10 30
515 44
10
S25 80
0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 - 1 00.00 1000.00
Z(%)

Fig. 4.12 Percentage of data P [%] versus percentage error Z [%] in computation
of critical flow velocity by Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) equation

100
90

80

70

60

50
a
40

30 Z (%) P(%)
< 5 16
20 < 10 50
515 54
10
525 86
0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Z (%)

Fig. 4.13 Percentage error Z [%] in computation of critical flow velocity versus
percentage of data P [%] by Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) equation
63
Index of accuracy Ia for error 25 % are calculated as follow:
(a) Proposed equation
Ia= 30x15 +[54 1-)
1
) 1)L
1
51+80xi2i=19.0
5)

(b) Larsen (1968) equation

I ]+[70X r2 =13.13
Ia= r20xm + r34xi10 ]+ 44x()
L / L 5JJ
(c) Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) equation

01 +[44x
Ia= 16x15 + 30x11 + 80x12)1=12.33
C )J 1 (15) ] [

(d) Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) equation

Ia= 16x~5 + r50x110 1+ 54x115~1+ 86x~2 1=15.24

C JJL ]J ) L [ 5J

Index of accuracy of the proposed equation is higher than the other equations.
Thus it may be concluded that the proposed equation is better than the other
existing equations for the computation of critical velocity. Further, the proposed
equation requires settling velocity of solid particle in clear water and not in the
slurry like the other existing equations.

64
 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions have been drawn from the present study:

1. The existing equations for the determination of critical velocity for slurry
transport through pipes have been checked for their accuracy using the
collected data in the present study. This analysis reveals that equations
proposed by Zandi and Gavatos (1967), Larsen (1968), Gogus and Kokpinar
(1993), and Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) produce better estimate of critical
velocity compared to other existing equations, which underestimate the
critical velocity.

2. Out of 100 data point for the computation of critical velocities from (a) Zandi
and Gavatos (1967) equation, 10% of the data are within ± 10% error and
44% of the data are within ± 30% error; (b) Larsen (1968) equation, 24% of
the data are within ± 10% error and 68% of the data are within ± 30% error;
(c) Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) equation, 30% of the data are within ± 10%
error and 70% of the data are within ± 30% error; (d) Kokpinar and Gogus
(2001) equation, 36% of the data are within ± 10% error and 90% of the data
are within ± 30% error. Zandi and Gavatos (1967) equation is not so accurate
compared to Larsen (1968), Gogus and Kokpinar (1993), and Kokpinar and
Gogus (2001).

3. The range of parameters for the suitability of existing equations for, critical
velocity are mentioned in Table 4.1.

4. Dominant factors affecting the critical velocity are ratio of mean diameter of
particle and diameter of pipe, concentration of solids by volume, ' specific-
gravity of solid particle, particle Reynolds number in calm and clear water.

5. Out of 100 data points, 80 data points are used to develop a new equation for
the determination of the critical velocity and the remaining 20 data points are
used to validate it. The proposed equation and Kokpinar and Gogus (2001)

65
 equation produce better estimate of the critical velocity and within f 25% of
the observed ones
6. Index of accuracy of the proposed equation is higher than the other equations.
Thus it may be concluded that the proposed equation is better than the other
existing equations for the determination of critical velocity. Further, the
proposed equation requires settling velocity of solid particle in clear water and
not in the slurry like the other existing equations.
 REFERENCES

1. Abulnaga, B.E. (2002). Slurry System Hand Book. McGraw-Hill, New York.
2. Cheng, N. S. (1997a). Simplified Settling Velocity Formula for Sediment
Particle. J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 123(2), pp.149-152.
3. Cheng, N.S. (1997b). Effect of Concentration on Settling Velocity of Sediment
Particles. J. Hydr: Engrg., ASCE, 123(8), pp.728-731.
4. Chien, N. and Wan, Z.(1999). Mechanics of Sediment Transport. ASCE Press.
5. Crowe, C.T, (2006), Multiphase Flow Handbook. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Group.
6. Davies, J.T (1987), Calculation of Critical Velocity to Maintain Solids in
Suspension in Horizontal Pipes. Chemical Engineering Science, pp.1667-1670.
7. Brian, F.F., Furfari, D.J., Kellogg, M.I. and Park, W.R. Measurement of the
Critical Deposition Velocity in Slurry Transport through a Horizontal Pipe.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
8. Estey, S.D. and Hu, T.A. (1998). Flow Velocity Analysis for Avoidance of
Solids Deposition during Transport of Hanford Tank Waste Slurries. Lockheed
Martin Hanford Corp.,United State of America
9. Garde, R.J. and Ranga Raju, K.G. (2000). Mechanics of Sediment
Transportation and Alluvial Stream Problems. Revised third edition, New Age
International Publishers.
10. Graf, W.H. (1971). Hydraulics of Sediment Transport. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
11. Harris, J. (1977). Rheology and non-Newtonian Flow. Longman,Inc., New
York.
12. Kansal, M.L. Flow Measurement in Pipelines. Short Term Training Programme
on Advances In Hydraulic Flow Measurements (June 141h — 19`h,2004). Govind
Ballabh Pant, University of Agriculture & Technology, Patnagar-263 145 (U.S.
Nagar), Uttaranchal.
13. Kokpinar, M.A. and Gogus, M. (2001). Critical Velocity in Slurry Transporting
Horizontal Pipelines. J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 127( 9), pp.763-771
14. Rajput, R.K, (2006). A Text Book of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic
Machines. S. Chand & Company LTD, Ram Nagar, New Delhi-1 10 055.

67
15. Ran, T.P. (1997). Modern Regression Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
16. Turian, R.M., HSU, F.L. and MA, T.W. (1987). Estimation of the Critical
Velocity in Pipeline Flow of Slurry. Powder Technology, pp.35-47.
17. Wasp, E.J., Kenny, J.P. and Gandhi, R.L. (1977). Solid-Liquid Flow Slurry
Pipeline Transportation. Trans Tech Publications, San Fransisco, California.
18. Yalin, M.S. (1977). Mechanics of Sediment Transport. 2' Edition, Pergamon
Press.
Annexure-3.1 Collected data related to Critical Velocity
Series Vc C, d5 D s Solid
Source
Number m/s % (mm) m Particles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Durant 1 2.4700 0.0500 0.4400 0.1500 2.6000 Sand
1952 2 2.6500 0.1000 0.4400 0.1500 2.6000
3 2.7100 0.1500 0.4400 0.1500 2.6000
4 2.1900 0.0250 2.0400 0.1500 2.6000
5 2.4100 0.0790 2.0400 0.1500 2.6000
6 2.5300 0.0750 2.0400 0.1500 2.6000
7 2.6200 0.1000 2.0400 0.1500 2.6000
Yotsukura 8 2.0800 0.1500 0.2300 0.1080 2.6000 Sand
1961 9 2.3500 0.2000 0.2300 0.1080 2.6000
10 1.8300 0.0500 0.2300 0.1080 2.6000
11 1.9400 0.1000 0.2300 0.1080 2.6000
12 2.4400 0.2500 0.5850 0.1080 2.6000
13 1.9900 0.0500 0.5850 0.1080 2.6000
14 2.1200 0.1000 0,5850 0.1080 2.6000
15 2.9600 0.2000 0.5850 0.1080 2.6000
16 2.5200 0.0500 1.1500 0.1080 2.6000
17 2.3200 0.1000 1.1500 0.1080 2.6000
18 2.6700 0.1500 1.1500 0.1080 2.6000
Sinclair 19 0.3200 0.0300 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400 Coal
1962 20 0.3400 0.0400 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400
21 0.3500 0.0500 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400
22 0.3700 0.0600 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400
23 0.3800 0.0700 2.2050 0.0250 . 1.7400
24 0.3900 0.0800 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400
25 0.4100 0.1000 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400
26 0.4500 0.1200 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400
27 0.4700 0.1400 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400
28 0.5000 0.1600 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400
29 0.5200 0.1800 2.2050 0.0250 1.7400
Wick, 1968 30 0.4600 0.0100 0.2500 0.0270 2.6000 Sand
1968 31 0.7900 0.0100 0.2500 0.1400 2.6000
Graf et al 32 1.5500 0.0070 0.4500 0.1020 2.6500 Sand
1970 33 1.7100 0.0100 0.4500 0.1020 2.6500
34 1.9000 0.0300 0.4500 0.1020 2.6500
35 1.9800 0.0700 0.4500 0.1020 2.6500
36 1.9500 0.0080 0.8800 0.1520 2.6500
37 2.0400 0.0110 0.8800 0.1520 2.6500
38 2.2100 0.0300 0.8800 0.1520 2.6500
39 2.2500 0.0500 0.8800 0.1520 2.6500
40 1.7800 0.0080 0.4500 0.1520 2.6500
41 2.1200 0.0190 0.4500 0.1520 2.6500
42 2.2700 0.0250 0.4500 0.1520 2.6500
43 2.4200 0.0540 0.4500 0.1520 2.6500
Avci 44 1.4500 0.0500 0.4210 0.0520 2.6000 Sand
1981 45 1.5800 0.1000 0.4210 0.0520 2.6000
46 1.4500 0.0500 0.2980 0.0520 2.6000
Avci 47 0.5200 0.0500 0.8430 0.0520 1.1800 Antracite
• 1981 48 • 0.5400 0.1000 0.8430 0.0520 1.1800
49 0.4900 0.0500 0.5960 0.0520 1.1800
50 0.5200 0.1000 0.5960 0.0520 1.1800
51 0.5800 0.1500 0.5960 0.0520 1.1800
52 0.6300 0.2000 0.5960 0.0520 1.1800
53 0.6800 0.3000 0.5960 0.0520 1.1800
Annexure-3.I (continued)
Avci 54 0.2700 0.1000 3.2000 0.0520 1.0400 Polystyrene
1981 55 0.2800 0.2000 3.2000 0.0520 1.0400
Avci 56 0.6000 0.0500 3.2000 0.0520 1.4100 PVC
1981 57 0.6500 0.1000 3.2000 0.0520 1.4100
58 0.6800 0.1500 3.2000 0.0520 1.4100
Kokpinar and 59 2.6300 0.0140 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000 Sand,
Gogus 60 2.9100 0.0230 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000 series,1
2001 61 2.9600 0.0320 - 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
62 2.3300 0.0150 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
63 2.9700 0.0370 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
64 3.0000 0.0260 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
65 2.6900 0.0110 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
66 2.9800 0.0190 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
Kokpinar and 67 1.9600 0.0150 5.3400 0.1500 2.5500 Coarse sand,
Gogus 68 2.3100 0.0270 5.3400 0.1500 2.5500 series 2
2001 69 2.4500 0.0370 5.3400 0.1500 2.5500
70 2.0300 0.0260 5.3400 0.1500 2.5500
Kokpinar and 71 1.6200 0.0220 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400 Coal,
Gogus 72 1.9000 0.0360 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400 series 3
2001 73 1.8800 0.0500 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400
74 1.7100 0.0210 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400
75 1.7100 0.0390 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400
76 2.0400 0.0550 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400
Kokpinar and 77 1.2900 0.0310 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000 Blue plastics,
Gogus 78 1.3600 0.0320 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000 series 4
2001 79 1.4600 0.0560 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000
80 1.5400 0.0680 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000
81 1.5300 0.0740 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000
82 1.5600 0.0720 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000
Kokpinar and 83 1.4100 0.0500 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500 Black plastics,
Gogus 84 1.2600 0.0280 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500 series 5
2001 85 1.4900 0.0680 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500
86 1.4000 0.0470 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500
87 1.4600 0.0560 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500
88 1.2700 0.0270 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500
Kokpinar and 89 1.4100 0.0290 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100 Fine tuff,
Gogus 90 1.7400 0.0490 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100 series.6
2001 91 1.5400 0.0690 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100
92 1.8500 0.0890 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100
93 1.8000 0.0510 '1.6520 0.1500 1.3100
94 1.9700 0.0730 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100
Kokpinar and 95 1.0600 0.0350 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400 Coarse tuff,
Gogus 96 1.4200 0.0600 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400 series 7
2001 97 1.6400 0.0840 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400
98 1.2500 0.0370 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400
99 1.4600 0.0640 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400
100 1.6300 0.0910 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400

70
 9 ("nllortcrt rinin r I hart to Sattlinn VPlncitu

Source Series ---W Wm v s D s Solid

Number m/s m/s (%) mm m Particles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Kokpinar and 1 0.1100 0.2000 0.0140 10900 0.1500 2.6000 Sand.
Gogus 2 0.1100 0.1900 0.0230 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000 series 1
2001 3 0.1100 0.1700 0.0320 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
4 0.1100 0.2000 0.0150 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
5 0.1100 0.1700 0.0370 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
6 0.1100 0.1900 0.0260 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
7 0.1100 0.2000 0.0110 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
8 - 0.1100 0.1800 0.0190 1.0900 0.1500 2.6000
Kokpinar and 9 0.3500 0.5000 0.0150 5.3400 0.1500 2.5500 Coarse sand
Gogus 10 0.3500 0.4700 0.0270 5.3400 0.1500 2.5500 series 2
2001 11 0.3500 0.4600 0.0370 5.3400 0.1500 2.5500
12 0.3500 0.4700 0.0260 5.3400 0.1500 2.5500
Kokpinar and 13 0.0120 0.2700 0.0220 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400 Coal
Gogus 14 0.0120 0.2500 0.0360 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400 series 3
2001 15 0.0120 0.2500 0.0500 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400 -
16 0.0120 0.2800 0.0210 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400
17 0.0120 0.2500 0.0390 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400
18 0.0120 0.2400 0.0550 3.7000 0.1500 1.7400
Kokpinar and 19 0.0900 0.0800 0.0310 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000 Blue plastic,
.Gogus 20 0.0900 0.0800 0.0320 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000 series 4
2001 21 0.0900 0.0800 0.0560 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000
22 0.0900 0.0700 0.0680 22500 0.1500 1.2000
23 0.0900 0.0700 0.0740 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000
24 0.0900 0.0700 0.0720 2.2500 0.1500 1.2000
Kokpinar and 25 0.1200 0.1200 0.0500 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500 Black plastics,
Gogus 26 0.1200 0.1300 0.0280 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500 series 5
2001 27 0.1200 0.1100 0.0680 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500
28 0.1200 0.1300 0.0470 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500
29 0.1200 0.1200 0.0560 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500
30 0.1200 0.1300 0.0270 2.2500 0.1500 1.3500
Kokpinar and 31 0.0400 0.0800 0.0290 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100 Fine tuff
Gogus 32 0.0400 0.0900 0.0490 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100 series 6
2001 33 0.0400 0.0800 0.0690 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100
34 0.0400 0.0800 0.0890 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100
35 0.0400 0.0800 0.0510 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100
36 0.0400 0.0800 0.0730 1.6520 0.1500 1.3100
Kokpinar and 37 0.0700 0.0600 0.0350 3.6990 0.1500 1.0400 Coarse tuff
Gogus 38 0.0700 0.0600 0.0600 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400 series 7
2001 39 0.0700 0.0600 0.0840 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400
40 0.0700 0.0600 0.0370 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400
41 0.0700 0.0600 0.0640 3.8990 0.1600 1.0400
42 0.0700 0.0600 0.0910 3.8990 0.1500 1.0400

71
 o
a ~co c

Ln in W r O N N l8 W DI I) N In In e- m
y v) r II) ON v) m N r r c7
O
C O W m Ni V N 00 Ni N m
Wa N O N In m N in N N N N N N tom! N N N O
V

Y O

°6 U) N O r U) in in O W r r W ~} N
N i '- V N '- sf ~}
N N
J C Q~1 r 8
t0 r 8888 r 88 O b N 22 N 99 t! 9
O O^
X N— V - N N) N N ail N N N— — G G C C C O G O C G C
~ Y

th r Q1 N m 10 aD n O1 N a0 n N l ti N 1f1 O a}
N- N
m rn o o
0 2 2 0 W<<< 0 C<
r r r r rr
o O'' r r r r r r rr ~ O O O O O O O O O O O

s m
u~u'. .-oromvN
N O N OI IU W Qi
c'~
O A
o
N A^ O Al A m A
rrorNN.~i o.-wm os
V A O N If] m
r
f~] m

a ~'QV,~nm`000~vu~.-c~m~n ~nmmArn~mAA~rmmmrnd~

N O N m r N Di i- m O CI HT

U m

Of m
Io N N o O -1 N O In O o a
N N o a w cD a N O 0 N c
0D O r
25 Z_: W NI O O O N Ol W 1p W W Y r W N m Ol Ol O O O O
Ni N t'7 f7 < t"1 V r tV Cl fV (V fV t") li G C G r

Cd 0 tV m m O N
Q 0 m
t~ m 0-
tV 1~ A
_ N o~ O O O')~ ro
~O m V 1
s0f N 0 1~ ~(1 O O N

70 00 0 00 0r
w

.N
O
O

5
O OO OO O N N 9 N 19 99 99
s~
N
O O O O O O 0C 0 0 G
Q
O 2 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 O 0 000000 O 0 0 00 00
v
m CU N (V lV NO 000 00000 OO
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O OO O O
OO
E M ~
3 m 0

0
C) O
( r N M O 0m t0 In m t tV O O CG O OO OO r

O0
v
~
NN N N N NNN N N N N N NNN N

O OO T 8 oO 282
OO OO O O O O OO O O OO O 0 OO
1m
() NO OO O r(O r O N Or {O O O Or 0r
O O O O O O G G O 0 0 00 00 0 0000000000000

0 O O O O O OO O O O O OO OO 00 00 0
O OO oo

E O OO N tV 0 00 0O- -N-N N N NtV N Ni

M -I
O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0000000000000000 0 000 o 000 O 000

N U
E N N f7 ~f 1n W 1~ W O O N t7 V ~Ll W r W
N NN N N N N NN N

C —

72
 c c c - U v ui
U) l) (n S. d
.

rmrn~n o. c~~ rn~ n v>~o~ m ~nmm m m~~m ov~~o ~o

s~ rn
~p N
m
N ~[i r N b O ~m O m -R m N< Oi m O rn< u~j n
V N ~(J h Q N r m
t~l ~f
0 1 r IO
D R O~ N
N N

O r r N ~"• r fV N ~ N N l~l O r O O O O C O O O O O G O O r N N r [V N O N

IN O O
O O N
0 O m OCOlflC.JIfl CO
Oi m 0 m m 0.- N,- N a, 1A OD l7 O lfl N GO l
O~ O r N r N l'1 Q C7 C'l OO 6 m N 0 N t7 6 6
O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O

N i~ O OJ A A O O Oi O N 1~ Q
m T Y Of N l~) V p O~ 0 o fp t7 m GO QI [7
N

0 h N O N O O r O o pp tp op N o a0 l~l m O A m O! t0 < r N m
0000 Q r N 1[I m O N Q} M V N 7
0O O OG O O O

~ n
NN nN
O 6m
u)
O ~p 7

aO 1N
fO
tCOm~
!
O~
~ ~l nmr tm
..7 . O.
~ V . c'
)
..
NO 9
tO tO

0O mO 0m m 0 0 0 0 Cl) 0 0 0 N cp [+
N (Q tp
D) R
oo r(0
0 s!t50
Anr
iOl On V 0 0 • V a7 C
r NN N NN N 000 0000 ~ N
MOO
Q 01 CD QO) I() r N- O fVr N 0 0 C') —`
o '5O Ml
~
O< Ob N U) S.
. a'
C
'O
aT) T
v ~n m N
+0l
-a mm
N
r
n
NO O VO
M19
O NN N
o o r
o ~ rn rn a~ nr
t~
Q
c m
N
v
Ni
N
0
N0
c4 c4
N v
N0 O0 n0 n0 n0

N N Yrm r N l l7 ~
l
c7D M C)
'f l
(i
fAD tIan
)i vm
i M2 ~- m
0 0 0

O O0 00 00 00 00 00 0OO O OO O0 OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
Ii
fD] ~(O 10 10 NJ lO ~D l
O Or t (V tV tV N Cl O O O O O 0 G O O 2 O O tV Ni IV [V Cif IN V

O 00 o O o OO
O O O O O
O O O 0 O O N O N m
O O C O O O O O O O

0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0
O
O O °Q0
Nm On
000ccc
Nn O Om
r ro ooco
r r J Q ON
v
U Nr r O 0
ir i m = cJo .
- 1 0

0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 °
0 °o 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 ° 00 00 0 0 0 0
m °m °m o °o o °
(0 to CD m CD(0 CD n m `memm Cn CD 0 C
o o vv °
oi mi
10 CD CD
010 - 00 - 00
- -- -- -- fV clV tV 00 00 0 -
.

00000000000000000000000000 0 000000 0 0 00
o 1 O °O
n l(l N
O
O O O iO O
0 0 N0 0 O OO OO O

O O O O O O O
O O O +I [O m 2 O O gj
-
NQO V Q
laO
0 pO
j ~?j
y- tl -~O N O
. 'O O
VO

N0 N N N0 O O O O
O O_
NP N0
O OO OO 6 OO
OO OO OO OO OO OO O OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
G

m t~ P"-- A t'~l t0 a+l

r ? V< R? V R Y h h N V
QI N N N LL
m'l O
tO t0 I
NO t~D b

Ia
a m mm Qa+ am •
,: ..- <- F_ =o
.
U oN
Y U'

73
mN M v in rm 5n
my ov !
. !
. =v
c v
m~
m aiC
U N LL Q H
) N N v
V m m

m ~t n O n Ol m m 1L] m OI m M N m O] In n m p~ m O m A tf A m m
V' O`m O m O Q O A m M A m M r sT N OI NNM A m m m IA O A
nO T 1~ 01 O n r M M m m tO t0 m_ m Ol m m N to [O T O f~ -. m r N O N
n- -r - - ~- — - — r [V r r O r

- m m(P (0 o N- co N^ 04 (O
O W (0 O O'- N- n '? R [O O m O N N N- .CO 0 O

M
(+! n w OJ cD
[D m V A Ir N O] N O 1W0
[1] h m 1p (p m m Co fD N ~D (O l0 fD ID N N
O Mm M o
O N fD N
N_ C7 V7 M m m O~ m 01 OI m st u) cy N N N N
— ,- 000000 O O 00000 O O G 0000000 m 000000

M m N m N C A O O O M ~(f C m M t Of N n m ID A m tD c4 <O
m O rn 0 A m m M of 0 m 0 N? 0 7 m C Nr N N NN
00 r G O C O 000000000000000006 606000000

~~- ~m~nnmr- n.-vmm nvou~mrNM mMU~oNOrrrmm ~p

o mom .- Mar +i
m N r A [7 N- Nm pi tp
mn A A m A m Co m n nn mmmO A O Y n
m M M Co Co M
en
Co
c~i r r r r 000000000000000000000000

~ O m fD
r~ N O (N m M OI h N m to m r r M O O t7 m M n Ql Q1 O M M A l+l
iA m O N M N N R ~If R N A ti N O m
eD O O O 0 O
0 T O ED m
Oi M m
t+f N
t+~ M
O OO OOO O O OO O O_ O O O O O O O O

rn r m r O r V' O Ql n O m O (( 1
Ammnnu~ui 0.1 (0 - N- CS) NJ M1 00
v O N- N [V N< (0 0))
cqi

M Of m r mM c7 N m O m Lo co m A< A m m [O m A m
f0 I(] Q O [O M `C ILf M M LL'1 t0 N N Itf n O A O e0 N N m 6~ m
Mn at m Of Q O A O Oa ' fp eh Oi ^ ~i O A M m MM O M N
V -- m -- 6 0 M ~[f
r N r r O O O O O O H O r r O O O r r O r O O O O O O

6) OI OI 0) IL) U) CO U) m U) t0 CO m ~O c0 fD
nn nn n A NN NN NN
N- n n nn m r- m m m Um U
m rn rn rn rn v v U)
v v rn rn rn m m m m rn rn rn rn rn
m m <o to m U U U) m W Ol Ol D1 Oa N N N N N N
NN N N o m m m d dCD < a o o o o fit) d 6 d o o o o o o o c o o Co o Co
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

N m m m m m m ~O N U Co
N
N N N N N N N N N m Q) T m
O *O O O O UU +J CD (0 (0 (0 CD CO Co Co U) W W
O m O O N O O o O O O O
rn Ql 61 m Co Co Co Co M M m CD m m fp 10 Of m O) QI 00(00 m 000 Co Co Co CO M M
d o d 000 0 00000000006000000

0
000 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 m 00 00 0 0 0n 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 r0 ~{
0 pI
00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0
fp m M (D O) Q
M Y v {D O+ m A n O N t7 'cT m `it N V N 7 1 m m n
Of O 'N
V (~O N R 1M
0
C N N N r r N ~"

O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
O O O O O p O p O O
m Q m m m n n A N M M N t7 m c I m m M m m m m m m m
V<< N N N N N N O O O O O O rr r r O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O 00 C C O C G O 000000 G C 0000000 O 000000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
n
?7 m V N N C /O Ol O O
N r ~D m f0 ID lD r Qi r O Qi N 1 u 0 0
00000000 00-
M 000000 ,- 00.- _- 0000000

0 0 0
0° 0 0
00 0
00 00 0
00 0
00 0o
v° 0
vv0 vv 0
vo0 0
Op 0 00
o 0 0 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
000
nn n A
- n n
N cat cV N '-

NIA N N M N M 1~( M M
O OlO O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O OIO O O O O O O OIO 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000000000000000000000000000000

OI OI Ol m m
0000000000000000000000000000000000
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N Ol
s~ vt 0 0 0 0 O0 0 m O N N l[1 to Iti IA In O O m to
m c9 M n n n n h n N N N N ~l N N N N N N N [O l0 [O [O t0 tD m
In In Of OI OI rn Of 01
mm mm m
U) X) U) (0 m CO (0 (0 t+) C) CU NJ IV fV CU 04 C) NI NI Cl Cl —
- r r CO CO Co Cf (0 CO

o oO O O O O O O O O O p 8 O O O O O o O O O O p O O O O O O
O O 0

0000000000000000000000000000000000

A m Of O r N M N {O n m O Or w m nm w O r NM m o m 01 O
~n
nry nln~r A ln n Wm
m wm m m rn rn m rn rn m
rn m rn °

v v v
~
mo 2 o o c o
m
0CUH m
; N d 7 N N .t Q ~ O
n

Y YC
N U7
` Y 0

74
 -p Co Q) '[t Co Co N N- Co Co s- 'V• Co Co Co Co f- .-
c 0 1 - Co F- Q) N Co F- Co '•d- CD O) Co co Co ' t
fp o
..v -O Co
N
CO . r N CO
O) N N r Co Co N CO M N Q7 t+ Co N~
Co r r r r Co

O O w -
Y (,

Co c0 0) o r N CO Co Co CD CD m CD Co CO u7 Co Co Co
O) O! tO O) CO N— 1~ Co N N Q) Co CO Co Q) Co Co
p) C CD CO Co O) CO N OR CD Iq Co N Co Co CV N-'- CD d• O!
N v c0 '
2 j = r r N CD Co'- r LO r r r N N Co '4'
CO
Of C
O
t CD W
O
^ O) CO Co N C) Co Co a0 F- Co CV a0 c0 ('4 0) C CD 0)
O CD N- r- co Co 10 f~ "T CO l~ Co Co N 01 ' Co •V• Co O)
a O N 1~ N r cq '. O O O O N CO CO Q) 10 (D
Co Co CO ('4 r CO

U"2 CD sF O) O CD ID N aO O r Co
r r Co r Co r ('4,- ID cV .- CV O)

c W
CO
J
C Co Co Co O Co Co Co CD CD Co Co Co 10 CV Co CV CD CD CO 1-
O _O Co Co CD (D N Co ' r Co [D O) O Co CO co Co 47 N
0 - r CoCD Co [ - N CO N CO CD O O CO O 1- O) OO 6)
p- = O) - - CV N r Co Q) r Co CD w to V' a0 [D Co Co
Q r Co Co CV CV r Co .- Co
2
Q W

•O ^ CV to _
6) F- ID Co N c0 Co CD Co Co if M CD M)
C Q (V F- 10 Co O) (N 1- Co `cT G) Co LO Co CV N- CD 10
CO C r O CO O O7 47 r 1~ M M CD CO W ~••• 'T 1n M 1~
I N CV N N N Co r N ('4'- Co Co r— r r Co Co Co Co
O v co
Q 7
00 W

) 1) a0 O
6) 0) 0) LO co M Ch co C7 CO 1` CO m Co
CD W O m O Co
c0 Co
C p) C CO r st M r N N r st Cl st tD cD OD Q) cD M o0
O r
y N N N r N i'7 O O O O O O O
CO
O CO =
OaW
O Y
Co
I (V Co IV N Co Co F- 10 f- r Co M Co M N N V'
N- Q Co N r CV Co r O CC) CD CC) N- CD Co r CD Co O
O C CD C•7 Co (C) Co 1- Co OR G") Co Co .--- 10 C (C) (C)
U 0
aC
- N N M N M r ~-•• N M N ~--• r r r r O O O O r
a~ c
W
to
J
CD CD C) Co N- N- Q) Co Ir N CO r ')- O) C") CC) Co CV co
Q) 0
om ' co Co 6! Co '-W 1L 'C CO u'> c7 N N Co Co •w N CO
N -- I~ Co Co Co Co d- 00 r f- CC! 00 O! M '
- t CO F- a0 CD O
O N
Cl- r N r N r N r r Co Co ~- r r Co Co Co Co Co
O Q
0 W
Co Co Co Co M
CoCoo_
~
O
° X10 X10 IC) ° o Co
o Co o Coio
n v °
o v o o ID
v Co
Co UO CO [O CD Co [O CO Co f~ N- 1- N M M O r r O V•
N N N N N N N N N

Co Co Co Co Co Co CA Co Co I[) LO Co Co N Q) Co CD Co Co
O) CD c0 Uf - N Ch Co O O O to I Co Q) '' Q) O O
y E O• I: o0 st •ct W N u'~ M 1~ N N N N CO OO aD LQ N N
'Q E r Co Co Co Co Co Co Co M N CV N N r Cl) Co Co Co Cl)

Co N N N Co N co c0 Co Co It! 10 Co Co Co Co N. N N N
ID Co IC) I)) It) LO Co Co CD CD N CV K7 ID CD CD 17 ID 10 CD
Q CoO r r r r O O O O
Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co

It) Co Co In Co Co Co Co n r Co Co CD i+ rn Co Co Co Co Co
_ Co Co M N Co CO co 7 co co CD Co Co CD
N- Co N LO Co
> ^ Co Co Co O r r N Co Co Co r Co Co Co Co O r
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Co co CoCo
_ Co _ O' co CO _CoO Co ~t m-
Co
CV CV [V 1-
Co
C7 Of N N I~ D Q) O) '4 N- M LQ Wf )
T `ct u i CD N [D
v to N r N N N r r N N r Co Co r r O Co O O
> E
0

E r N Co 'ct l[7 (D N- 0o O) °
.M- •~- •r-- N
CO

75