Pipeline Flow of Settling

Slurries
Presentation to Institution of Engineers Australia (Mechanical Branch)
J eff Bremer - 23 rd April 2008
Overview and Aims
1. Explain physical laws underlying the behaviour of settling
solids in slurry pipeline flow.
2. Compare theories associated with pipeline flow. Why are
there so many?
3. Show where and how the theories disagree.
4. Present some preliminary results from recent work
(J . Bremer, V.Lim & R.Gandhi )
??
QUESTIONS
1. Where and why are slurry pipelines used?
2. What is a settling slurry?
3. What are the main features in pipeline flow?
4. Engineers are good at using theoretical and empirical best
fittheories. Whats the problem?
5. What are the underlying equations and physical phenomena?
6. What are the theories of pipeline flow?
7. What do we knowthat is right, and can we easilly confirm that
we have the right answer?
8. Whats the latest, and where to in future?
Slurry Pipelines
Slurry pipelines are used mostly for short haulduties, e.g.
dredging (~300m ), process plants (~300m) and tailings
(~3 km) In some long haul duties, minerals are pumped
many hundreds of kilometres.
Alumbrera copper concentrate
pipeline (316 km), Argentina
ENGINEERED BY PSI
Photos with permission of PSI Australia Pty. Ltd., 66 Kings Park Rd.,West Perth, WA 6005,Tel. no. (08) 9463-6606.
Slurry Pipelines
Each type of duty has its own best operation point, where
the size of the particles and the tendency to settle has a
strong impact on capital and operating cost.
ENGINEERED BY PSI
Photos with permission of PSI Australia Pty. Ltd., 66 Kings Park Rd.,West Perth, WA 6005,Tel. no. (08) 9463-6606.
Settling Slurries
Settling Slurries
contain particles that
will fall and settle at
the bottom of a
container
Non Settling Slurries
contain particles that
remain in suspension
for a long time
NON-SETTLING
Particles < 40 m
Viscosity modified by
particles
Increasingly non-Newtonian
as concentration increases
SETTLING
Particles > 40 m
Wide range of sizes from
Small (suspensions) 40 m ~ 200 m
Medium(transition) 200 m ~ 2 mm
Large (heterogeneous) 2 mm ~ 5 mm
Very Large (hetero ) 5 mm ~ >200 mm?
Transport velocity must increase as size increases
Settling Slurries
SETTLING
Particles > 40 m
Wide range of sizes from
Small (suspensions) 40 m ~ 200 m
Medium(transition) 200 m ~ 2 mm
Large (heterogeneous) 2 mm ~ 5 mm
Very Large (hetero ) 5 mm ~ >200 mm?
Transport velocity must increase as size increases
Settling Slurries
Dead Donkeys?
SETTLING
Particles > 40 m
Wide range of sizes from
Small (suspensions) 40 m ~ 200 m
Medium(transition) 200 m ~ 2 mm
Large (heterogeneous) 2 mm ~ 5 mm
Very Large (hetero ) 5 mm ~ >200 mm?
Pipeline Flow of Newtonian Liquids
H
W
=
g
P

=
g
V
D
L
f
2
2

Darcy-Weisbach equation

H
1
=
g
P
1

+
g 2
2
v
+z
1

H
2
=
g
P
2

+
g 2
2
v
+z
1
HeadLoss
H
W

PipeFlow
H
W
= head loss due to friction (m)
f = friction factor (dimensionless)
L = length of pipe (m)
D = internal diameter of pipe (m)
g = accelaration due to gravity (m
2
/s)
V = mean Flow velocity (m/s)

D
L
f
Moody Diagram
C.Y. OConnor Pipeline c.a. 1899
Features of Settling Slurry Pipeline Flow

Mean Velocity , V (m/s)

H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
,

i

(
m
/
m
)
Settling Slurry
Carrier

Fi xed Bed
Fluidised
Heter ogeneous Homogeneous
V
1
V
2 V
3
=V
dep

V
4
Water
Heterogeneous
Flow
Fluidised
Bed
Homogeneous
Flow
1. Size does matter.
Larger particles require
increased transport velocity
Smaller particles (particularly
fines <40 m) can modify
viscosity. Helps to suspend
larger particles.
2. Flow velocity generates
turbulence which keeps
particles suspended.
3. The system curve has a
minimum that bounds different
flow / friction processes
Newitts Classification of Slurry Pipeline Flow
Newitt et al (1955) described a range of flow flow/deposition
phenomena after observing sand and coal particles in 25mm Perspex
pipes. His classifications are still used today.
Newitt, D. M., J . F. Richardson, M. Abbott, and R. B. Turtle. 1955. Hydraulic Conveying of Solids in
Horizontal Pipes. Trans. Institution of Chemical Engineers 33: 94-113.
Solids Concentration
Frictional Head loss Mechanisms
Since we
understand the
behaviour of water
(the carrier) we can
calculate the
frictional head
losses caused by
wall friction - H
W
The remainder must
be friction losses
between
(a) particles and fluid
(b) particles and pipe
wall
(c) particle-particle
collisions.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
H
e
a
d
L
o
s
(
m

W
a
t
e
r
)
FlowVelocity(m/s)
HeadLoss,5mmgravel,Cv=10%,DN400Pipe
Water
Settling
Slurry
Deposition
Point
Frictional Head Loss due to
wall friction of carrier fluid
with pipe- H
W
Frictional Head
Loss due to
solids - H
s

S W M
H H H + =
Durand Theory -1952
Durand, R. 1952. The Hydraulic Transportation of Coal and Other Materials in Pipes. Colloq. of National Coal Board,
London.
5 . 1
. 82

=
5 . 1
2
. 82
.

D
S W V
W M
C
gD
V
i C
i i
Durand Theory (contd)
1. Durands Theory is purely correlative.
2. The curve fit was for 305 points, for sand
and coal running between 200 m and 25
mm.
3. The results are in Head of Carrier Fluid
usually water.
4. As transport velocity becomes large, the
slurry curve converges to water head loss
from above.
Nothing proves that such a formula is
rigorously exact. Doubtless exists a
more accurate and more complex
means of notation, but the one given
above groups quite favourably
5 . 1
2
. 82
.

D
S W V
W M
C
gD
V
i C
i i
5 . 1
. 82

=

) . 82 . 1 (
5 . 1
+ =
V W M
C H H
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
H
e
a
d
L
o
s
(
m

W
a
t
e
r
)
FlowVelocity(m/s)
HeadLoss,5mmgravel,Cv=10%,DN400Pipe
Water
Settling
Slurry
Deposition
Point
Frictional Head Loss due to
wall friction of carrier fluid
with pipe- H
W
Frictional Head
Loss due to
solids - H
s
S W M
H H H + =
More Theories
(To name a Few)
1. Durand 1952
2. Homogeneous Mixture Theory
3. Newitt et. Al - 1955
4. Rose and Duckworth 1969
5. Heyden and Stelson - 1971
6. Volcado and Charles 1972
7. Wasp et al - 1977
8. Lazarus Neilson 1978
9. Wilson - 1992
10. Wilson Addie & Clift 1997
Correlation
Correlation
Correlation
Correlation
Correlation
In Current Use
Part theory part
correlation
Not in Use
No Problem Ive got a Computer
Answers Using
commonly accepted
theories can vary by
several hundred
percent AND
MORE!
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 2 4 6 8 10
H
e
a
d
L
o
s
(
m
)
FlowVelocity(m/s)
HeadLossat6.6m/s,5mmgravel,Cv=10%DN400Pipex1000m
Lazarus Neilson
WilsonAddieClift
Durand
Water
Settling and Drag Forces on Particles
Depends on density
, particle diameter,
shape, Reynolds
number and
surface effects
Settling and Drag Forces on Particles
Particles > 150 m
Drag coefficient as a function of Reynolds number for smooth spheres
and cylinders (Munson et al. 2002, 582)
Known correlations
to correction C
D
based on shape
effect
Slip Velocity to Produce drag force F
D
Settling and Drag Forces on Particles
Turbulent fluctuation of particle velocity in the direction of flow
Settling and Drag Forces on Particles
Frictional Head Loss due to
wall friction of carrier fluid
with pipe- H
W
Frictional Head
Loss due to
solids - H
s
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
H
e
a
d
L
o
s
(
m

W
a
t
e
r
)
FlowVelocity(m/s)
HeadLoss,5mmgravel,Cv=10%,DN400Pipe
Water
Settling
Slurry
Deposition
Point
H
W
H
s
S W M
H H H + =
Solids concentration
approaches input
concentration
Hs=constant
) . 82 . 1 (
5 . 1
+ =
V W M
C H H
In the limit the slip velocity is roughly constant as the average velocity of
particles in direction of flow equals approaches the velocity of the liquid
i.e.V
solid
= V
liquid
the homogeneous limit. In other words Hs << Hw
In Durand Theory in the limit Hs zero
H
W
=
g
P

=
g
V
D
L
f
2
2

Comparison of Theories
0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
8 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0
H
e
a
d
L
o
s
(
m
)
Flow Ve locit y(m / s)
HeadLoss, 5m m gravel,Cv=10%, DN400 Pipex1000m
L azar usNe ilson
W ilsonA ddie
Clift
Dur and
Location of The Deposition Velocity and Head Loss at Deposition is
the Key to having an accurate Theory.
Clearly the state of the art is not good
Comparison of Theories
Agreement is less critical at 100 m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
H
e
a
d
l
o
s
s
(
m
)
Velocity m/s
Head Loss, 100m particle, Cv=10%, DN100 pipe x 1000m
Wilson Addie Clift
Durand
Lazarus Neilson
Water
Slope M
Wilson Addie and Clift Theory
Determined in tests on 400 m sand. Pressure gradient = 0.5 x sliding fr friction factor
Lazarus Nielsen Theory (1978)
Lazarus Neilsen Theory is a correlation theory that claims to be
more accurate than Durand and Newitts theories.
They proposed that the mass flow rate ratio (M*), defined as
the ratio of mass flow of solids to carrier fluid, should be used
instead of the volumetric concentration (Cv)
Lazarus Nielsen Theory (contd)
They plotted friction factor f
M
for the mixture against the base
friction factor f
B
to develop their final correlation.
Current Work Particle Drag & Deposition Head and Velocity
Collaborators : J . Bremer (SKM) , Vincent Lim (K.J . Beer),
Ramesh Gandhi (PSI California)

Mean Velocity , V (m/s)

H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
,

i

(
m
/
m
)
SettlingSlurry
Carrier

Fi xed Bed
Fluidised
Heterogeneous Homogeneous
V
1
V
2 V
3
=V
dep

V
4
Water
Heterogeneou
s
Flow
Fluidise
d Bed
Homogeneou
s Flow
Began by describing the equations of
drag and pressure loss due to solids at
the deposition point.
Assumes : All particles fluidised at the
minimum in the pressure gradient curve
Particle Drag and Deposition Velocity and Head Loss(contd)
Particle Drag and Deposition Velocity and Head Loss(contd)
Pesky mean path length constan
Particle Drag and Deposition Velocity and Head
Loss(contd)
All terms in the final equation are rearranged to solve for the
Slip velocity V
This is Measurable from experiment!
Particle Drag a Virtual Experiment Based on Durand
Points
Particle Drag a Virtual Experiment Based on Durand
Points
System Parameter Value Range Unit
Lower Upper
Carrier density () 1,000 1,250 kg/m
3
Carrier viscosity () 0.0008 0.001 Pa.s
Pipe diameter (D) 0.1 0.9 m
Particle density (
p
) 2,160 4,000 kg/m
3
Particle size (d) (40 m) 0.02 (20 mm) m
Concentration by
volume (C
v
)
0.05 0.4
Pipe length (L) 1,000 m
Pipe roughness Smooth
5
10 4

200 Virtual data points (deposition velocity, and pressure

at the deposition point) obtained using Durand equation to
Virtual Experiment Results
Deposition Velocity
5
10 4

Deposition Velocity Average Error 0.05 %

-- Maximum Error 0.42 %
Virtual Experiment Results
Head Loss at The Deposition Point
5
10 4

Head Loss Average Error 0.55 %

-- Maximum Error 1.8 %
Conclusions
5
10 4

1. Not all is wellwith the theory of slurry transport.

2. There is considerable disagreement amongst theories
regarding
1. Deposition velocity
2. Head Loss at Deposition
3. There is no clear agreement on the forces and friction
associated with various mechanisms, (e.g. fluidised bed,
heterogeneous flow, homogeneous flow etc) or the velocities
at which they occur.
4. Many of the theories blow up when large particles are
involved. Say > 2mm. Comparison between calculations at
these sizes indicates a need for model studies in future
developments.
5. Where possible dont pump at sizes > 150 m.