Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research Online
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection
1989
Recommended Citation
Wypych, P. W., Pneumatic conveying of bulk solids, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Wollongong, 1989. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1590
D O C T O R O F PHILOSOPHY
from
llum
, UNIVERSITY OF
'WOLLONGONG
LIBRARY
THE UNIVERSITY OF W O L L O N G O N G
by
P. W. W Y P Y C H , BE, MIEAust.
This is to certify that this work has not been submitted for a degree
to any other university or institution
Peter W. Wypych
and
Amanda
i
SUMMARY
ii
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the guidance, continuous support and
encouragement of his supervisor Professor P. C. Arnold throughout the course of
this work.
The support provided by the following colleagues during the various stages of this
work also are acknowledged sincerely by the author.
Mr O. C. Kennedy for his assistance with the laboratory test work and
the processing of s o m e of the experimental results
and figures.
Mr D. M. Cook for his patience and assistance with the pneumatic
conveying test work, construction and installation of
the experimental apparatus.
The author particularly acknowledges the assistance provided by the staff of the
Maintenance Workshop for the construction and installation of the various test rigs
and equipment.
The financial support provided by the National Energy Research Development and
Demonstration Council, the Australian Electrical Research Board and T h e
University of Wollongong is acknowledged gratefully by the author.
The contributions made by Ramsey Engineering and Keystone Valve (A/Asia) Pty.
Ltd. for the donation/supply of Clarkson knife-gate and butterfly valves respectively
for the various test rigs also are acknowledged.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
NOMENCLATURE
i
iii
iv
vii
xiii
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2
PNEUMATIC
2.1
TEST RIG A
2.2
TEST RIG B
2.3
2.4
TEST RIG C
TEST RIG D
2.5
2.6
2.7
TEST RIG E
TEST RIG F
2.8
CHAPTER 3
CONVEYING
CHARACTERISTICS
18
21
24
26
27
3.1
PULVERISED COAL
31
3.2
3.3
DEFINITION O F DENSE-PHASE
FLY ASH
35
36
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.4
3.4.1
Introduction
Test Rig Description
Test Results
STANDARDISED-TEST P R O C E D U R E
Experiments
36
37
39
45
46
3.4.1.1
3.4.1.2
3.4.1.3
3.4.2
48
3.4.3
53
3.4.4
55
48
CHAPTER 4
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
CHAPTER 5
PULVERISED COAL
62
FLY ASH
66
Introduction
66
Test Results
68
PLUG-PHASE CONVEYING
72
Screened & Unscreened Granulated Aluminate (SGA & UGA) 72
Bone Char
77
Crushed Bath
80
Summary
82
POWDER
CHARACTERISATION
5.1
INTRODUCTION
5.2
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Definitions of Particle Size
5.2.1
5.3
FLUIDISATION
5.3.1
Experimental Apparatus
5.4
PIPELINE CONVEYING CHARACTERISTICS
5.5
POWDER CLASSIFICATION TECHNIQUES
5.5.1
Fluidisation
5.5.2
Slugging
5.5.2.1
Slugging Diagram Modifications
5.5.2.2 Results
CHAPTER 6
6.1
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.4
6.5
60
SCALE-UP CONVEYING
CHARACTERISTICS
INTRODUCTION
SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Definitions for Aps
Empirical Relationships
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Fly Ash / Cement Mix
Screened Coke
PVC Powder
SCALE-UP OF Apt
SUMMARY
86
87
87
87
90
90
95
95
97
100
100
102
109
110
113
113
115
117
117
120
122
126
1
VI
6.6
130
CHAPTER 7
THEORETICAL
133
7.1
INTRODUCTION
INVESTIGATIONS
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.1.1
7.2.1.2
Discussion
7.2.2
7.2.2.1
Numerical Analysis
Results
7.3
7.3.1
7.3.1.1
7.3.1.2
7.3.1.3
Calculation Procedure
Worked Example
7.4
134
134
136
137
138
139
142
144
144
145
146
149
151
152
159
7.4.1
7.4.2
7.4.2.1
7.4.3
Test-Design Procedure
160
162
CONCLUSIONS
174
8.1
FURTHER WORK
177
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
179
APPENDIX A
CHAPTER 8
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
Table 5.1)
186
191
APPENDIX D
197
203
Vll
LIST O F
FIGURES
Chapter 2 Page
Figure 2.1 Configuration of the original 0.425 m3 blow tank (Test Rig A). 6
Figure 2.2 General arrangement of the original pneumatic conveying
8
Test Rig A.
3
9
Figure 2.3 Configuration of the final 0.425 m blow tank (Test Rig B).
Figure 2.4 Exploded view of a typical pipeline air pressure tapping
location.
11
Figure 2.5 Full-sectional view of a 50 m m N.B. 90 blinded-tee bend.
12
Figure 2.6 General arrangement of Test Rig B.
13
Figure 2.7 Configuration of the original 0.9 m 3 blow tank (Test Rig C).
14
Figure 2.8 General arrangement of Test Rig C.
16
3
Figure 2.9 Configuration of the original tandem 0.9 m blow tank feeding
17
system (Test Rig D).
3
Figure 2.10 Configuration of the final tandem 0.9 m blow tank feeding
19
system (Test Rig E).
Figure 2.11 General arrangement of Test Rig E1 (refer to Figure 2.8 for
arrangement of pipe loops).
20
3
22
Figure 2.12 Configuration of the 0.113 m plug-phase blow tank.
23
Figure 2.13 General arrangement of Test Rig F.
25
Figure 2.14 General arrangement of compressed air supply.
Figure 2.15 HP-85B plot of a typical uncalibrated pipeline air pressure
transducer response.
26
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 General form of steady-state pneumatic conveying
characteristics for a given material and pipeline configuration.
Figure 3.2 Alternative form of pneumatic conveying characteristics.
Figure 3.3 The Rizk [7] two-phase flow diagram for pneumatic conveying
in horizontal pipes.
Figure 3.4 Pneumatic conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for
Test Rig A1 (L = 25 m & D = 52 m m ) , displaying lines of
constant Apj.
29
29
30
31
VIII
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.8
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.10
Figure 3.11
Figure 3.12
Figure 3.13
Figure 3.14
Figure 3.15
Figure 3.16
Figure 3.17
Figure 3.18
Figure 3.19
Figure 3.20
Figure 3.21
32
33
34
38
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
47
49
50
51
53
IX
Figure 3.22 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for Eraring fly
ash demonstrating blockage condition using Test 3 (Test Rig
B1, Exp. No. 232).
Figure 3.23 Pipeline conveying characteristics of P V C powder [21] for L =
71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
Figure 3.24 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for P V C
powder demonstrating plugging condition using Test 2 (Test
Rig B1, Exp. No. 387).
Figure 3.25 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for P V C
powder demonstrating plugging condition using Test 3 (Test
Rig B1, Exp. No. 414).
54
56
57
58
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 0.425 m3 Sturtevant blow tank and air supply arrangement. 62
Figure 4.2 Transient plots of major conveying parameters from Exp. Nos.
21, 23 and 35 for pulverised coal conveyed over 25 m (Test
RigA1).
63
Figure 4.3 Transient plots of major conveying parameters from Exp. Nos.
61 and 62 for pulverised coal conveyed over 25 m (Test Rig
A1).
65
Figure 4.4 Configuration of bottom-discharge blow tank demonstrating
incomplete discharge of material due to rat-holing.
67
Figure 4.5 Configuration of top-discharge blow tank demonstrating
incomplete discharge of material due bad channelling and ratholing.
68
Figure 4.6 Blow tank comparison using fly ash and Test Rig D 2 (L = 940
m & D = 60/69/81/105 m m ) .
70
Figure 4.7 Blow tank comparison using transient plots of major conveying
71
parameters for fly ash conveyed over 293 m (Test Rig D1).
Figure 4.8 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for S G A (Exp.
No. 1274, Test Rig F2).
74
Figure 4.9 Particle size distributions of S G A and U G A .
75
Figure 4.10 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for U G A (Exp.
No. 1356, Test Rig F2).
76
Figure 4.11 Transient plots of blow tank and pipeline air pressure for bone
79
char (Exp. Nos. 1227 & 1235, Test Rig F2).
x
Figure 4.12 Transient plots of blow tank and pipeline air pressure for bone
char (Exp. Nos. 1237 & 1245, Test Rig F2).
Figure 4.13 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for crushed
bath (Exp. No. 108-12, orifice-air only, Test Rig F3).
Figure 4.14 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for crushed
bath (Exp. No. 108-16, orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air,
Test Rig F3).
81
83
84
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Schematic layout of the fluidisation test facility. 92
Figure 5.2 Comparison of fluidisation curves for pulverised coal (Sample
1) and fly ash (Samples 2 to 8).
Figure 5.3 Fluidisation curves of P V C powder (Sample 9) and screened
coke (Sample 10).
Figure 5.4 Comparison of pipeline conveying characteristics for fly ash
(Samples 2 to 8, Test Rig B1).
Figure 5.5 The Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram.
Figure 5.6 The Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram showing the location of
Samples 1 to 11.
Figure 5.7 The Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 50 m m pipe diameter
system.
Figure 5.8 The Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 100 m m pipe diameter
system.
Figure 5.9 The modified Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 50 m m pipe
diameter system showing the classification of Samples 1 to 11
listed in Table 5.1.
Figure 5.10 Transient plots of major conveying parameters demonstrating
flow irregularities for Sample 6 (Exp. No. 662, Test Rig B1).
Figure 5.11 Pipeline conveying characteristics of screened coke [14,16,26]
for L = 25 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig A1).
93
94
96
97
99
101
101
103
104
106
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Pipeline conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for L|
= 162 m & Di = 0.060 m (Test Rig C1).
118
Figure 6.2 Pipeline conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for L|
= 1 6 2 m & D i =0.105 m (Test Rig C3).
118
xi
Figure 6.3
119
120
121
122
123
124
127
131
131
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 The Enstad [62] element of a converging flow channel. 135
Figure 7.2 Example of blow tank model results (approximate analytical
solution).
Figure 7.3 Example of blow tank model results (numerical solution).
Figure 7.4 Full-bore plug transport system.
Figure 7.5 Variation of velocity ratio [59].
Figure 7.6 Variation of particle free settling velocity based on the Clift et
al. [41] drag correlations.
Figure 7.7 Correlation of pipe friction coefficient d u e to solids according
to Stegmaier [68].
140
143
145
147
148
153
xii
Figure 7.8
Figure 7.9
Figure 7.10
Figure 7.11
Figure 7.12
Figure 7.13
Frmpfm0-2.
Figure 7.14 Comparison between actual and predicted values of Xs, based
on Equation (7.48).
Figure 7.15 Pipeline conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for L =
947 m and D = .060/.069/.081/.105 m (Test Rig E1), showing
experimental data points and predicted curves, based on
Equation (7.48).
155
157
164
166
168
169
170
171
Appendix B
Figure B.1 The modified Dixon [39] slugging diagram for a 52 mm pipe
diameter system.
Figure B.2 T h e modified Dixon [39] slugging diagram for a 7 8 m m
diameter system.
Figure B.3 T h e modified Dixon [39] slugging diagram for a 1 0 2 m m
diameter system.
Figure B.4 T h e modified Dixon [39] slugging diagram for a 1 5 4 m m
diameter system.
Figure B.5 T h e modified Dixon [39] slugging diagram for a 2 0 3 m m
diameter system.
192
pipe
193
pipe
194
pipe
195
pipe
196
xiii
LIST O F T A B L E S
Chapter 2
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Page
Pipeline details for Test Rigs A1 & A2.
Pipeline details for Test Rig B1.
Pipeline details for Test Rigs C1, C2, C 3 & C4.
Pipeline details for Test Rigs D1 & D2.
Pipeline details for Test Rigs E1.
Pipeline details for Test Rigs F1.
Orifice plate details.
7
10
15
18
19
21
24
Chapter 3
Table 3.1 List of power station fly ash samples. 36
Table 3.2 Chronology of the fly ash test program.
Table 3.3
Summary of experiments and data points for Eraring fly ash.
Table 3.4 Steady-state operating conditions obtained from Exp. Nos.
236, 240 and 249.
39
52
52
Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Physical properties of test materials. 61
Table 4.2
Set-up conditions for the blow tank air injection experiments.
Table 4.3
Conveying parameters of fly ash for L = 293 m & D = 69 m m
(Test Rig D1).
Table 4.4 Cumulative % mass passing through sieve size (for orificeand ring-air).
Table 4.5
Cumulative % mass passing through sieve size (for orifice-,
ring- and supplementary-air).
Table 4.6
Summary of plug-phase conveying parameters for crushed
bath (Test Rig F3, L = 160 m & D = 105 m m ) .
64
69
78
80
82
Chapter 5
Table 5.1
90
Chapter 6
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
117
119
121
128
129
129
Chapter 7
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
150
154
163
164
170
171
172
Appendix A
Table A.1
Table A.2
Table A.3
Table A.4
187
187
187
188
XV
Table A.5
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
188
188
189
189
189
1 go
190
Appendix C
Table C.1
Table C.2
Table C.3
Table C.4
Table C.5
Table C.6
Table C.7
Table C.8
xvi
Table C.9
202
202
Appendix D
Table D.1
Table D.2
Table D.3
Table D.4
NOMENCLATURE
a
A
A1.A2.A3
As
b
c
Co
Cp
CV
c
d
50
dp
dp50
dpm
dpwm
dsv
dsvm
dv
dV50
dvm
dvwm
dpg/dL
D
Dj
DP
Do
DT
e
E
E
kEv
f
Fr
xviii
Fr-i, Fr2
Frm
Frmin
Frs
g
Gi
hD
i
k
K
K1
L
L'
Lh
Lv
mt
rrifm
ms
ms'
mso
m*
Mbt
Ms
n
Nb
NB
p
Pbt
Pbt.i
PA1
PAi.i
PC4
xix
PG1
XX
Wi
x
X
Xi
y
Y
Yi, Y Y 1
Z-|
a
p
y
8
e
H
0
X\
Xf
Xu
Xs
Xs\
Lif
Pb
Pbc
Pbi
pb 0
Pt
pf.atm
pf.max
pfm
ps
p*
a
o0
XXI
a-|
o-jc
010
aip
oj
x,v
<j>
X , co
\|r
r
Ad P i
Ad V j
AL
ALj
AM
AMj
Ap
Api
Apb
Apbt
Apt
Aps
Ap s *
ApF
Ap t
Apu
Apj
Subscripts
1 Experimental
2
f
h
i
s
v
CHAPTER 1
2
1. INTRODUCTION
The pneumatic transportation of bulk solids is continuing to gain popularity for a
wide range of applications, especially as more efficient hardware and techniques
are introduced onto the market (e.g. long-distance [1] and low-velocity [2]
conveying). Subsequently, there has been a substantial increase in the number of
commercial systems available to industry. The main features that m a k e this method
of transport attractive to the designer of materials handling plants are listed below.
The relative ease of routing the conveying pipeline (e.g. verticals, bends,
inclines) adds flexibility to the design or upgrading of a plant.
The physical size of a pneumatic conveying pipeline is small compared to
an equivalent conveyor-belt/bucket-elevator system (especially for the
dense-phase m o d e of transport which requires usually relatively small
sizes of pipe).
Atmospheric contamination is avoided due to the completely enclosed
nature of the transport system (e.g. dusty, hygroscopic and even toxic
products are able to be conveyed safely and hygienically).
New technology allows friable products to be transported at low-velocity
and with either extremely low or undetectable levels of product
degradation or d a m a g e [3]. A s a consequence, air consumption and
hence running costs are reduced significantly. Also, erosion of the system
(e.g. bends, conveying pipeline) is minimised.
The use of a pipeline can offer increased security as opposed to an openbelt conveyor system (e.g. for diamond recovery plants).
With improved hardware (e.g. blow tanks) and techniques (e.g. solids
metering [1], air injection [4], stepped-diameter pipelines [5,6]), several
materials such as pulverised coal, cement and fly ash are able to be
transported efficiently at large conveying rates (e.g. 100 to 200 t Ir1)
and/or over long distances (e.g. 1 to 3 km).
Unfortunately, the technology available to assess for a given application the rela
merits of the competing systems is lacking sadly, particularly w h e n dense-phase [7]
or long-distance conveying is considered. Although Flain [4] and more recently
Klintworth and Marcus [2] have provided a general overview of several of the more
c o m m o n types of commercial system and also have indicated their fields of
application, the potential user of such equipment usually is faced still with the
difficult problem of selecting the most appropriate configuration (i.e. in terms of cost
and, more importantly, operational efficiency and reliability). Furthermore, w h e n
attempting to design or optimise a pneumatic conveying system, the following
additional difficulties need to be overcome.
3
(a) Establishing a standardised-test procedure to determine sufficient
information on the material (e.g. from a test rig) and also deciding on
what data are relevant for a particular requirement (e.g. plant
specification). Also, it is necessary to present this information in an
efficient and workable form.
(b) Scaling-up the test rig data to the full-scale system.
(c) Determining minimum transport behaviour to optimise the operating
conditions (e.g. for the dilute- [7] or dense-phase m o d e of conveying).
(d) Choosing between dilute-, dense-, pulse-phase [8] or low-velocity
conveying as the most suitable method of transport for a given material
and specification. Also, the most efficient feeder (e.g. blow tank, rotary
valve, screw feeder) and method of air injection [4] need to be selected in
terms of reliability, running costs, product conditioning requirements and
maintaining a constant and reliable feed rate of product into the pipeline.
(e) Determining an optimal size of pipe for a proposed pipeline route (over
short and long distances) and also predicting operating conditions (e.g.
pressure drop for a given air flow and product conveying rate). Also, a
stepped-diameter pipeline [5] m a y need to be considered for longdistance conveying applications.
(f) Predicting operating conditions for existing or working installations (e.g.
for the requirements of troubleshooting or uprating system capacity).
(g) Establishing the feasibility of transporting a certain material in the densephase m o d e or over long distances (e.g. up to 3 km).
(h) Minimising hardware problems and improving the reliability of system
instrumentation and control (e.g. level indicators, discharge and vent
valves, bend/pipe erosion).
The main aim of this thesis is to provide industry with some of the technology that
needed in relation to Items (a) to (g) above. Particular research objectives include
determining and presenting pneumatic conveying characteristics for
the purposes of system comparison, optimisation of operating
conditions and general design,
investigating the effect of blow tank configuration and method of air
injection on pneumatic conveying performance,
assessing the influence of material properties on conveying
characteristics and minimum transport behaviour,
evaluating existing and developing improved techniques to scaleup test rig data to a full scale installation,
improving/developing mathematical models and computer software
to predict system design parameters (viz. for the blow tank and
pipeline) and verifying these predictions by experiment.
CHAPTER 2
6
2.
A total of ten test rigs incorporating six different configurations of blow tank
method of air injection were used to obtain all the data necessary for the various
aspects of this thesis project. The test rigs were developed at different stages over a
period of approximately six years. A general description of the overall test facility
and five case studies to emphasise the need for large-scale product testing prior to
design, have been presented recently by Wypych and Arnold [10]. T h e main
purpose of this section is to provide a description of each test rig configuration and,
where necessary, a brief explanation, as appropriate, of s o m e of the more important
features, modifications and/or improvements. Note that a system of letters and
numbers is employed to label each test rig configuration. A letter is used to refer to
a particular blow tank feeding system (including its method of air injection) and
numbers are used to designate different pipeline layouts fed by the s a m e blow tank.
For example, Test Rigs A1 and A 2 refer to different conveying pipelines (viz. L = 25
and 96 m , respectively) fed by the s a m e blow tank.
2.1 Test Rig A
In 1980, the Electricity Commission of N.S.W. provided funds to the University o
Wollongong for the purchase of a Sturtevant Pulse-Phase Powder Conveyor. This
original test rig w a s installed as part of an undergraduate thesis project during 1980
and consisted of the following major components.
Material
Inlet
Vent
Filter
Top Air
Fluidising
Ring Air
Original
Discharge
Valve
Figure 2.1
7
A 0.425 m 3 capacity blow tank with a m a x i m u m safe working pressure
(S.W.P.) of 350 kPag (see Figure 2.1) and fitted with a 50 m m N.B.
discharge valve (viz. a stainless steel ball valve).
A n electro-pneumatic control cabinet housing all the necessary control
equipment for conveyor operation (e.g. pressure regulators).
A 0.5 m 3 receiving hopper supported by tension load cells to monitor the
delivered mass of solids.
A D C E Model U M A 70V venting dust control unit mounted on top of the
0.5 m 3 receiving hopper and fitted with polypropylene filter bags.
Four horizontal loops of mild steel pipeline with change-over sections to
provide effective [9] conveying distances of 25, 48, 71 or 96 m. A general
arrangement of the original test rig and the 25 m pipe loop is presented
in Figure 2.2. Only three different configurations of pipeline were used in
this thesis project and are summarised in Table 2.1.
D (m) L v ( m )
Test Rig
L (m)
A1
25
.052
A2
71
A3
96
Lh (m)
3.6
21.4
5 x 1 m radius 90 bends
.052
3.6
67.4
13 x 1 m radius 90 bends
.052
3.6
92.4
17 x 1 m radius 90 bends
Operating principles of the original Sturtevant blow tank (i.e. as shown in Figu
2.1) were based on the pulse-phase concept [8] and were found to have
considerable limitations. Several modifications to the blow tank and its operating
sequence were necessary to allow sufficient versatility for testing purposes (e.g.
extending the range of air flow) and to fulfil the requirements of the thesis project in
general (e.g. investigating different methods of air injection, determining pipeline
conveying characteristics of various products). The following list summarises the
major modifications and improvements that were carried out to Test Rig A.
The vent filter, which is shown in Figure 2.1 and is used to remove the
displaced air during the filling cycle of the blow tank, w a s found to be
ineffective for fine powders such as pulverised coal and w a s replaced by
a 2 5 m m N.B. ball valve and pipe connected directly to the 0.5 m 3
receiving hopper.
T h e blow tank outlet w a s modified to provide additional air for
transportation (viz. conveying-air). Also, the existing discharge valve,
which proved unsuitable for fly ash (e.g. the stainless steel ball valve
seized frequently), w a s replaced by a Figure 990 Keystone butterfly valve
and positioner. Note that this valve w a s bolted directly to the outlet flange
of the blow tank. Refer to Figure 2.3 for the final configuration of the
0.425 m 3 blow tank.
Ring
Air
\
Original
DischargeValve
Knife
Air
Material
Inlet
Vent Air
Top Air
Fluidising
Ring Air
Discharge
Valve
Conveying Air
10
Shear-beam-type load cells were installed on the blow tank to monitor
the supplied mass of solids.
A n accurate weighing-scale system w a s introduced to calibrate the load
cells mounted on both the receiving hopper and blow tank.
Three orifice plate assemblies with D and D/2 pressure tappings and
designed according to B.S. 1042: Part 1:1964 were installed to measure
the amount of air being used in various sections of the test rig (viz.
conveying-air, blow tank top- and ring-air).
Numerous pressure tappings were installed along the pipeline, so that air
pressure gradients could be recorded. Refer to Figure 2.4 for an
exploded view of a typical pressure tapping location.
A n efficient pipeline unblocking technique (using an in-line backpressure valve) w a s installed at the end of the pipeline to minimise the
amount of stoppage time due to blockages. This valve w a s used also to
pressurise the pipeline and blow tank, so that all pressure transducers
could be calibrated accurately at selected pressures.
The two 1 m radius 90 bends, which were connected to the vertical pipe
in Test Rig A, were replaced by two 90 blinded-tee bends (see Figure
2.5) and connecting spool pieces. This w a s carried out for the main
purpose of increasing the actual length of vertical pipe to provide more
accurate measurements of the vertical pipeline air pressure gradient.
Note that despite these modifications, the effective conveying distances
of Test Rig A essentially remained unchanged. Figure 2.6 presents a
general arrangement of Test Rig B showing the four horizontal pipe
loops, which provided a total effective conveying distance of 96 m. Table
2.2 provides details on the 71 m pipeline, which w a s the only
configuration
used inDthis
project.
(m)thesis
L(m)
No. & Type of Bends
Test Rig
L v (m)
Lh (m)
B1
71
.052
Table 2.2
3.6
67.4
11 x 1 m radius 90 bends
and
2 x 90 blinded-tee bends
The air knife (see Figure 2.1) w a s removed from the pipeline (mainly due
to its ineffectiveness on materials such as pulverised coal, see Section
4.1).
All other components used on Test Rig A (e.g. the control cabinet,
receiving hopper and venting dust control unit) essentially remained
unchanged for Test Rig B. However, during the test program on fly ash,
which is discussed later in Section 3.3, the polypropylene filter bags of
the dust control unit were replaced with epitropic Goretex bags (due to
an excessive build up of material, see Section 3.3.3).
11
j^L
Pressure
Transducer"
Quick-Connect
Coupling
1/4" BSPT
Thread
Retaining
Screw
Porex
Disc
TM
O-Ring
1/4" BSP
Socket
52mm I.D.
Pipeline
12
"TT
50mm N.B.
Table E Flanges
L.
///////
/
/
/
-.
/
/
/
/
77-7 A
Direction
of
Flow
/////////.
>; ;/;;//;///;;//;;//
r-ry
13
CQ
g>
DC
w
CD
h-
Wl
CT
CD
LT) CD
O
CD
ac
t
-D i
(0 i
O OJ
14
2.3 Test Rig C
In 1982, NEI John Thompson (Aust) formed a consortium with Kloeckner-Becorit
Industrietechnik-KBI G m b H and then negotiated with the University of Wollongong
to install a pneumatic conveying test rig in the Bulk Solids Handling Laboratory. A
blow tank fitted with a cone dosing valve, which is a solids metering device
designed primarily for long distance transportation, w a s imported from West
Germany and installed initially with 162 m of 65 m m N.B. Schedule 80 (i.e. 60 m m
I.D.) mild steel pipe. However, after preliminary test work, the length and size of the
pipeline w a s found to be inadequate (i.e. for the needs of Australian industry) and
additional pipework w a s installed. T h e following list summarises the major
components of the test rig, which was used in this thesis project.
A 0.9 m3 capacity blow tank with a maximum S.W.P. of 700 kPag and
fitted with a cone dosing valve and a 100 m m N.B. discharge Argus ball
valve (see Figure 2.7). Also, the blow tank is supported by shear-beamtype load cells. A pneumatic PI controller with an adjustable set point (i.e.
maximum operating pressure) is used to control the stroke and oscillation
frequency of the cone dosing valve. The measured air pressure signal is
taken upstream of the blow tank discharge valve. However, during the
major part of the test program for this thesis project, the cone dosing
valve w a s .not used and w a s either removed physically or raised in a
position not to interfere with the normal operation of the blow tank. Note,
the cone dosing valve was required only for recent investigations into the
long-distance pneumatic conveying of pulverised brown coal (refer to
Section 7.4.3).
Vent
' Line
Conveying
Air
Pipeline
Figure 2.7 Configuration of the original 0.9 m 3 blow tank (Test Rig C).
15
A 5 m 3 receiving silo supported by t w o load blocks to monitor the
delivered mass of solids. However, due to possible eccentric loading
effects, the conveying rate during an experiment is determined from the
response of the blow tank load cells.
A D C E Model D L M V8/7B reverse jet insertable vent filter mounted on top
of the 5 m 3 receiving silo and fitted with polypropylene filter bags.
An NEI John Thompson (Aust) standard mini-pot [3] to transfer conveyed
material to the blow tank (see Figure 2.8).
Horizontal loops of mild steel pipeline with change-over sections to
provide effective [9] conveying distances from 42 to 940 m. Figure 2.8
presents a general arrangement of Test Rig C and the 940 m pipeline
(containing 60, 69, 81 and 105 m m I.D. sections of pipe). However, only
four different pipeline configurations were used in this thesis project and
these are summarised in Table 2.3.
D (m) Lv(m) Lh (m)
Test Rig
L(m)
C1
162
.060
4.4
157.6
5 x 1 m radius 90 bends
C2
59
.105
4.5
54.5
5 x 1 m radius 90 bends
C3
162
.105
4.5
157.5
5 x 1 m radius 90 bends
C4
553
.069
4.4
548.6
17 x 1 m radius 90 bends
Table 2.3 Pipeline details for Test Rigs C1, C2, C 3 & C4.
2.4 Test Rig D
During investigations into long-distance pneumatic transportation on Test Rig
capacity of the 0.9 m 3 blow tank (i.e. refer to Figure 2.7) w a s found to be insufficient
for the establishment of steady-state flow conditions (i.e. during the conveying
cycle). T o overcome this deficiency and other problems (e.g. overpressurisation of
the 5 m 3 silo due to material build up on the polypropylene filter bags - similar to the
problem described in Section 2.2), the following improvements and modifications
were carried out to Test Rig C.
A second 0.9 m3 blow tank with a max. S.W.P. of 700 kPag was
manufactured by NEI John Thompson (Aust) and installed alongside the
original KBI G m b H blow tank (see Figure 2.9). D u e to occasional feeding
problems from the original blow tank (e.g. rat-holing which is discussed
later in Section 4.2), the n e w blow tank w a s fitted with a fluidising
discharge cone. Also, an improved cone dosing valve and actuator w a s
installed.
16
c
03
O
D) .
ir
i_ 9-
o co
Sg
CD V
2 a)
h a.
CO Q .
_ CD
2
2E
00 CD
N
0)
3
O
17
Material
Inlet
Material
Inlet
Aeration
Air
Fluidising
Discharge Cone
Conveying
Air
18
Test Rig
L(m)
D (m)
L v (m)
Lh (m)
D1
293
.069
4.4
288.6
9 x 1 m radius 90 bends
4.5
146.0
390.0
261.0
138.5
D2
940
146
390
261
143
.060
.069
.081
.105
3x1m
13 x 1 m
8x1m
5x1m
radius 90
radius 90
radius 90
radius 90
bends
bends
bends
bends
19
The pipeline configurations of Test Rig D were extended slightly to
connect the existing pipework to the new 3 m 3 silo. However, during this
thesis project, only one configuration of pipeline w a s used (i.e. refer to
Table 2.5).
Test Rig
E1
L(m)
146
390
261
150
947
D (m)
.060
.069
.081
.105
Lv (m)
L h (m)
7.0
146.0
390.0
261.0
143.0
3x1m
13 x 1 m
8x1m
5x1m
radius 90
radius 90
radius 90
radius 90
bends
bends
bends
bends
Material
Inlet
Vent
Conveying Air
20
UJ
ir
co
CD
CD
0)
c
a
a.
CD
CD :=
co
CO
T3
CD
ed
OL
Q.
CO
CD
CD <CD
CD
T-
CM
CD
CD
o
c
D) CO
cii CD
>
m
>
5
> >
.
r
CD
r- CM
C)
Cfl
CO
> h
CD
^
CVJ
s_
*- 5
o O >
>- o o fi
< z z. 3
z z
-V O)
.* ^ -o
_r*:
c J2
<o- c rCO 10
c
H H CD H H J"
* J -> 5 5 1o o r
n o o
CO CO O m CD
to
> ,_ CM
< > >
m m O O Q
(Nl
1- H
t_
CO
<D
u.
CO
CO
21
2.6 Test Rig F
Some coarse materials such as crushed coal and petroleum coke can be conveyed
more efficiently in the plug-phase m o d e (i.e. where a limited amount of material,
usually in the form of a plug, is conveyed through the pipeline per cycle). Note this
method of transport is similar to the pulse-phase m o d e [8], except that instead of
conveying numerous plugs or slugs of material through the pipeline, only one plug
of material is transferred during each cycle. Also, note that a discharge valve is not
required usually for a plug-phase blow tank. NEI John Thompson (Aust), as a part of
their development program to design and market a plug-phase conveying system,
supplied to the University of Wollongong a 0.113 m 3 blow tank, which w a s
connected to the existing 105 m m I.D. pipeline of Test Rig C. Additional changeover sections were installed to provide intermediate conveying distances of 41, 58,
80 and 100 m. This test rig consisted of the following major components.
A 0.113 m3 capacity plug-phase blow tank with a maximum S.W.P. of 700
kPag (see Figure 2.12).
A 5 m3 receiving silo supported by two load blocks to monitor the
delivered m a s s of solids. However, due to possible eccentric loading
effects (see Section 2.3), the batch conveying rate during an experiment
is determined by dividing the actual m a s s of conveyed solids (removed
from the silo and weighed on a load platform) by the conveying time (i.e.
m s = M S V 1 ) - The overall conveying rate is determined by allowing for
transient effects such as blow tank fill time, tf, and total valve switching
time ,tv (i.e. overall m s = M s (tc + tf + tv)"1). Note that this 5 m 3 silo and its
vent filter are identical to those described for Test Rig D (i.e. in Section
2.4).
Of the five different possible configurations of pipeline, only three were
used for this thesis project. Table 2.6 provides a summary of the relevant
details. Also, refer to Figure 2.13 for a general arrangement of Test Rig F.
Test Rig
L(m)
D (m)
Lv (m)
Lh (m)
F1
41
.105
4.5
36.5
5 x 1 m radius 90 bends
F2
58
.105
4.5
53.5
5 x 1 m radius 90 bends
F3
161
.105
4.5
156.5
5 x 1 m radius 90 bends
22
Material
Inlet
Orifice
Air
23
24
2.7 Air Supply and Flow Rate Measurement
Air at a maximum pressure head of 800 kPag is supplied from any combination
the three following rotary screw compressors.
Atlas Copco electric-powered Model GA-308, 3.1 m3 min-1 free air
delivery.
Ingersoll Rand diesel-powered Model P375-WP, 10.6 m3 min"1 free air
delivery.
Ingersoll Rand diesel-powered Model P850-WGM, 24.1 m3 min-1 free air
delivery.
The compressors are connected to an aftercooler, two refrigerated air dryers
two air receivers (1.75 and 6.0 m 3 capacity). Various filters and separators are
installed in series with these compressors to ensure a dry and oil-free air supply.
Figure 2.14 provides a general arrangement of the air supply system.
Depending on the test rig and desired rangeability of flow rate, one of the f
plates listed in Table 2.7 (with D and D/2 pressure tappings and designed
according to B.S. 1042 : Part 1 : 1964 ) is selected to monitor the conveying air
usage.
No.
Orifice
Dia. (mm)
Pipe
Dia. (mm)
1
2
4
5
6
14.73
9.98
20.65
33.08
44.55
26.64
25.30
78.10
78.10
78.10
Orifice Plate
+
++
Min. mf+
(kg s-1)
Max. m f + +
(kg s-1)
Test
.085
.037
.155
.410
.775
A&B
A&B
CtoF
CtoF
CtoF
.027
.012
.050
.130
.250
Table 2.7
Rig
-{04-
P850-WGM
24.1
m '/min
Ingersoll Rand Compressors
To Test Rig
Pressure
Regulator
Filters'
Aflercooler
4>-V-4>
o
t/iiiiMYSir>/i'/V.
Z%4m >?>>>>i//rrm
Dryer
OHfle. plol..
uzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziV. fr T7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZZ
HXr-B) <J>-
26
2.8 Data Acquisition
During the early stages of this thesis project, priority was given to developing
necessary software to capture the voltages of up to 20 analogue channels using a
portable Hewlett-Packard 3054A Data Acquisition System. Major components of the
system included a HP-85B desk-top computer, a HP-3497A scanning control unit
and a transducer signal-conditioning unit.
Typical transducer channels, which were recorded with respect to cycle time,
included : blow tank top-air pressure; pipeline air pressure; upstream pipeline and
differential air pressures for the orifice plate assemblies; the mass of material
entering the receiving hopper and/or leaving the blow tank. After storing these
responses on either the HP-85B computer or a Tektronix 4923 digital tape recorder,
the data are then transferred to the University's Univac mainframe computer for
final processing and graphical output. On-site graphics also were developed on the
HP-85B computer, so that plots of raw data also could be achieved easily after the
completion of any experiment. A n example of a typical pipeline air pressure
response copied from the HP-85B C R T screen is presented in Figure 2.15.
Throughout the course of this project, the software of all major programs w a s
updated and improved continually as required. For example, memory capacity and
scanning speed were increased recently to accommodate a m a x i m u m number of
64 channels for the investigations into long-distance pneumatic conveying.
Plot
10
of C h.
14
>
\
c
o
Q.
VI
m
A
CD
<\J
Scan
Figure 2.15
Number
27
CHAPTER 3
28
3. PNEUMATIC CONVEYING
CHARACTERISTICS
^ > ^
APt
(kPa)
mf (kgs~:)
m<
(kgs-1)
mf (kgs -1 )
Figure 3.2
Logarithmic scales often are used on the abscissa and ordinate axes to
represent the variation in conveying rate. However, the generation or
utilisation of such graphs is far more tedious than the simpler linear scale
representations, as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Also, note that the main
reason for selecting log scales is to linearise the m s curves with respect
to say velocity and pressure gradient, as shown in Figure 3.3.
Unfortunately, such simplifications do not always occur especially for
materials of wide particle size range and realistic pipelines containing
bends and vertical sections.
dense phase
dilute phase
1
<
S
Vmin
Styropor -3
Particle size
dp = 2,385mm
Density
pp =1050 kg/m3
Pipe diameter
d
=52,6mm
Pipe material
stainless steel
Average pipe watt roughness R
~ 6 r 10 \im
Figure 3.3 The Rizk [7] two-phase flow diagram for pneumatic
conveying in horizontal pipes.
31
3.1 Pulverised Coal
During the first two years of this thesis project, pulverised coal (obtained
Electricity Commission of N.S.W. from the Tallawarra Power Station) was used as
the test material. The first attempt to determine the pneumatic conveying
characteristics of this material resulted in a series of experiments being carried out
on the original test rig (i.e. Test Rig A1) with the following specification.
0.425 m3 blow tank with top-air only (refer to Figure 2.1).
25 m of 52 m m I.D. pipeline (refer to Figure 2.2).
Five 1 m radius, 90 bends.
270, 240, 200, 165 and 135 kPag initial blow tank air pressures.
From the conveying parameters recorded for each experiment, values of mf, ms an
A p j (total system pressure loss) were extracted at selected increments of the
conveying cycle and plotted on a graph similar to that shown in Figure 3.2 (except
for the use of A p j instead of Apt). Lines of constant A p j w e r e then drawn through
the data to provide a family of curves at intervals of 10 kPa, as shown in Figure 3.4.
With mf representing the abscissa axis and m s the ordinate axis, straight lines of
material to air m a s s flow rate ratio, m*, also were drawn on Figure 3.4. The
alternative method of presenting this information is shown in Figure 3.5 (adopting
the form given in Figure 3.1). These methods of data presentation are similar to
those presented by Mason etal. [11].
.004
.006
.008
.010
-1
m f (kgs )
.012
.014
32
140
120
100
Ap T
(kPa)
80
60
.004
.006
.008
.010
.012
.014
mf (kgs-1)
Figure 3.5 Pneumatic conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for
Test Rig A1 (L = 25 m & D = 52 m m ) , displaying lines of constant m s .
It must be emphasised that such information is relevant only to the
conveyed material (viz. pulverised coal),
blow tank (Sturtevant, 0.425 m 3 capacity),
pipeline/bend configuration (L = 25 m, D = 52 m m , five 1 m radius 90
bends),
method of air injection (viz. top-air)
that were used for this particular set of experiments. However, if one of the
conditions were to be varied with respect to the other three, then the technique
would provide a very useful design tool. For example, the relative conveyability of
different materials, the effects of pipeline length on conveying performance and a
comparison of the various conveying modes m a y be summarised and evaluated
easily on such plots.
Note that the above values of mf, ms and Apr were extracted at certain increm
of the conveying cycle and, hence, actually represented instantaneous values.
Furthermore, note that
A p j = Apbt + Apt + ApF
where
and
(3.1)
33
Assuming that A p F - 0 and noting that the final pressure of the system essentially is
atmospheric, the value of A p T w a s taken to be numerically equal to the air pressure
on top of the material in the blow tank. That is,
APT = (Pbt + Patm) - Patm = Pbt (3.2)
where pbt is the blow tank top-air pressure (usually transducer location A1),
Patm is atmospheric pressure (usually = 101000 P a abs).
During later work on fly ash (and especially in relation to the development of t
standardised-test procedure, described in Section 3.4), it w a s decided to consider
only steady-state conveying parameters and plot Apt instead of Ap T . The reasons
were : s o m e doubt existed over the accuracy of the instantaneous curves drawn in
Figures 3.4 and 3.5 (due to the pipeline creating a time-delay in the system); a
graph displaying lines of constant Ap t would be more applicable to other pipelines
(of similar configuration) fed by different types of feeder (e.g. rotary valve) and blow
tank configuration (e.g. top-discharge). T o explore these matters further, steadystate values of mt, m s , Ap t and A p j were obtained from the original conveying
parameter plots and the resulting family of m s curves were plotted, as shown in
Figures 3.6 and 3.7 (the former representing A p j and the latter Apt).
After comparing the trends displayed in Figures 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7, it can be seen
although s o m e similarities do exist, the m s contour lines displayed in Figures 3.6
and 3.7 are significantly flatter. W h e n these discrepancies were realised during the
latter stages of the thesis (viz. during the fly ash test program), it w a s intended to
apply the standardised-test procedure (described in Section 3.4) to the s a m e
pulverised coal sample (i.e. to determine more accurate conveying characteristics).
140
120
(kPa)
100
80
60
.004
.006
.008
.010
.012
.014
mf (kgs-1)
Figure 3.6 Pneumatic conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for Test Rig A
(L = 25 m & D = 52 mm) displaying lines of constant, steady-state ms (Apj ordina
140
120
100
80
Ap t
(kPa)
60
.004
.006
.008
.010
.012
.014
-1
mf (kgs )
Figure 3.7 Pneumatic conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for Test Rig A1
(L = 25 m & D = 52 m m ) , displaying lines of constant, steady-state m s (Apt ordinate).
Unfortunately, due to the following reasons, this work w a s not able to be completed
during the normal course of this project.
The original four 200 litre drum samples were no longer available.
T h e d e m a n d s of the fly ash test program (including powder
characterisation, long-distance conveying) reduced the emphasis on the
investigations involving pulverised coal.
During the initial experiments on fly ash, significant sparking w a s
observed along a perspex sight tube installed at the end of the pipeline
(i.e. on the original Test Rig A1). This w a s considered as a possible
problem for pulverised coal, and the acquisition and testing of further
material had to be postponed.
In fact, the latter prompted further investigations into possible sources of igni
in all test rigs) and methods of explosion prevention and relief. The most applicable
w a s found to be sparking caused by electrostatic charging of the conveying
pipeline (due to inadequate earthing) and the filter bag surfaces (i.e. inside the
venting dust control unit). Earthing of the perspex surface w a s attempted, but the
tube w a s replaced eventually by a section of mild steel pipe to provide improved
earthing of the pipeline and hence, eliminate any possibility of sparking.
Electrostatic charging of the filter bag surfaces w a s still considered to be a problem
and an extensive investigation resulted in the request to purchase (via University
funds) a reverse-jet air filter comprising
epitropic Goretex filter bags earthed to the filter housing,
a horizontal upstand fitted with an explosion relief panel,
an exhaust fan to provide additional vacuum in the receiving hopper and
the filter housing, and
35
a discharge duct to provide venting of any explosion directly to
atmosphere.
The funding for this equipment was forthcoming and a DCE Model DLM V7/7F1 was
purchased in April, 1985. The installation w a s postponed until July/August, 1985
due to the priority of completing the fly ash testing program. Note that the
polypropylene filter bags which were used in the original D C E Model U M A 70V
venting dust control unit were replaced with Goretex bags in August, 1984 to
eliminate the dust emission problems that were being experienced with Vales Point
fly ash. This aspect is discussed further in Section 3.3.3.
Although accurate conveying characteristics were not able to be determined for
pulverised coal, the results that were obtained from the initial test work still were
considered sufficient for the other requirements of this thesis (viz. blow tank air
injection, powder characterisation and mathematical model verification). O n e other
important aspect which stemmed from this initial work on pulverised coal w a s the
need to clarify the definition for dense-phase.
3.2 Definition of Dense-Phase
Several researchers have adopted material to air mass flow rate ratio (viz. m*)
the basis of definition for dense-phase. For example, Mason et al. [12] have
suggested that dense-phase conveyors operate normally with m * > 40; Duckworth
[13] has indicated that for dense-phase suspensions, m * typically is greater than
100. However, as reported by Wypych and Arnold [14], this form of definition seems
to be inadequate. The main reasons are
m* is dependent on pipeline length for a given condition of flow, as
indicated by the scale-up criteria used by Mills et al. [15], and
a material m a y display dense-phase pneumatic conveying characteristics
at relatively low values of mass flow ratio (or dilute-phase performance at
relatively high values of m*).
Such aspects particularly are important if long-distance transport is consider
a theoretical prediction of pressure drop is required. S o m e researchers, for
example, have compared discrete experimental pressure drop data with dilutephase mathematical model predictions without verifying whether dilute- or densephase conditions actually are prevalent.
It would be more convenient to use a definition based on actual flow character
and it is suggested that dense-phase should refer generally to the condition of nonsuspension flow, whether it occurs in the form of unstable dunes [16], discrete fullbore plugs [17], sliding beds [18] or as an extruded condition [19]. Saltation is
defined therefore, as the transition from dilute- to dense-phase (or suspension to
non-suspension) pneumatic transport in horizontal pipes. Rizk [7] has provided a
similar form of definition by using a phase diagram for horizontal pneumatic
conveying. This diagram, which is similar to the Zenz [20] two-phase flow diagram,
w a s presented earlier in Figure 3.3. Note the similarity with the pneumatic
conveying characteristics given in Figure 3.1. A comparison between Figure 3.3
and Figure 3.7, indicate that the pulverised coal w a s transported in the densephase m o d e (i.e. for the range of mf values considered). Furthermore, this is
supported by the relatively large values of m*. which were obtained from these
experiments (e.g. 260< m * < 420).
36
3.3 Fly A s h
3.3.1 Introduction
During the first two years of this project, considerable interest was expressed
industry to extend the research work to investigate the pneumatic conveying of
power station fly ash. Preliminary investigations on Vales Point fly ash in 1982,
demonstrated that the handling problems significantly were greater than those
associated with pulverised coal and emphasised the importance of continuing work
in this area. Therefore, fly ash was included in the scope of work of this thesis and
resulted in priorities being placed on comparing the conveyability of fly ash samples
collected from six power stations (viz. Tallawarra, Eraring, Munmorah, Vales Point,
Wallerawang and Liddell. Details of each sample and the type of boiler used are
provided in Table 3.1.
P o w e r Station
Fly A s h Sample
Unit
No.
Unit Load
Op./Max. (MW)
T y p e of
Boller+
Method of Dust
Collection (Location)
Tallawarra
90/100
Eraring
400/660
Munmorah
2&3
Vales Point
190/350 (U2)
290/350 (U3)
630/660
Wallerawang
460/500
Liddell
390/500
Fabric Filter
(Pozzolanic Tank)
Fabric Filter
(Cell 23)
Electrostatic Precipitator
(Zone 2)
Electrostatic Precipitator
(Zone 3)
Electrostatic Precipitator
(Zone 3)
Electrostatic Precipitator
(Zone 2)
+ Type of Boiler: A
C
Tangentially-fired
conventional type
Tangentially-fired
down-flow type
B
D
Opposed-wall-fired
conventional type
Tangentially-fired
tower type
37
This information w a s intended to provide a data base, from which the pneumatic
conveying performance of a given fly ash sample could be estimated qualitatively
(i.e. after ascertaining the physical properties and fluidisation behaviour of the
sample, as described later in Section 5.1).
As indicated in Section 3.1, in order to compare the conveyability of different
materials, it w a s found necessary to employ the s a m e blow tank, pipeline/bend
configuration and operating modes. A detailed description of the test rig that was
used in these investigations is given in the following section. Section 3.3.3 presents
the pipeline conveying characteristics that were obtained for each fly ash sample.
3.3.2 Test Rig Description
A schematic layout of the test rig that was used extensively during the fly ash
program is presented in Figure 3.8, which includes the location of all recorded
transducers. The following list provides a description of the major components of
the testrig(i.e. Test Rig B1) and the relevant operating modes.
38
O)
cu
c
39
3.3.3
Test Results
Duration of
Test Work
Exp.
NOS.
Total No.of
Useful Tests
NO. Of
Data Pts.
Tallawarra
Eraring
Munmorah
Vales Point
Gladstone
Wallerawang
Liddell
25-10-83 to 31-01-84
03-02-84 to 15-02-84
13-03-84 to 02-04-84
09-08-84 to 19-09-84
03-10-84 to 11-10-84
26-11-84 to 18-01-85
26-03-85 to 22-07-85
160 to 193
220 to 251
321 to 384
520 to 546
661 to 685
740 to 766
830 to 865
32
30
61
27
22
24
35
58
70
88
52
41
44
57
40
Important information relevant to the fly ash test program is summarised below.
(a) The Gladstone fly ash referred to in this table was tested for the
Queensland Electricity Generating Board (now the Queensland Electricity
Commission) and has been included for an additional comparison.
(b) The total number of useful tests listed against each sample refers to the
actual total number of pneumatic conveying experiments, from which
data were extracted (i.e. mt, m s and Apt). Therefore, the experiments
which either had to be rejected due to faulty equipment (e.g. transducers)
or were concerned only with air flow/pressure drop measurements (e.g.
orifice plate checks, empty pipeline air pressure drop data) have not
been included in this total.
(c) No serious operational problems occurred during the fly ash program
except for the Vales Point fly ash sample, which w a s found to create
excessive blinding of the original polypropylene filter bag surfaces. The
shaking/cleaning operation of the filter unit w a s not able to remove the
caked-on fly ash material. Subsequent over-pressurisation occurred in
the receiving hopper and caused large amounts of dust to be released to
the atmosphere (from between the joining surfaces of the filter housing
and the access panel). The polypropylene bags were replaced with
epitropic Goretex bags and the over-pressurisation problem w a s
eliminated. Although such problems were not repeated for the Gladstone,
Wallerawang and Liddell samples, it is possible that they still could have
occurred with the original polypropylene bags.
The pneumatic conveying characteristics of the Eraring fly ash are presented in
Figure 3.9, which includes the actual values of m s obtained from Exp. Nos. 220 to
251. Note that for reasons of clarity not all data points have been shown on this plot.
This form of representation is similar to the one presented by Mason et al. [11],
except for the following two extensions.
1. The range of mf is selected to span the regions of both the dilute- and
dense-phase m o d e s (i.e. suspension and non-suspension flow regimes).
2. Regions of unreliable transport (e.g. unstable duning, plugging,
blockages) are investigated and delineated on the conveying
characteristics. Certain experiments are designed actually to approach
the minimum transport condition. This task is m a d e feasible with the
unblocking technique described in Section 2.2.
However, for the purpose of providing clarity in reports and publications, the m
values are omitted usually from the conveying characteristics. Hence, the final form
of presentation is obtained by reproducing the lines of constant m s , as shown in
Figure 3.10. Refer to Figures 3.11 to 3.16 for the pneumatic conveying
characteristics of the Tallawarra, Munmorah, Vales Point, Gladstone, Wallerawang
and Liddell fly ash samples.
41
in
o
i
to
CJ1
co
o
CM
O
o
in
o
o
o
m
<->
CO
D. Q.
200
+
Ap t
Blockage
Condition
Unstable /
(kPa)
100
.02
.04
.06
.08
raf (kgs-1)
Figure 3.10
200
Ap t
Blockage
Condition
Unstable
Duning
OOv
(kPa)
100
I
i
(kgs"1)
Air OnV
0 L
0
.02
.04
.06
.08
m.f (kgs"1)
Figure 3.11
200
1
i Blockage
Condition
Unstable
Duning
Ap t
(kPa)
100
Air Only.
0
.02
.04
.06
.08
-1
mf (kgs )
Figure 3.12
200
iBlockage
Condition
^Unstable
Duning
Ap t
(kPa)
100
Air OnT:
0
A
.02
.04
.06
.08
-1
mf (kgs )
Figure 3.13
200
Unstable
Ap t
(kPa)
100
.02
.04
.06
.08
mf (kgs-1)
Figure 3.14
200
Ap t
(kPa)
100
.02
Figure 3.15
.04
mf (kgs-1)
.06
.08
45
200
Apt
(kPa)
100
0
0 .02 .04 .06 .08
mf (kgs"1)
Figure 3.16 Pipeline conveying characteristics of Liddell fly ash
for L = 71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
3.4 Standardised-Test
Procedure
During the initial stages of the fly ash testing program, it was realised th
be advantageous to standardise experimental procedures for the purpose of
minimising the total number of necessary pneumatic conveying
experiments,
providing sufficient data for the representation of complete conveying
characteristics,
investigating minimum transport behaviour (to determine the extent of
dense-phase suitability), and
defining undesirable operational problems such as plugging, blockages
or unstable transport.
A standardised-test procedure was developed and also generalised to apply to
different types of materials, as reported by Wypych and Arnold [21], In conjunction
with suggested scale-up procedures, which are discussed in Section 3.5, this
procedure provides a basis for reliable pneumatic conveying design.
The results presented previously on Eraring fly ash (i.e. in Section 3.3) an
P V C powder [21] are employed to demonstrate the standardised-test procedure
and the determination of minimum transport boundaries. The 71 m x 52 m m test rig
(i.e. Test Rig B1) described in Sections 2.2 and 3.3.2 is applicable to all results
presented in the following sections.
46
3.4.1
Experiments
= 38 kg kg-1,
which is 30% lower than the steady-state value. Note that the 10.2 kg of air wa
determined by calculating the amount of air used during the conveying cycle (viz.
9.4 kg, which is equal to the area under the mf curve) and adding on the amount of
air required for initial pressurisation of the blow tank (viz. ~ 0.8 kg of air to provide
Pbt.i = 170 kPag). Note that such differences between the steady-state and average
values of m * are typical of the standard batch cycle and should be allowed for when
designing a pneumatic conveying system.
47
iii|iiiil)iiniiii|iiii[ijii|iin[iui|ni
01
1U
I-
c
co
W
cF
co CO
CVJ
i
o
2 Q03 x
Q.UJ
D)T-"
s
CM
CD
.ECQ
<c
D.
ot
03 "<c co
^- CD
'
rO.J=
Q-CO
CO
c
a
co o
c
bI)
03 C
D
SI
CO
1^ 03
T- >^
co
CD
3
D)
i_
m
in
IM
rg
o
z
z
UJ
31
0 I I , I
C9
en
11
<u
a.
D.
en
48
3.4.1.2
The following technique then is used to obtain the three steady-state conveying
parameters required for the presentation of the pipeline conveying characteristics.
1. Establish a steady-state region during the conveying cycle taking into
account all parameters (i.e. blow tank and pipeline air pressure, air flow
rate and supplied/delivered mass flow rate of solids).
1. mf: read the value directly from the transient plot, as shown in Figures
3.17(d), 3.18(d) and 3.19(d).
2. ms : determine the slope of the delivered mass of solids curve, as shown
in Figures 3.17(c), 3.18(c) and 3.19(c).
3. Apt : extrapolate the pipeline air pressure drop curve back to the blow
tank outlet (see Figure 3.20). However, in s o m e blow tank installations,
where the conveying air pipe has the s a m e internal diameter as the
actual conveying pipeline, Apt m a y be approximated by the gauge
pressure measured upstream of the blow tank outlet (referred to as the
conveying-air pressure or back-pressure). All Apt results presented in this
section were determined using the extrapolation technique.
The test procedure described in Section 3.4.1 was employed to obtain sufficient
data for the representation of pipeline conveying characteristics (Eraring fly ash and
P V C powder). The resulting groups of experiments and data points (noting that one
data point represents one value of mf, m s , and Apt, as determined from the
technique described above) are summarised in Table 3.3.
49
O)
UJ
I-
03
i_
IO
UJ
LU
i_
*-*
O
*sT
t\J
.
4 O
n
m
i_
o
z
tr
IU
0.
X
X
IU
>o:
rO en
U
TI
i_
en
CM
03 Q.
03 X
Q.HI
05 ,_
C CQ
O)
a. -^
h-
03 C\J
to
H
CD
(0
en
oH
<nm
o c
Q. 03
V'1
1"
f"
|""'
in
IS
!-
\
\
CM
<M
Q
>.
v_
c CO
c
en o
c
z t03 0)
"O
ii
CO
00
CI
>>
*-;
CO
N. \
tt
CO
n
ui
\\
"
\
\
\
y\s
r
o
z
z
UJ
tr
ui
UJ
0X
IU
e.
rtf
-^
ca
(9
ni
cn
r-l
ITS
<C ex.
a. -c
en
>
3_
D)
U_
O
CO
'
50
IM
in
cr
o
c
"l_
03
LU
i_
s- (J}
CO SI
C\J
IM
E
03 z
a.
X
D.HJ
O)y
DQ
O)
UI
0-
{_
>rr
CO
U
cn
CM
CD
(0
Q-
i_
en
1
CO
4'
CO
**
o 1-
CO O)
" "1
0]
1'
Q-
c C/J
c
'<no
c r1- D
.(0
rz
CO
CO
IM
O)
T >
CO s
3
D)
li.
'
eg
ty
z
UI
C
IU
UJ
0.
. 1 ..... .
.
ts
a.
I . . . . i. ... I . . . .
IS
IS
en
it
<a
a. J*
en
51
UJ
CO
UJ
cc
cc
ZD
CO
CO
UJ
Z)
CO
CO
UJ
cc
c
c
Q_
cn
-^
CC
cr
CO
UJ
UJ
JcT
z
cc
zc
o
_i
cc
ci-
cr
_j
UJ
0_
-^
0_
CO
i^s
ts
CD
CO
C\]
ts
in
**
t
UJ
_J
ts
CO
ts
C\J
CO
2:
UJ
CO
r-
o
oc
u_
o
z.
c
r
t
C3
tS
CM
-e- , tsl , , , , J
ts
ca
ts
in
<*-
CO
1
(1
UJ
3T
z
<<
-J
UJ
Q_
CO
Q_
CO
tS
CQ
D)
DC
-
UJ
cr
o
CO
*
UJ
D.
X
UJ
ts
-i
oats
Ui
_J
CJ
>-
Q.
i
i_
13
CO
CO
cz
Q.
o
CN
CO
=3
52
Sample
No. of
Test 1
14
4
Table 3.3
No. of
Test 2
No. of
Test 3
Total No.
Exps.
Total No. of
Data Points
10
15
30
32
67
63
6
13
Note that in Exp. No. 249, unstable duning occurred at mf 0.0130 kgs~1 and t
the corresponding values of Apt and m s are approximations averaged over the
steady-state period.
Experiment
Number
mf
(kg s-1)
Apt
(kPa)
ms
(kg s-1)
Steady-State m*
(kg kg-1)
236
0.0450
121
2.42
54
240
0.0395
0.0407
0.0415
0.0425
0.0435
32
56
64
78
87
0.34
0.76
0.94
1.31
1.53
9
19
23
31
35
0.0252
0.0130
109
=106
2.30
=2.10
91
=162
249
53
Blockage
Condition
0
mf (kgs"1)
.02
.04
.06
.08
The large differences in flow performance and efficiency, that were found to oc
in a variety of materials by Lohrmann and Marcus [22] and Wypych and Arnold [16],
emphasise the need to investigate minimum transport behaviour. For the case of
Eraring fly ah (and the other fly ash samples considered in this thesis),
considerable difficulty w a s experienced in obtaining a well-defined locus of
blockage conditions. However, a broad region of unstable duning w a s observed
and recorded. Transient plots of the major conveying parameters obtained from
Exp. No. 232 (Test 3), which produced the only well-defined blockage condition, are
presented in Figure 3.22. Note the increase in pipeline air pressure fluctuation as
mt w a s decreased (i.e. as the reliable transport limit w a s approached). However,
the steady-state section of the M s curve w a s considered still as a stable response
and, hence, the corresponding operating conditions were not recorded as an
unstable duning coordinate. A total of three experiments (including Exp. No. 249)
provided unstable duning phenomena similar to that shown in Figure 3.19. From
these data, an approximate reliable transport boundary was estimated and plotted
on the pipeline conveying characteristics of Figures 3.9, 3.10 and 3.21.
54
" " 1 " I ' | ' M I | I M ' | " " | " " l " " I1 '",
CO
^_^
>-,C\J
CO
t\J
O) .
C" u
"l_ ^
.
l_
o
LU X
> LU
co CD
l_
CD
rr
.*<
b
CO
i_
Q.
C3)C0
cz *CO
>
CZ r-
e>
-^
c*
TS
CVJ (0
CD Cu
Q- -^
nj
u c~
u 'co
o Z3
C
Eo
T>
** '4*
o cz
(D o
I)
n
u. O)
CZ ^.
o
to o
c JO
O)
CZ
*
CN LCN co
CO CZ
o
E
3
c
IU
c
id
ca
t-i
O- J*
ro
en
55
In contrast, P V C powder (dp 50 = 135 Lim, p s = 1400 kg m-3, pbi = 575 kg m-3), which
was conveyed on the s a m e test rig (i.e. Test Rig B1), displayed a well-defined
minimum transport condition [21], as shown on the pipeline conveying
characteristics presented in Figure 3.23. At the onset of blockage, severe pipe
vibrations occurred. However, most of the blockages only were temporary and a
restart in the conveying cycle usually w a s possible. Both Tests 2 and 3 were used to
estimate the locus of blockage/plugging conditions, and examples are presented in
Figures 3.24 and 3.25 ( P V C powder, Exp. Nos. 387 and 414). Note that any
evidence of imminent blockage (e.g. unstable duning for fly ash) w a s not observed
for the P V C powder.
3.4.4 Test Procedure Applications and Limitations
Although the total number of experiments and corresponding data points required
for the presentation on conveying characteristics were similar for Eraring fly ash and
P V C powder, considerable differences occurred between the number of actual
experiments (i.e. Tests 1, 2 and 3). This w a s due mainly to the limitations and
particular applications of each test to provide data over the (maximum) regions
0<mf < 0.10 kg s"1
and
Note these values are relevant only to the test rig that was employed (i.e. Tes
B1) and will vary for other blow tank/pipeline configurations and air supply
compressors. The necessary number of individual experiments (i.e. for Tests 1, 2
and 3), as indicated in Table 3.3, will depend also on the physical properties and
the minimum transport behaviour of the material.
Test 1 is used usually to achieve one steady-state operating condition at the u
end of the pressure, drop scale (typically, for Apt > 100 kPa).
200
Blockage
' Conditions
L50
Apt
Blockage
Boundary N.
(kPa)
100
50
(kgs-1)
0
JL
,02
.04
06
m.
.08
(kgs-1)
.10
12
57
i 11 i 1 1 1 1 > 11 1 1 1 1 1 1
Is
o-d
^x
LU
CO
ra
rr
E
i.
CO
.........i
111 n
Q.
CT r CZ C\J
>>
a
> CO
>
<
cz 1CM
C3 CO
DI
Q- Q-
DI
o
i_
n
D)
t
C/J
o
n
tu CZ
Eo
u
--
#
ea
ca
CD
D)
'co
tz Q.
i_
h- O)
t_
"caa
ao
.
ca
ca
"
"
"
"
~~
'r^
,
4'
ea
ca
<tf
CN CO
CO c
o
3 01
F
(O
"1'
m
ea
ea
in
~
~~
'
"
"~
-
B
ea
ca
cn-vrj
^-
li-
ca
e
a
8T>
ea
"
/ "~-"crau
/ *"
/
/
- ea
X^ "" ea
L
"
"
*
_
"
,
-ea
O
.I DI
< 10
CL D.
CO cz
o o
a. o
O)
cz cz
ca
ea
*
~"
"
"
"
"
Is
DI
58
*s
a*
gi
-6.
LU
-"
DQ
D)
E
rr
I-
c/)
Q_
D)h-
co
^ +_,
a
> co
>
TJ
cz H
o
l_
o
o
C3 (0
CL Q.
C~
CO
"l
w
E
cz
o
o "D
co CZ
o o
Q. o
DJ
CZ
CZ
C5)
'co D)
13
cz Q.
v_
4'
h-
<
m
CM </)
CO c
o
3 F
D)"D
li.
i-H
D)
to
o>
59
Eraring fly ash :
P V C powder :
The 100 kPa limitation for Eraring fly ash also was observed for the other fly ash
samples (i.e. considered in Section 3.3). Note that for the P V C powder and Apt >
150 kPa, only three steady-state operating conditions were able to achieved.
Test 3 is used also to minimise the total number of experiments, although not as
many operating conditions can be achieved (i.e. w h e n compared with Test 2).
However, its main use is to supplement the unreliable transport information that
cannot be obtained by Test 2 due to the pressure drop limitations mentioned
previously. Furthermore, for unstable transport boundaries, which are either difficult
to locate or relatively insensitive to changes in mf (e.g. compare Figures 3.10 and
3.23), Test 3 is found to be very useful. In fact, the ten experiments of Test 3
conducted on the Eraring fly ash were used mainly for this purpose.
The final selection of the actual number of experiments (i.e. Test 1, 2 or 3) requ
for the standardised-test procedure depends on the test rig configuration and the
physical nature and minimum transport behaviour of the material in question.
However, upon the commencement of experimentation, it soon becomes evident
which tests will predominate the test program. For example, the Eraring fly ash and
the P V C powder displayed different conveying characteristics and minimum
transport behaviour, which was reflected by the different number of Tests 1, 2 and 3.
With the assistance of the powder classification results reported by Wypych and
Arnold [16], it may be suggested generally and qualitatively that for
Dixon [23] Group A and some Group C powders (e.g. fly ash), the
individual number of tests will be similar to that of the Eraring fly ash,
although certain unpredictable p h e n o m e n a m a y require additional
experimentation (e.g. refer to the unusual shape of the reliable transport
limit displayed in Figure 3.12),
Group B and some Group D materials, the number will be similar to that
of P V C powder [21], where four experiments of Test 1, thirteen of Test 2
and fifteen of Test 3 were required.
These matters of powder classification are discussed further in Chapter 5.
60
CHAPTER 4
61
4.
Table 4.1
30
10
2500
2150
600
3900
1600
2240
2320
2350
3500
3080
760
522
1000
1520
1090
645
A
D1&D2
F2
F2
F1
F3
Note that a Malvern Model 2600C laser diffraction particle sizer w a s employed to
obtain the particle size distributions of the pulverised coal and fly ash, whereas a
sieve analysis w a s used for the other products. The solids density, p s , w a s
determined by a Beckman Model 930 air pycnometer and the loose-poured bulk
density, pDi, by pouring gently a known m a s s of material into a measuring cylinder.
62
4.1 Pulverised Coal
Several groups of experiments were carried out on the original Test Rig A1 (see
Figures 2.1 and 2.2) to investigate the relative effect of blow tank top-air and
supplementary conveying-air on the dense-phase pneumatic conveying
characteristics of the pulverised coal. Each test group consisted of three
experiments, which were subjected to the same set-up conditions (e.g. air flow, pbt.i)
but with one of the following different combinations of air injection.
(a) Blow tank top-air only.
(b) Blow tank top-air and supplementary-air (solenoid valve removed).
(c) Blow tank top-air and pulsed supplementary-air (using a solenoid
valve controlled by an electrical timer).
A more detailed arrangement of the various air supply lines is shown schematical
in Figure 4.1. Note both probe- andring-airwere not used for these experiments
Material
Inlet
Conveying
*" Pipeline
Solenoid
Valve
Discharge
Valve
Figure 4.1 0.425 m 3 Sturtevant blow tank and air supply arrangement.
and the supplementary-air line simply consisted of a 12 mm O.D. nylon tube
connecting the top-air line to the blow tank outlet via a timer-operated solenoid
control valve (for combination (c) only) and a non-return valve. For combination (b),
the solenoid valve w a s removed completely from the supplementary-air line. By
operating the isolation valves shown in Figure 4.1, the above three methods of air
injection were compared for five different values of pt>t,i (viz. 115,165, 200, 240 and
270 kPag). Transient responses of the blow tank top-air pressure (i.e. pDt = PA1,
transducer location A1, see Figure 3.8), a typical pipeline air pressure ( P G L see
Figure 3.8) the delivered mass of solids (M s ) and the supplied air mass flow rate
(mf) were obtained from each experiment.
63
A typical set of results from three experiments are superimposed in Figure 4.2, and
the relevant set-up conditions are summarised in Table 4.2. Note that
in Exp. No. 35, a 0.5 s ON / 0.5 s OFF setting was used for the timeroperated solenoid valve,
additional experiments, which were carried out to determine the
effectiveness of knife-air (see Figures 2.1, 2.2 and [8]), have been
included in Table 4.2,
combination (d) consisted of blow tank top-air and knife air (with a timer
setting of 0.5 s O N / 0.5 s OFF),
the results obtained from Exp. Nos. 61 & 62 are presented in Figure 4.3.
Exp.
No.
Method of
Air Injection
PA1,I
(kPag)
Blow Tank
Top-Air
SupplementaryAir
KnifeAir
21
23
35
(a)
(b)
(c)
115
115
115
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes (pulsed)
No
No
No
61
62
la)
185
185
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
(d)
Table 4.2
The following steady-state conveying parameters also were determined from Exp.
No. 23 (i.e. the combination (b) results).
ms = 2.19kgs'1=7.9th-"'.
mf =
0.0076 kg s'1 = 22.8 m 3 h"*" free air (i.e. @ 20C & 1010 hPa).
Vf = 1.74 m s"1 @ pipe inlet & 2.98 m s-1 @ pipe exit (where D = 52 mm).
m* =
(2.19) (0.0076)"1 = 288 kg kg-1.
Apt =
72kPa.
From these results, the following observations are made for pulverised coal.
For low air flows, top-air only seems to compact the material inside the
blow tank resulting in a more unstable conveying m o d e (e.g. a temporary
blockage condition occurred during Exp. No. 21, whereas reliable
transport was achieved in Exp. No. 61).
T-l
I 1
i I ~ I -I
ii
i i
ca
CJ
>
>
i.
1 "*
\
1
\
** ': ?
\ :f
\V Y?''i
>*l
ts
tsa
'
1?
"
"
* ^ 1
i
<]
\ sr
> V
\v
>
i i i 1
,,,,1
CVJ
ca
(2B<PI)
CU
(X!
-r ' 1 -ir
'
Tf)
1 _i_ i..i_.
ca
ca
ca
ca
( t _s^) 3Tn
ca
1 1 1 1 1 i i
ca
1 1 1 1 1 1
i i 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11 i 11 1 1 1
ca
i | esa
CM
o
4J
:
_>
**
CU
>
E
<u
u
a
3
w
1:1
ca co
ca ^
/" *
1
:'l
:/ 1
X'
Cu
ca
ca
i
c
o
ta
ca
CM
J.1
J_J-
1 1 -lU JL.
t i i .1 .I-JL. i J
ca
ca
(2W)
ca
ca
TV
M I l l l l l l l i m l l l l l l l l l l l l M I
ca
ca
CO
ca
c
a
CM
ca
ca
-i
(1) K
ca
ca
ii'r
JI
0.
I H.
65
f-r J
50.
100.
oa
300.
5C
i ' i '
-1i|H-.-'-I
: EXP. NO. 61
EXP- N O . 6 2
cn
200.
to
o
UJ
cc
UJ 100.
LU
O
CO
cn
cr
100.
.030
-iii|i|ir
->r
T'r
EXP. NO. 61
EXP. N O . 62
CE
CC
tt
a.
aaa L_J
0.
I i I i I i I i IiIi1iIiIt.
50.
100.
^
TRANSIENT CYCLE TIME (SECS)
Figure 4.3 Transient plots of major conveying parameters from Exp.
61 and 62 for pulverised coal conveyed over 25 m (Test Rig A1).
66
Certain materials including fly ash, which were tested initially on the original
Rig C, have been found to cause serious rat-holing problems inside the blow tank,
similar to that shown in Figure 4.4. The following possible contributing factors have
been established.
67
Dead
Region
Aeration
Air
Discharge
Figure 4.4
Inappropriate blow tank geometry (e.g. critical hopper angle and outlet
diameter) for a particular material.
Material cohesion (as well as wet or sticky properties) producing poor
fluidisation and, hence, bad-channelling (or rat-holing) during the
pressurisation and conveying cycles.
Strong adhesion between the material and blow tank wall.
The method of air injection causing localised penetration, as shown in
Figure 4.4 (i.e. the aeration air will follow the line(s) of least flow
resistance).
Similar problems also could occur easily in top-discharge blow tanks, as indicate
in Figure 4.5 (especially for products which are fine and heavy). From a practical
viewpoint, the consequences of such performance are
the effective working capacity of the blow tank is reduced due to
incomplete discharge of the contents, thereby lowering the overall solids
throughput of the system,
inconsistent and, possibly, unstable transport could result from the nonuniform fluidisation of material in the vicinity of the conveying pipe
entrance (for top-discharge blow tanks).
To overcome some of the above problems in relation to the original KBI blow tank
(Test Rig C, see Figure 2.7), the design of the second blow tank unit (i.e. for Test Rig
D) w a s improved in collaboration with N.E.I. John T h o m p s o n (Aust.).
68
Discharge
Dead
Region
Porous
Membrane
Plenum
Chamber
Air Inlet
69
Figure 4.6 presents typical solids mass flow rate data obtained from one of the
several tests carried out for this purpose. Note for this experiment, Blow Tank No. 2
(with the fluidising cone) was discharged first, followed by Blow Tank No. 1 (with the
aeration nozzles only) and the air flow was set at m f 0.2 kg s-1. It can be seen that
there is a considerable difference in solids discharge performance between the two
blow tanks. This is reflected also in the mass flow rate of solids into the silo. Note
that similar differences in discharge characteristics were observed when Blow Tank
No. 1 was discharged before Blow Tank No. 2 (i.e. when the operating sequence
was reversed).
As a result of observing this behaviour, a further series of tests were conducted
the same fly ash sample to examine in more detail the difference between the two
methods of air injection. Test Rig D1 (L = 293 m & D =69 m m ) w a s used for this
purpose, so that steady-state conveying conditions could be established with the
discharge of only one 0.9 m 3 blow tank. In this way, the two blow tanks could be run
independently and exposed to the s a m e set-up conditions.
A series of tests were carried out on Test Rig D1 covering a wide range of mf
values. Figure 4.7 superimposes typical transient plots of major conveying
parameters obtained from two consecutive tests where Blow Tanks No. 1 and 2
were used alternately. The steady-state and average conveying parameters listed
in Table 4.3 have been determined from these experiments.
Blow
Tank
ms
(kg s-1)
1
2
1.85
1.85
mf
m*
(kg s-1) (kg kg-1)
0.25
0.25
7.4
7.4
Apt
(kPa)
Disch.
Time (s)
Avg. m s
(kg s-1)
242
240
365
288
1.47
1.77
For these experiments, the supply air (aeration and conveying air) w a s held
constant with the top-air not being used. Note that the total amount of air injected
into the blow tanks (via evasser nozzles for Blow Tank No. 1 and the combined
fluidising discharge cone and evasser nozzles for Blow Tank No. 2) effectively was
equal for both tests.
It is apparent from these results that the steady-state conveying parameters wer
very similar for these two experiments. However, from Figure 4.7, the m s response
for Blow Tank No. 1 is seen to decline at a relatively early stage of the conveying
cycle. For example, this occurred over the final 40 % of the discharge cycle of Blow
Tank No. 1 (affecting 210 kg of the initial batch size of 530 kg), whereas for Blow
Tank No. 2 this occurred over the final 8 % (affecting only the final 40 kg of the initial
510 kg batch). A n additional comparison is m a d e by determining the average
conveying rate for each blow tank. For example, for Blow Tank No. 1, average m s =
(530 kg) (365 s)" 1 = 1.47 kg S'1 which is 17 % lower than the 1.77 kg S'1
calculated for Blow Tank No. 2. The following observations are m a d e as a result of
these experiments.
TEST RIG
800.
'
'
'
'
'
- B -
(943 M)
. .
~ 600.
ts
ac
500.
a
<=> 4 0 0 .
TI
3BB.
700.
'
y'/
s
TC
in
^"
s
.**'
,v s-'
"^v.
/s
y "
cn
S200.
jL
/ v.
j
100. -
^^.
^^>^
CYCLE TIME
.o^ rw/wr 7
SJLO
13EC31
IBB.
BLOH THNK S
71
ts
I I M
I I | I I
' ' I I IM
I1 I I M
ta
ca
_ Ln
LT)
2 ca
ts
-4CD
C
ca
'>>
CD
>
ts
oo
to O
CN
ts
ca
_ OJ
O
3
o.
caD)
fc
DC
o-co
CO ,d)
H
&
o
ca
ca
*
iH
c co
pq
' ' l ' ' f i I
ca
ca
ca
ts
CO
<
ts
' i i i I i t I i i . r,
ts
ts
.i
o
z
c Cd CD
s >
"^ o
?-o
i j 1 1 1 1 VI
1 1 1 1 1 I'l Tj 1 1 1 1
i injn1
ca
ts
I
CH
&
JIM.
C\J
IS)
CM
CD <33
C\J
W)
.b CD
<o >,
3 CD
ca
CJ
LT)
.M
H
ts
ts
-^-
o
pq
< s
is
si
/ }
o
cc-c
o .>>
o
2*
CJ*
' /
OS CO
ts
1/
$2
\f
O CD
CO
\(
-U
OJ
ts
<D
3
O
ii
ca
ca
1
1
-
V. \
ts
ca
cn
' '
' '
Mill
ca
ca
Pd
i J u^ - 1
1 !
ra
ts
i
-W-. 1
ca
cs
fr
ca
CM
is.
ts
ts
CD
CS
ts
Ln
ca
cs
CS
ts
ts
CM
cs
cn
ST
CO
AS
CS
ca
ts
72
4.3 Plug-Phase Conveying
Over the past two decades, dense-phase [2,7,14,17], low-velocity [2,3], longdistance [1,5,6] and also dilute-phase [7] pneumatic conveying have received
considerable attention from both researchers and commercial suppliers of
equipment. In contrast, discrete plug-phase conveying (i.e. the transportation of a
limited plug length of material per cycle) has received little attention except for a few
general papers/reports published or presented by vendors of such equipment. Yet
this method of transport is able to handle efficiently a large range of conventionally
difficult materials (e.g. coarse, heavy, wide size range, abrasive and even friable),
that otherwise could be considered only for dilute-phase transport. For example,
refer to the case study on screened coke presented by Wypych and Arnold [26]. In
fact, even specialised techniques such as low-velocity and/or by-pass technology
[2] may not be suitable for such materials. This aspect of powder classification (i.e.
in relation to determining the most suitable m o d e of conveying for a given product)
is considered further in Chapter 5.
The results obtained from four materials (SGA, UGA, bone char and crushed bath,
refer to Table 4.1 for relevant physical properties) are presented to demonstrate
(a) the general features and full potential of this method of transport,
(b) the effect of blow tank air injection on plug-phase conveying
characteristics, and
(c) how considerable improvements in performance (e.g. reliability, reduced
degradation) can be obtained simply by modifying the method of air
injection.
4.3.1 Screened & Unscreened Granulated Aluminate (SGA & UGA)
Using Test Rig C2 (0.9 m3 blow tank, L = 59 m & D = 105 mm) several experiments
were carried out initially on S G A to establish reliable and optimal operating
conditions for the dilute- and/or dense-phase m o d e of transportation. However,
severe pipeline blockages occurred for air flows below m f 0.3 kg s_1 (e.g. for pbtj *
140 kPag) and it w a s found that conventional dense-phase w a s not possible for
this material. In fact, the following steady-state operating conditions were found
reliable for dilute-phase conveying only.
mf = 0.325 kg s"1, ms = 6.8 kg S'1 = 24.51 rr1, Apt = 85 kPa, Vf = 17 m S'1
to 31 m s _1 (i.e. from start to end of the pipeline).
On inspection of the material, which was conveyed under these conditions, an
excessive amount of fines was noticed in the sample and considered unacceptable
for the proposed application (i.e. for a liquor burning impurity removal process,
which could not tolerate large amounts of dust). For this reason, additional tests
were carried out on Test Rig F2 (0.113 m 3 plug-phase blow tank, L = 58 m & D =
105 m m ) to determine whether lower transport velocities could be achieved (i.e. to
minimise degradation). After carrying out 14 experiments at different values of mf,
the following conveying parameters were found most reliable for the plug-phase
mode.
Orifice-air only (see Figure 2.12), mf 0.079 kg S"1, Avg. ms = 2.5 kg s"1 =
9.01 h"1, Max. pbt - 200 kPag, Avg. v s 1.8 m s"1 (where the time taken
for the material to reach the end of the pipeline w a s 33 s).
73
Note that
steady-state operating conditions are not applicable to this method of
transport,
these conveying parameters were based on Exp. No. 1274 (refer to
Figure 4.8 for transient plots of the major parameters),
the average conveying rate (i.e. avg. m s ) is determined by dividing the
mass of product conveyed (viz. 102 kg) by the conveying cycle time (viz
41 s),
the m a s s of solids conveyed w a s obtained by actually removing the
material from the 5 m 3 receiving silo and weighing it on a load platform
(refer to the eccentric loading problems described in Section 2.6),
the material which w a s conveyed after Exp. No. 1274 w a s retained for
later inspection and found to contain only minor levels of dust
(acceptable for the liquor burning impurity removal process),
to determine an overall conveying rate (i.e. for a proposed installation)
the average conveying rate avg. m s must be modified to allow for cycle
overheads (e.g. filling time, valve switching time). However, this is not
required for the purpose of the present investigations.
The type of conveying produced by the 0.113 m3 blow tank (i.e. for Test Rig F, see
Figures 2.12 and 2.13) leaves a significant portion of material in the pipeline
especially when the latter had been emptied or purged prior to an experiment (e g'
after a planned shutdown). This is caused by the relatively low values of conveying
velocity used for operation (typically, avg. v s = 1 to 3 m s"1, which is based simply on
the time taken for the material to reach the end of the pipeline and also the
assumption that the product c o m m e n c e s to move into the pipeline shortly after the
air supply is turned on). However, there exists a minimum flow rate condition, below
which an excessive amount of material will remain in the pipeline and gradually
build up until either unstable, strong plugging or a blockage will occur. For the S G A
tested in these investigations, m f - 0.07 kg s'1 represented this minimum air flow
condition. Hence, the above operating conditions are considered quite safe and
reliable, although for an actual system, mf > 0.085 kg s"1 m a y have to considered.
As both SGA and UGA were required to be conveyed pneumatically (and also with
low levels of degradation), it w a s considered necessary to undertake additional
experiments on U G A for the purpose of
determining reliable operating conditions, and
establishing whether an increased level of fines would have any effect on
the conveying performance of U G A (e.g. refer to particle size distributions
presented in Figure 4.9).
Subjecting UGA to the operating conditions, which were found reliable for SGA (Le.
orifice-air only, mf * 0.08 kg s-1), a stable plug formed during transportation and this
produced substantial pipe vibrations and much higher pipeline air pressures (e.g.
Pbt > 300 kPag). Although U G A w a s conveyed successfully under these conditions,
the method of transport w a s considered too damaging to the particles and it was
decided to pursue the requirements of a more gentle duning m o d e of conveying.
Note it is believed that the majority of such degradation occurs during the final
stages of the cycle, where the stable plug of product is released suddenly from the
end of the pipeline (due to a high upstream air pressure, usually referred to as
back-pressure).
cc
cu
UJ
cc 103.
UJ
cc
CL
20.
30.
I 11
60.
40.
" T i i i i i i i | i i r -
" I I I I I I I r -
CH. NOS
e
u
<n
o
5 100.
V)
in
.1
10.
0.
l_
60.
20.
CTCLE TIHE
CSECS1
.09
- i
1 i r i i i i r
i r i i
| i i i i | i i i
< i i '
.08
u
UJ
.07
v.
u
g 08
in
UJ
1-
.05
cr
cc
z
.04
a. i
u.
.03
c
c
X
.02
c
>
<
a .01
in
in
.00
,
BD
K. i i l
10.
07
J_
20.
'
30.
l^i-
I I I l _ l L .
40.
75
100
CD
1ir
Screened Product
CU
E
ra
Unscreened Product
Q
CD
O
SQ.
50
ro
CU
ro
CJJ
s_
CJ3
cn
rCU
1.0
Figure 4.9
3.0'
Particle Diameter (mm)
I T^i
10.0
Selecting orifice- and ring-air (see Figure 2.12) and carrying out an additional
series of tests, the minimum flow rate condition described previously for S G A was
found to occur at m f 0.076 kg s_1. At or above this value, the discharge of product
from the end of the pipeline occurred more in the form of a dune (i.e. instead of a
stable plug), which w a s seen to be more gentle and less damaging to the particles
(note, by visual inspection only). Also, the resulting operating pressures were found
to be considerably less (e.g. pbt = 200 to 250 kPag). Typical transient plots of major
conveying parameters are presented in Figure 4.10. Note that this experiment was
operated in the vicinity of the minimum flow rate condition. The following conveying
parameters were found to be most reliable for the plug-phase conveying of U G A .
Orifice- and ring-air (see Figure 2.12), mf 0.085 kg S"1, Avg. ms = 2.40
kg s'1 = 8.61 fr1, Max. pbt 250 kPag, Avg. v s 1.7 m S"1 (where the time
taken for the material to reach the end of the pipeline was 35 s).
"i1|111r-j1111p T I I T"
TI|TTTT
CH. NOS
0
4__
^200.
1C
UJ
cc
3
100.
0- ir1
1 '
70.
1 1 1 i_i
1111|1111|1111
CH. NOS
5 100.
10
0.
10.
1 j
1 1 I 1 1 1 J I i_i
20.
30.
1 1 L_i
40.
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 L
50.
60.
70
.08
. 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 11
1 1 1
20.
1 I 1 1 1 1 IJ_J
30.
40.
l_l
L_l
50.
I I_J
I I L_J
60.
70.
77
The following observations are m a d e as a result of these experiments.
78
The following test program w a s carried out on Test Rig F1 (0.113 m 3 plug-phase
blow tank, L = 41 m & D = 105 m m ) .
(a) Test Group No. 1
Using a 100 kg batch size, a reliable air flow of mf 0.09 kg s -1
(determined from preliminary test work) with a combination of orifice- and
ring-air, 10 tests were carried out on essentially the same sample of bone
char. Three grab samples were taken after the fifth and tenth experiments
(i.e. for later size analysis and averaging). Note that to compensate for
product being left in the pipeline (as described in Section 4.3.1),
additional fresh material had to be added to the blow tank during the first
two transient experiments (i.e. to maintain a batch size of 100 kg). The
following summary of results is based on the transient plots of the major
conveying parameters (which were obtained from each experiment) and
the sieve analyses performed on each grab sample.
Conveying cycle time varied between 28 and 30 s. Based on
the latter, an average conveying rate of ~ 3.33 kg s_1 or 121 h-1
is calculated.
The air flow was constant at mf 0.09 kg s*1.
As more experiments were carried out, the operating pressure
increased gradually from 370 to 470 kPag (based on Exp.
Nos. 1227 and 1235, which were the second and last
experiments of Test Group No. 1). Refer to the pressure plots
presented in Figure 4.11.
Table 4.4 summarises the averaged particle sizing data, which
were obtained from each of the three grab samples (i.e.
collected after the fifth and tenth experiments). Data relevant to
the original or as received sample
is Size
included.
Sieve
(nm)
Sample
425
300
212
Original
After 5 exps.
After 10 exps.
17.0
26.0
32.0
3.5
11.0
17.0
0.5
5.0
9.0
' 1'
CH. NOS :
0
-
-see.
79
3 ***** *
"
ft
/s
//
u
a
a.
"
/ //1
fi
ft
UJ
200.
tf)
cn
I * \
ft
/ /
Ui
cc
a.
iM M\
v
'
/J
*
*
."
*
It
tr
(I
a 100. 0.
<
I.I
h
j1
U
0.
'
__
'
-
: m
/1
/s
i
10.
; E
;I
x\ .
"
^v
^L
j\
\\
L . ^ . J V l
20.
30.
40.
1 ,J
50.
60
400.
a
a.
900.
T i i i | i i i i j i i \ \ j i i i | i i | \
r-
CH. NOS
0
1-3 '
4
ui
cc
=3
V)
V)
200.
a.
100.
0.
JmmX.
0.
1 '
' * ' 1
(8. 50. 60
CTCLE TIME JSECS1
Figure 4.11 Transient plots of blow tank and pipeline air pres
for bone char (Exp. Nos. 1227 & 1235, Test Rig F2).
80
Conveying cycle time varied between 30 and 31 s and hence,
the average conveying rate was 3.23 kg s_1 or 11.61 Iv1.
The air flow w a s constant at mf 0.088 kg s-1 (slightly lower
than the 0.09 kg s_1 recorded during Test Group No. 1).
The operating pressure increased gradually from = 255 to 285
kPag (based on Exp. Nos. 1237 and 1245, which were the
second and last experiments of Test Group No. 2). Refer to the
pressure plots presented in Figure 4.12.
Table 4.5 summarises the average results obtained from the
particle size analyses.
Sieve Size (\xm)
Sample
425
300
212
Original
After 5 exps.
After 10 exps.
18.0
20.0
26.0
4.1
6.5
12.0
0.6
2.2
6.0
"i111|1111j1111|i11|1i1rj1rir
CH. NOS
1 :
B-.-. 2
:
3
4
200.
ui
cc
<n
ui
100.
0.
10.
20.
30.
40.
SB.
60
3 0 0 . r1111j11jr
cs
^200.
*:
UJ
cc
CO
CO
Ui
cc
"100.
0.
60
CYCLE TIME tSECS)
Figure 4.12 Transient plots of blow tank and pipeline air pressure
for bone char (Exp. Nos. 1237 & 1245, Test Rig F2).
82
Exp.
NO.
108-10
-11
-12
-13
108-14
-15
-16
Max. mf
(kg s-1)
Mf
Ms
(kg)
(kg)
tc
Avg. m s
(S)
(kg s-1)
(kg)
Air Inj.
O/R/S
100
100
100
100
0
O
O
0
.30
.31
.31
.31
8.6
8.1
8.6
8.7
95
104
99
104
510
550
480
600
31
29
30
32
3.1
3.6
3.3
3.3
100
100
106
O+R+S
O+R+S
O+R+S
.31
.31
.31
11.8
11.7
12.5
94
93
101
66
71
75
40
40
42
2.4
2.3
2.4
Mbt
Max. Pbt
(kPag)
500.
I I i | i i
| -1
i i
CH. NOS
5
- 28__
400.
a.
300.
100.
10.
20.
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
200.
"T-1I
| I
I I I |I
I II
| I I I
I |I
I I I
| I I
I |
I I
I I
CH. NOS
o
a
100.
IX.
3L
01
8.
10.
70.
+1 i iii [ i i i i [i i ii | i n i | n
i i |-"i i i ip
u
UJ
in
cr
cc
3
O
in
n
cr
z
cc
a
B.
I t i i i I i I r i I i i T i-l i i
10.
20.
3840.
58.
60.
70.
Figure 4.13 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for crushed bath
(Exp. No. 108-12, orifice-air only, Test Rig F3).
80.
' ' | i i
i | i
30.
40>
ii
i | i
ii
i |i
i i i | i i 1 1 |
i i i i | i i i i
CH. NOS
S A
28_.
I i i_T
0.
10.
20.
50.
I - L J .I I I
60.
I I I I
70.
I I I I
60.
90. 100.
200.
i i i i I i i i 'i |I i i i i i| i i i i I iI i i ir |I iI i iI i I| i iI i iI I| i iI i i |I i i i i 1 i i i i
CH. N O S
1
100.
l i i - f l i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i t i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i
-J. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 30. IBB
CYCLE TIME (SECS)
4 i i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i
u
UJ
in
u
XL
a
cc
x
a
in
in
a
x
CC
cc
0
l.i i i I
0.
10.
i i i i i i t t
20.
30.
l , ._ l . ^ i
i i i
40.
50.
60.
70.
i I-
<
60.
90. 120.
Figure 4.14 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for crushed bath
(Exp. No. 108-16, orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air, Test Rig F3).
86
CHAPTER 5
87
5.
POWDER
CHARACTERISATION
5.1 Introduction
The above analyses also were carried out on PVC powder [14,16], screen
[14,16] and coarse ash [27]. However, it should be noted that three different devices
were employed for the measurement of particle size (viz. a Coulter Counter Model
ZM for the pulverised coal and fly ash samples, sieving tests for PVC powder and
screened coke and a Malvern Model 2600C laser diffraction analyser for the coarse
ash). Before analysing and presenting the results obtained from this section of work,
it is necessary to become familiar with the various definitions of particle size.
5.2.1 Definitions of Particle Size
For several decades, it has been accepted that the size and density of
have a significant influence on the behaviour of a fluidised bed [28] and the
performance of a pneumatic conveying system. Particle size distribution also has
been recognised as an influential factor [29,30].
88
Possibly, the most difficult aspect of determining particle size is selecting initially the
correct or relevant definition and then calculating a mean diameter to represent the
complete bulk solid. To some extent, this will depend on
the measuring apparatus and its principle of operation,
the final application or requirements (e.g. prediction of free settling
velocity Voo, minimum fluidisation velocity V m f or pipeline air pressure
drop Apt), and
the basis of definition used in a theoretical or empirical relationship (e q
sieve or volume measurement).
In some cases (especially for very fine powders), researchers have looked at oth
properties to explain/classify product behaviour. For example, Geldart et al [251
have found that the ratio of tapped to aerated bulk density provides a good
indication of the likely fluidisation characteristics of fine and cohesive powders
However, in this thesis, it was decided to pursue particle size measurement and
evaluate its importance (as well as density) for powder characterisation.
As a result of using three different devices to analyse particle size distribut
following different definitions and related properties [31,32] were required to
calculate the mean particle diameter.
Arithmetic mean of adjacent sieve sizes.
dpm
-pwm
(AM dp)
E(AM)
sv
svm
(5.2)
(5.3)
(5.4)
89
d
(5.5)
(5.6)
Although the Coulter Counter Model ZM has been found to have certain
disadvantages [33], it still does make use of a convenient principle [32], where
within a given size range, particles are counted according to their displaced volume
(viz. d v ). The resulting number count distribution then is transformed to a weight %
frequency or cumulative distribution. This measurement technique was applied to
the pulverised coal and fiy ash samples, and after obtaining the resulting particle
size distributions, Equations (5.4) and (5.5) then were used to calculate d V m and
dvwm 0-e- based on the various measured values of A M and d v ).
For PVC powder and screened coke, Equations (5.1) and (5.2) were applied to the
sieving results (viz. A M and d p ) to calculate the mean and weighted mean
diameters d p m and d p w m .
Assuming that the measured particle diameters for the coarse fly ash (i.e.using
Malvern analyser) were dv, allowed d V m and d V w m to be determined from
Equations (5.4) and (5.5).
Table 5.1 summarises the mean and weighted mean diameters obtained from the
above section of work, as well as the various median particle diameters which were
read directly from the actual size distributions. Note that the actual values of A M and
d v (or d p ), which were obtained from the cumulative size distribution of each
material, are summarised in tabular form in Appendix A. Using the following results
of Geldart and Abrahamsen [31] and the assumed values of sphericity, the surface
volume diameter d S vm was calculated for each material, and values of dV50 and d V m
also were estimated for the P V C powder and screened coke.
1.1 <-7^-< 1.2, Average ~ 1.127.
dp
dp
For pulv. coal, \|/ 0.7 (angular, tetrahedron),
fly ash,
y 0.9 (spheroids),
P V C powder, y 0.85 {rough spheroids),
screen, coke, Y 0.80 {coarse spheroids),
coarse fly ash, \\r 0.85 (spheroids and some unburnt coal particles).
90
NO.
Product
Ps
Pbl
dv50 ^vwm
(kg nr 3 ) (kg nv 3 ) (u.m) (u.m)
dvm
Cp50 dpwm dpm dsvm
(Jim) (lim) (nm) (nm) (nm)
Tallawarra
Pulv. Fuel
1600
760
30.0
37.4
14.1
9.9
Tallawarra
Fly Ash
2350
500
19.6
27.1
12.0
10.8
Eraring
Fly Ash
2160
880
27.4
49.4
14.0
Munmorah
Fly Ash
2100
650
25.4
38.1
13.1
Vales Point
Fly Ash
2130
700
18.8
28.7
14.1
Gladstone
Fly Ash
2250
1030
17.6
27.6
10.1
9.1
Wallerawang
Fly Ash
2195
455
11.5
17.5
8.0
7.2
Liddell
Fly Ash
2415
640
13.3
29.3
8.6
7.7
PVC Powder
1400
575
152.1
10
Screened
Coke
1940
985
529.7
11
Coarse
Fly Ash
1860
787
99.0
Table 5.1
122.8
12.6
11.8
12.7
148.8
135.0 150.0
378.7
59.1
132.0 126.4
50.2
The fluidisation test facility, which was employed during the initial investigat
pulverised coal and fly ash, comprised the following major components.
A 102 mm internal diameter pyrex vertical column (750 mm long) with an
attached graduation scale for bed height measurement (viz. hb).
A 6 m m thick x 35 u.m Porex permeable plastic gas distributor covered
with an epitropic Goretex filter fabric to prevent particulate penetration
of the plastic and also allow the discharge of excessive electrostatic
charge.
91
A plenum chamber base with a retaining ring assembly to house the 6
m m thick Porex gas distributor.
A Goretex filter fabric covering the top of the vertical column to prevent
atmospheric contamination and any loss of product.
T w o Rosemount Model 1151 D P differential pressure transmitters (0 to
152 m m H 2 O and 0 to 762 m m H 2 O ) for direct measurement of the air
pressure drop across the material via Goretex protected pressure
tappings (of which the design is similar to that used on the pneumatic
conveying test rig, as shown in Figure 2.4).
Four in-line rotameters connected to the air supply line to monitor the
amount of air passing through the bed of material.
A schematic layout of the fluidisation test rig is presented in Figure 5.1.
5.3.2 Results
With approximately 2.5 to 3.0 kg of product and using the air flow reduction
technique [34], the following parameters were recorded for Sample Nos. 1 to 8.
Height of material above the Porex gas distributor, hb (cm).
Air pressure drop across the bed of material, Apb ( m m H2O).
Volumetric flow rate of fluid (air) passing through the rotameter(s), Q f
(cm 3 s-1).
Operating conditions of the rotameter(s) (i.e. air pressure and
temperature).
Atmospheric conditions (i.e. air pressure, temperature and relative
humidity).
For each value of Qf, the corresponding value of mf was calculated using the
operating conditions of the rotameter in question. Assuming the pressure drop
across the final Goretex filter fabric to be negligible, the superficial velocity of air,
Vf, leaving the bed of material also w a s determined. The variation of the average
air pressure gradient, Apb I v 1 ( m m H 2 0 cm" 1 ), with respect to Vf was plotted for
each coal and fly ash sample and the resulting fluidisation curves have been
reproduced and superimposed onto the one plot shown in Figure 5.2. The following
general observations also were noted during the experimental program.
Samples 1, 3 and 4 fluidised well and retained aeration for a
considerable length of time (i.e. after the air supply valve was turned off).
Fluidisation w a s accompanied by extensive bed expansion. Bubbling
occurred at air flows greater than that required for fluidisation.
For Samples 2, 5, 6 and 7, bad channelling (or rat-holing) occurred
throughout the range of air flow rates considered. This produced large
regions of dead material (preventing uniform and complete fluidisation of
the sample).
Although s o m e channelling and poor mixing w a s observed for Sample 8,
the material still displayed a semi-fluidised condition with s o m e bed
expansion (e.g. refer to the fluidisation curve shown in Figure 5.2).
Using the above procedure, measurements also were taken for PVC powder and
screened coke and the resulting fluidisation curves are presented in Figure 5.3.
92
i- O -
oo
77. fO
CO
cu
SCD
-a
scu
>{XJ-
CU
+J
cu
a:
cn
+->
ro
t/J
O
S-
S-
o>
\
sN
>
cn
E
v-
CU
5-
T-
o:
ro
4->
cu
'
.1
a.
..
' V
cu o
E cn
CJ
cu cu
+J I
X
cu
a>
vN
i-
l-txjT-txj-
(O c
+J o
>txH
o o
oc
o
a:
/.
;
1 t
f 1
03
+
*
CO
CD
J
S3
i/>
00
S-
k:
i
1s
$CU
+->
cu
+-'
c
o
to
co
|g
|g
a>
13
o
_ca
o
ca
t/1
cu
. CU
13
. CU
D_ U.
(/)
c
ro
s-
CL
"^
ii Q .
X
CU CU
o. cn EE n CU
O c OJ
CU
s- ro
CU i
o
+>
I 00
cu
x:
o
W
3
D)
93
6.0
4.0
Ap b /h b
(mmHgOcrrf1)
2.0
Sample No.
(Table 5.1)
0
2.0
4.0
(cm s"1)
6.0
94
10
Screened /
Coke /
/
/
6
A
/
/
?b V1
/
-1
(mm H-0 cm )
4
PVC Powder
/
/
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Vf Ccm s"1)
95
Note that insufficient material prevented a fluidisation analysis being performed on
the coarse ash (Sample 11). Additional observations, which were m a d e during
each experiment on P V C powder and screened coke, are summarised below.
PVC powder (Sample 9) displayed good fluidisation characteristics but
deaerated quickly when the air supply to the plenum chamber w a s turned
off. Bubbling occurred at approximately the s a m e air flows which were
required for fluidisation and was accompanied by only a small amount of
bed expansion.
For the range of air flow rates considered (viz. 0 < Vf < 8 cm s'1), the
screened coke (Sample 10) did not display a fully fluidised condition.
However, at the higher air flows (e.g. Vf > 5 c m s-1), a top section of the
bed w a s seen to bubble strongly and hence, exhibit s o m e form of
fluidisation. This depth of active material decreased as the air flow was
reduced, and for Vf < 2.0 c m s-1, almost all the activity had disappeared.
O n closer inspection of the test chamber (i.e. after the experiment), the
bed of material w a s seen to be m a d e up of stratified layers, each having
a different particle size range (viz. coarse at the bottom and fine powder
at the top).Jn fact, the lower section of material resembled a granular bed.
This is believed to be caused by the relatively wide size distribution of the
product (e.g. 60 (im < d p < 1500 urn) and the gradual segregation/settling
of particles as the air flow w a s reduced during the experiment. The
screened coke also deaerated very quickly w h e n the air supply to the
fluidisationrigw a s turned off.
5.4 Pipeline Conveying Characteristics
The conveying characteristics for each fly sample have been presented previously
in Section 3.3.3 (viz. Figures 3.10 to 3.16). The test rig that w a s employed for this
work has been described in Section 3.3.2. For ease of comparison, the m s contour
lines of 1, 2 and 3 kg S"1 have been reproduced in Figure 5.4.
5.5 Powder Classification Techniques
The Geldart [24] fluidisation and Dixon [23] slugging classifications have been
found useful in explaining
some of the feeding problems that can occur in blow tanks [35] (e.g. refer
to Section 4.2.1), and
the differences that can occur in flow performance and minimum transport
behaviour [16] (e.g. refer to Section 3.4.3).
Similar findings have been obtained from the current work on pulverised coal and
fly ash, and are discussed further in the following sections. Modifications to the
Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram have been proposed by Molerus [36] and Zenz
[37], but will not be considered here as they require s o m e knowledge or
measurement of particle adhesion forces and bulk surface tension, respectively.
That is, detailed investigations into evaluating and/or developing such fluidisation
diagrams were considered beyond the present scope of work and the overall
objectives of this thesis. A more recent classification technique that makes use of
two different bench-type experiments (viz. permeability and deaeration) has been
Fly Ash
Sample No. "
(Table 5.1)
140
.02
.04
.06
m f (kgs-1)
(b) iru = 2.0 kgs -1
140
Ap t
(kPa)
120
100
.02
.04
.06
mf (kgs-1)
(c) m s = 1.0 kgs -1
100
Ap t
(kPa)
80
60
.02
.04
.06
m f (kgs-1)
Figure 5.4 Comparison of pipeline conveying characteristics for fly ash
(Samples 2 to 8, Test Rig B1).
97
presented recently by Mainwaring and Reed [38]. A s deaeration experiments were
not carried out for these investigations and as most of the fly ash samples were not
able to be fluidised readily (i.e. for the range of air flow rates considered) this
technique also will not be considered in detail for the present study. However,
where relevant s o m e comments and references will be m a d e to the results [38].
Fluidisation
5.5.1
Using fluidisation data obtained from several researchers, Geldart [24]
characterised powders into four groups (viz. A, B, C and D) according to their
fluidisation behaviour and developed a classification diagram, as shown in Figure
5.5. The reader is directed to the Geldart [24] paper for detailed descriptions of the
various groups (including a numerical technique to distinguish between each one),
and the Geldart et al. [25] paper for recent investigations into the fluidisation of
cohesive powders. Note that the m e a n diameter used by Geldart [24] is actually a
surface volume m e a n diameter, based on Equation (5.3). Hence, using the values
ofdsvm listed in Table 5.1, it w a s found that according to the Geldart classification
diagram [24]
Samples 1 to 8 are Group C powders (i.e. difficult to fluidise due to
cohesive properties or large interparticle forces),
Samples 9 and 11 are Group A powders (i.e. easy to fluidise, retain
aeration, bubbling occurs s o m e time after fluidisation and considerable
bed expansion),
Sample 10 is a Group B material (i.e. easy to fluidise, deaerate quickly,
bubbling occurs at or just after fluidisation, small bed expansion).
10'
cn
<+Q.
I
Q.
CU
U
10;
c
cu
S<D
M<41
C/l
C
cu
o
10<
10:
io 2
Mean Particle Diameter
io3
10l
(nm)
98
However, based on the actual results presented in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 as well as
the observations listed in Section 5.3.2, it w a s found that
Samples 1, 3 and 4 exhibited typical Group A behaviour,
Samples 2, 5, 6 and 7 displayed poor fluidisation performance similar to
that described by Geldart [24] for Group C powders (e.g. poor particle
mixing due to cohesive properties, channelling),
Sample 8 did display a semi-fluidised condition, but this w a s
accompanied by poor mixing and channelling (similar to Group C
materials),
Samples 9 and 10 produced characteristics similar to that described for
Group B, although the test rig w a s found to have insufficient capacity to
fluidise completely the relatively coarse and heavy particles of screened
coke (Sample 10).
On closer inspection of the particle size definitions and equations presented in
Section 5.2.1 and the actual values of diameter listed in Table 5.1, it was found that
(a) the reciprocal form of definition (e.g. Equations (5.1), (5.3) and (5.4))
tends to over-emphasise the influence of the finer particles,
(b) the weighted or product type of definition (e.g. Equations (5.2) and (5.5))
tends to under-emphasise the influence of the finer particles (or overemphasise the coarse end of the size distribution),
(c) the relatively wide particle size distributions of pulverised coal and fly ash
(e.g. 1 to 200 urn) seem to be the major contributing factor to the effects
described in (a) and (b) (e.g. refer to the actual size range of products
considered by Geldart [24]),
(d) the large differences described in (a) and (b) are not so apparent for PVC
powder, which has a fairly narrow size distribution,
(e) for the materials considered in these investigations (especially Samples
1 to 8 and even Sample 9), the median particle diameter d V 50 seems to
provide a better indication of fluidisation performance (i.e. as described
by Geldart [24]).
To demonstrate this further, the locations of Samples 1 to 11 have been included
on the fluidisation diagram [24], which is repeated in Figure 5.6. Note as a result of
(e) above, the d v so size w a s taken to represent the average or m e a n particle
diameter of each material. According to this classification: Samples 1, 3 and 4 are
Group A powders (i.e. easily fiuidised and retain aeration); Samples 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8
are Group C powders (i.e. cohesive, difficult to fluidise, channel or rat-hole, poor
mixing); Sample 10 belongs to Group B (deaerates quickly); Samples 9 and 11 are
Group A but lie very close to the A B boundary (this indicates that such border-line
materials m a y exhibit characteristics from either one of the adjoining categories).
Generally, these classifications confirm the experimental observations reported in
Section 5.3.2 and explain the large differences that occurred in the fluidisation
performance of Samples 1 to 10.
99
10'
cn
Q.
1
(/)
Q.
CU
U
10:
c
cu
S-
cu
<+-
in
c
cu
10'
IO1
10<
10;
Mean Particle Diameter , d m (nm)
10'
100
101
u
cn
Q.
I
to
Q.
CU
6.0
D
STRONG
AXISYMMETRIC
SLUGS
2.0
1.0
o
e
cu
%cu
+4r
C/l
CD
O
(nm)
Figure 5.7 The Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 50 m m pipe diameter system.
cn
1
E
o
cn
<+Q.
1
cu
o
c:
cu
scu
a
G.O
2.0
a.
1.0
VN"fjs.'.
'I
C
VN
Vv
Vv
\\\
\ NN
NO
SLUGGING
\ \ \
\ \ V
\ \ \X
\ s
WEAK
ASYMMETRIC
SLUGS
(OUNESI
\\ \
\\
\
\ \ \
\\
\
\\\
\ \ \
\V
0.6
D
STRONG
AXISYMMETRIC
SLUGS
\\
\\ \
\ \\
\ \
\
\W
\
\ t
0.2
to
c
cu
\ \\
\ N^
1 \ \ M
100
(nm)
Figure 5.8 The Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 100 m m pipe diameter system.
102
5.5.2.2
Results
The classification of each sample listed in Table 5.1 has been represented on th
modified slugging diagram as shown in Figure 5.9. Note that a 50 m m N B Schedule
40 pipe diameter system w a s selected to represent the test rig employed in these
investigations (viz. Test Rig B1) and dvso w a s used to represent the mean particle
diameter (as w a s found necessary in Section 5.5.1). The following classifications
are based on Figure 5.9 and the suggestions of dense-phase suitability are
obtained from Dixon [23,39] (i.e. based on the concept of a moving fluidised bed).
Samples 1, 3 and 4 are Group A (good candidates for dense-phase
conveying; high values of m*).
Samples 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are Group C (usually considered to be too
cohesive for the dense-phase m o d e and hence are poor candidates; but
may demonstrate good properties attributable to Group A powders).
Samples 9 and 11 are Group B (possible candidates for dense-phase but
at higher velocities where dune flow and asymetric slugging are
prevalent; could produce severe pipe vibrations if the dunes are allowed
to fill the pipe; generally, low values of m*). For high operating pressures
(e.g. > 4 atmospheres), Figure 5.9 suggests that Sample 11 becomes a
Group A material.
For low pressures, Sample 10 is Group D (can be conveyed in densephase over a wide velocity range; moderate values of m* less than those
obtained for Group A but greater than Group B materials). However, for
moderate to high operating pressures (e.g. > 2 atmospheres), this
material m a y behave like a Group B powder (i.e. due to a change in air
density).
The change in slugging characteristics of a given material due to increasing or
decreasing operating pressure (i.e. as suggested above for Samples 10 and 11), is
difficult to confirm. At this stage, it is suggested that such materials (i.e. those that lie
very close to or on a classification boundary) m a y exhibit slugging behaviour from
either one of the adjacent categories. Note in Section 5.5.1, a similar suggestion
was proposed for the Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram.
Intuitively, it would be expected that the pulverised coal and fly ash samples w
the good fluidisation characteristics (viz. Samples 1, 3 and 4) would yield similar
dense-phase pneumatic conveying results, with the performance of the Geldart [24]
or Dixon [23] Group C powders (viz. Samples 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8) being quite different.
In fact, Dixon [23] suggested that dense-phase conveying can be regarded as a
moving fluidised bed, and that the Group C powders are considered usually to be
too cohesive for this m o d e of transport. However, all the samples conveyed
reasonably well with the minor exception of the Group C powders (viz. Samples 2,
5, 6, 7 and 8), which produced generally higher pressure drops (refer to Figure 5.2)
and slightly greater irregular flow characteristics. A n example of the latter is shown
in Figure 5.10 (b), where the steady-state pipeline air pressure (at location G 1 , see
Figure 3.8) is seen to fluctuate in the range 110 to 120 kPag. It is interesting to note
that, although considerably higher pressures were obtained when the Group C
samples were conveyed in the dense-phase m o d e (compare the conveying
characteristics with the two-phase flow diagram [7]), such differences were reduced
significantly in the dilute-phase regime (typically, mf > 0.04 kg s*1).
103
m
ca
ca
+
ca
i i i ir
CU
E
eg ^j
* in
S.
"5.ca
ca
ca
E^
E.E
OT3
CO."
c
o
Eo
*>
<D
E
Q
CD
CO
+>
ca
ca
c_
o
&
^ CD
73
Q.
<?E
CO
sw
CM
= o
to' _
X
Q_
c
0
CD
/
/
/
o
O
CC
ii
III I I I
in
ca
ca
+
ca
!''
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
* eoueje^j.jg fHjsuerj
104
llll|llll|llll|llll|l|||||||||iii|is
i
a
CB
CM
C
in
""5
V
CO
E9
CB
c
o ^
CD 5
52 if
CD ^
f SS
I1-.
Hiii11 it111II11111111111111111tTTT^lea
a
ea
CU
to in * (o w a
S
ea ca CB
ea
cn
CD d
^^
ea
ca
ea
-H
<4- I
Q. 0_
-id
c o
>,Z
& ~
> Q-
cn
I 11 I I | I I i i | 11 I i | 11
eai i
"-co
TT 11 j 11 1111111111 111 I I M j e a
co
c x
OLU
O '
- CD
-O CD
go.
E
E
W
ea
ta
CO x_
o o
Q. co
+- CD
OJ
to
c -^
C 3
CO D)
ea
ea
%
io* "~
CD
i-
CS
a
co
M I I I I M I 1 II I I 1 I I I I I I I II
l l l l l l l i t l i i i i l n t . l n , .108
a
a
^-sCM
<-H cn
< <o
Q. Q.
J*
a
a
a
a
in
a
a
co
w cn
a
a
CM
a
a
105
Generally, the pulverised coal and fly ash samples investigated in this project were
all found to be good dense-phase materials displaying a wide rangeability of
conveying parameters (e.g. a max. m* 500 w a s achieved for the coal sample over
a distance of 25 m, and a value of 150 was obtained easily for the fly ash samples
over a distance of 71 m ) . Hence, even though slightly higher pressure drops were
obtained with the Group C materials, the precautions expressed by Dixon [23] in
relation to this category, seem exaggerated. However, it is known from experience
that difficulties still m a y occur for other products that belong to this category
(especially those that are fine, heavy and cohesive). For example, manganese
oxide (dV50 < 10 u.m, p s 5000 kg nr 3 , pbi 1030 kg nr 3 ), which w a s tested
recently for industry, not only displayed extensive feeding problems similar to that
shown in Figure 4.4, but also required high transport velocities to prevent solids
deposition and subsequent blockage (i.e. dense-phase transport was not possible).
The PVC powder also would be expected to display good dense-phase
performance similar to Samples 1 to 8 (i.e. based on the good fluidisation results,
free flowing properties, the suggestion of Dixon [23] that dense-phase conveying
can be regarded as a moving fluidised bed and excellent air-gravity conveying
characteristics [26]). However, of all the materials tested in this investigation, the
P V C powder possibly displayed the worst conveying performance due to its
inability to be conveyed in the conventional dense-phase [7] or non-suspension
mode (as provided by Test Rig B1). That is, as presented previously in Section 3.4.3
(e.g. refer to Figures 3.24 and 3.25), the P V C powder exhibited unstable plugging
or blockage conditions in the vicinity of saltation or minimum pressure [7] (i.e. prior
to entering the dense-phase regime). Hence, this material w a s able to be
transported only in the dilute-phase mode, which resulted in fairly low values of
mass flow ratio (e.g. max. m* ~ 20 kg kg -1 ). In contrast, for fly ash conveyed on the
same Test Rig B1, values of m* 150 kg kg-1 were obtained quite easily (e.g. refer
to Figures 3.10 to 3.16). Although the P V C powder lies very close to the Geldart [24]
Group A B boundary (suggesting possible behaviour from either category), these
results demonstrate the danger of predicting the suitability of dense-phase based
on only fluidisation characteristics. Similar limitations have been observed by
Lohrmann and Marcus [22] with three Geldart [24] Group A materials. In contrast,
the Group B suggestions of Dixon [23] not only confirm the observed minimum
transport behaviour (e.g. pipe vibrations, require high velocities), but also seem to
explain the flow behaviour (e.g. dunes grow to fill the pipe causing the high velocity
slugs of air to force their way through the material). This is supported further by the
results obtained on coarse ash (Sample 11), which w a s found to display similar
problems in dense-phase (e.g. strong plugging, blockages, pipe vibrations).
Unfortunately, fluidisation experiments on this material were not able to be carried
out (as mentioned previously in Section 5.3.2).
The screened coke also displayed similar plugging tendencies (although somewhat
stronger than the P V C powder), pipe vibrations and relatively low values of mass
flow ratio (e.g. max. m * 35, for Test Rig A1). Pipeline conveying characteristics
have been presented elsewhere [14,16,26] and are reproduced in Figure 5.11, for
ease of comparison. Also, transient plots of major conveying parameters have been
the
characteristics
presented
material.
screened
From
by Wypych
(i.e.
Figure
coke
refer
5.11,
and
did
to the
Arnold
itdisplay
can
two-phase
be
[16]
seen
sto
o mflow
demonstrate
ethatdense-phase
diagram
for the range
[7]
the shown
plugging
oforair in
non-suspension
flows
Figure
nature
considered,
3.3).
of this
106
80
, Blockage
Conditions
60
Apt
Blockage
Boundary
(kPa)
40
20
0.2^" (kgs -1 )
Air Only
.02
.03
.04
mf
Figure 5.11
.05
(kg s.-l")
107
This could be explained by the Group D behaviour suggested by Dixon [39] (e.g.
dense-phase is possible but at relatively low values of m*). However, the natural
formation of slugs described by Dixon [23] did not occur and in fact, the plugging
which w a s observed for this material w a s quite strong (e.g. in relation to the P V C
powder) and considered unreliable. Perhaps the relatively wide particle size
distribution (and hence, possible Group B behaviour) could explain this apparent
discrepancy. Also, the coarse shape of the coke particles m a y have contributed to
this effect. Note that Dixon [39] based most of his suggestions and observations on
plastic powders and granules (i.e. smoother particles and relatively narrow size
ranges). Nevertheless, the screened coke generally w a s found to be a better
dense-phase material than P V C powder (a typical Dixon [23] Group B material).
Another interesting comparison w a s m a d e recently w h e n both Samples 9 and 10
were conveyed on Test Rig F3 (viz. 0.113 m 3 plug-phase blow tank, L = 161 m &
D = 105 m m ) . Sample 9 (PVC powder) displayed both unreliable and unrepeatable
characteristics (e.g. the max. operating pressure varied between 150 and 560
kPag). However, in contrast, Sample 10 (screened coke) produced good, reliable
operating conditions. For example, maximum pbt ~ 250 kPag, maximum m f 0.085
kg s"1, average m* 48 kg kg-1 (based on 2.3 kg of air required to convey 110 kg of
product) and an average plug velocity of 3.1 m s_1. In fact, based on the success
of these results, an existing vacuum pneumatic conveying system, which was being
subjected to excessive rates of erosion, w a s replaced by a parallel plug-phase
conveying system [26]. Hence, of the two materials, the screened coke was found to
be better suited to the plug-phase m o d e of conveying. This m a y be explained by the
Dixon [39] suggestion that Group D products produce axisymmetric slugging (viz.
stable full diameter slugs) and Group B asymmetric slugging (viz. weak slugs and
duning). Also, it should be noted that these screened coke results indicate that
although Group D materials m a y not perform as suggested by Dixon [39], it is
possible that such materials still could be conveyed successfully and efficiently in
the plug-phase mode. Examples of materials that fit into this category include
crushed coal (based on several tests undertaken for industry), crushed bath (e.g.
refer to Section 4.3.3), sub 20 m m blue metal and diamond ore aggregate [42].
Otherwise, it is possible that such materials could be conveyed only in dilute-phase,
which would result in high energy consumption and excessive system erosion (e.g.
pipelines, bends). That is, these materials even m a y prove to be too coarse for
specialised pipeline techniques involving say, by-pass technology [2]. O n the other
hand, typical Group B materials like P V C powder and alumina (e.g. dvso ~ 80 urn,
ps = 4000 kg m" 3 ) m a y be well suited to such by-pass conveying systems or other
low-velocity techniques [2] (i.e. to avoid the high velocity gas slugs breaking or
forcing through the powder, as suggested by Dixon [23], and also prevent the
formation of long plugs of material and hence very high pressure drops and
possible blockage).
The apparent anomaly between poor dense-phase performance and good
fluidisation characteristics (as suggested by the P V C powder results) seems to be
explained by the property of deaeration. That is, although this material displayed
good fluidisation characteristics and is classified as Geldart [24] Group A, it was
found
well
considerable
supply
although
sample.
bubbling
(viz.
to
valve
Obed
andeaerate
Samples
proper
the
lengths
was
was
other
turned
fluidisation
seen
quickly.
of
1,
hand,
time
to
3off).
lose
and
the
(e.g.
For
test
A pulverised
its
similar
4),
10
example,
was
height
to
all30
not
property
were
inminutes).
coal
able
less
onfound
and
to
several
wthan
abe
sflyobserved
carried
to
one
ashoccasions
retain
second
samples,
outfor
their
due
(i.e.
the
the
which
toaeration
coarse
after
insufficient
expanded
fluidised
the
ash,
for
air
108
The empirical classification diagram proposed by Mainwaring and Reed [38] for
the purpose of classifying bulk solids, emphasises the importance of permeability
(obtained from a fluidisation test) a n d deaeration. Jones et al. [43] c a m e to a
similar conclusion and suggested further that the ratio of tapped to poured bulk
density provides a good indication of the air retentive properties of a given material.
Also, Geldart [25] proposed a similar ratio to distinguish between Group A and
Group C powders. Hence, there s e e m s to be sufficient evidence to suggest that
powder classification (viz. to select ultimately the most suitable m o d e of conveying
for a given product and its behavioural properties) depends on the following
properties.
(a) Particle size and density.
(b) Particle size distribution.
(c) Particle shape or sphericity (as indicated by the definitions of diameter).
(d) Deaeration and permeability.
(e) The ratio of tapped to poured (or perhaps fluidised) bulk density.
Also, it seems that most of these properties are interdependent. For example,
deaeration and permeability [38] (and perhaps the bulk density ratio [43]) seem to
provide an adequate mechanism to detect changes in material performance due to
different (a), (b) and/or (c). However, possibly the greatest disadvantage or
limitation of the classification techniques proposed by Mainwaring and Reed [38]
and Jones et al. [43], is the need to standardise the experimental apparatus and/or
techniques. For example, the measured values of deaeration rate [38] depend on
the size of the plenum chamber and to s o m e extent the type of gas distributor. Also,
different devices and techniques are available to determine vibrated or tapped
bulk density. Standardisation is necessary so that the results will be applicable on
an international level and can be used/compared by other researchers.
In conclusion, as long as one is aware of the limitations of the Dixon [23,39]
slugging diagram (similar to those found for the Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram),
this technique still is able to provide a good initial indication of what to expect when
a given material is conveyed in the dense-phase mode. In fact, it is believed that
possibly the one main factor that will upset the suggestions of Dixon [23,39], is
particle size distribution. This has been supported by results and experience (e.g.
refer to the screened coke, crushed coal and crushed bath considered previously in
this section) and the dilute-phase results observed by Mainwaring and Reed [38]
for slate dust and pulverised fuel ash grits. Eventually, a standardised technique
(similar to [38] and [43]) based on easily measured and relevant properties (i.e.
instead of particle size, shape and distribution) is required for an accurate
classification of bulk solids. Also, such techniques should be modified or extended
to consider all possible m o d e s of conveying (e.g. dilute-, dense-, plug-phase, lowvelocity, by-pass conveying, and so on). However, it is believed that for many years
to come, the final decision in relation to a given material, specification and method
of transport will rely on conclusive and comprehensive experimentation (i.e. using a
large-scale testrig),as well as accurate predictions of operating conditions.
109
CHAPTER 6
110
6.
SCALE-UP
CONVEYING
CHARACTERISTICS
6.1 Introduction
In the event of an existing plant being upgraded to, say, a higher solid
it is necessary to determine whether the system and the material will be able to
cope with the increased pressure and/or air requirements (viz. whether the
combination of pipe size and compressor rating is sufficient). The pipeline
conveying characteristics for the material in question will provide useful information
for this purpose.
Feasibility Study
111
(b) Determine the steady-state pipeline conveying characteristics [11]
(i.e. based on the test rig configuration).
(c) Scale up the test rig data to meet the requirements of a given
specification.
(d) Modify the recommended steady-state operating conditions to allow
for any relevant transients (e.g. blow tank filling, initial
pressurisation, pipeline purging) and the m o d e of operation (e.g.
single batch or tandem blow tanks).
As indicated in Chapter 3, there are two distinct advantages derived from obtaining
test rig pneumatic conveying characteristics of a given product.
1. The information is accurate and applicable directly to the test rig
employed.
s2 = rns1 -j
L
(6.1)
Diameter :
(D2f
m
s2
for a constant m f D
=
and A p s
(6.2)
msi TT
where subscript 1 refers to the test rig and 2 to the actual or proposed pipeline.
112
Note that A p s remains unchanged during scale-up (i.e. Ap s i = A p s 2 ) but the
corresponding value of Ap t 2 must be modified to allow for a change in the air-only
pipeline pressure drop, Ap f . The results presented by Mills et al. [15] seem to
indicate the following approximate relationships.
Length :
Apf2 =
APfi
for a constant mf
(6.3)
(6.4)
-1
Diameter :
Apf2 =
Combining Equations (6.1) to (6.4) together with their stated conditions, the
following generalised scale-up equations have been derived and presented
recently [33].
mt2
m
s2
(6.5)
=
=
(D9\2
sl I K^j
L
(6.6)
Ap t 1 - Ap f1 + Ap f 2
(6.7)
Apt2
where
A
Apf2 =
(6.8)
APfiTL
and
Ap f 1
'D^
xm,^
for m f 1 < m f m 1
(6.9)
Note that Equation (6.9) is an empirical expression relevant to the test rig used.
Equations (6.5) to (6.8), which will be referred to as the original scale-up equations,
have been used quite extensively in several initial investigations (e.g. feasibility
studies, troubleshooting, system uprating and general design). However, the
equations and their predictions frequently have been found to contain the following
inaccuracies and limitations.
(a) The values of ms2, as predicted by Equation (6.6) and when
compared with available experimental data, are found quite often to
be extremely conservative (i.e. too low) for a given value of mf2 and
Apt2.
(b) The values of Apf 2 , as predicted by Equation (6.8), are found
occasionally to be inaccurate.
113
(c) N o allowance during scale-up is m a d e for the relatively longer
lengths of vertical pipe that are used usually in industry.
(d) The current method [15] used to scale up minimum transport
boundaries [21] seems to be inadequate.
(e) The scale-up equations do not allow for different numbers and/or
types of bend (i.e. between the test rig and actual plant).
The present work examines the above five main limitations of scale-up and
presents results obtained from suggested areas of improvement (especially in
relation to (a), (b) and (c)). It does not seek to provide a complete and proven theory
on scale-up, rather it encourages other researchers to pursue similar lines of
investigation for their o w n purpose and verification, so that perhaps in the near
future a reliable and unified scale-up model m a y be available to engineers involved
in the selection and design of pneumatic conveying systems.
6.2 Scaling Relationships
The scale-up of experimental data inevitably is required for the design-of pneuma
conveying systems and should involve the consideration of several aspects which
could affect overall accuracy (e.g. vertical lift, number and type of bends, pipeline
length and diameter, air-only pressure drop).
However, the present study is concerned mainly with the investigation of scale-up
with respect to both length and diameter. Generally, previous results have indicated
that whenever the diameter effect is involved (i.e. D 2 > Di), the prediction of m s 2 via
Equation (6.6) is extremely conservative (i.e. m s for a given rrif2 and Apt 2 is found
frequently to be much lower than the actual value). Although conservatism may be a
desirable feature for design, it also m a y preclude for a particular application the
ultimate selection of pneumatic conveying as the most appropriate m e a n s of
transportation (especially w h e n long distances and/or large throughputs are
involved).
The first aspect considered is the origin of the scale-up criterion [15], where ms
for constant mf D* 2 and Ap s . This is examined by modifying two popular forms of
definition for Ap s . Note that Equations (6.5) and (6.7) are a direct result of the
conditions specified in Equations (6.1) and (6.2). Hence, modifications to Equation
(6.6) are sought to accommodate these conditions/requirements (i.e. generally, A p s
and mf D~2 are constant during scale-up with respect to both diameter and length).
6.2.1 Definitions for Aps
Two popular expressions for Aps are used in the literature. The first results from
analogy to the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor equation, where the pressure drop
due to solids m a y be expressed as
Aps
= * yjL (6.10)
s
2D
114
4m s
v
(6.11)
w Pb D 2
K2
pb D 5
(6.12)
In order to use Equation (6.12), an expression for pb is required. From the definition
for the volumetric concentration of solids (per unit time)
< = (1+^F)1
(6 13)
and assuming that this may be approximated by (pf ps-1 m*), Equation (6.14) is
obtained.
Pf ms
pb
<6-14)
^r
mf
The percentage error difference between values of cv calculated by Equation (6.1
and the approximation is less than 5 % for pfm* < 100. Hence, in most cases,
Equation (6.14) is considered as a reasonable approximation. The substitution of
Equation (6.14) into Equation (6.12), results in the following expression for Ap s .
8 X,. L mf 11%
APs =
-^|
TC
L-i
pf D b
(6.15)
Applying the scale-up condition Apsi = Aps2 and Equation (6.5) to Equation (6.15)
yields
ms2
m S1
*1 Pf2 L, (2 Y
(6.16)
^s2 Pf1 L 2
A.sm*pfVf2L
2D
(6.17)
vf
4 mf
TC pf D
(6.18)
2
115
and the scale-up conditions for A p s and mf D~ 2 to Equation (6.17), results in
.3
mS2
2
>
hi
fi
i
fi
s1
(6.19)
^s2 Pf 1 L 2 V D 1 >
m s2
r\-<\
n
(6.20)
\^ZJ
2.1(m*)-- 3 Fr- 2 Fr fi 0 - 5 [
(6.21)
where Fr = Vf (g D) - 0 - 5 and Frs = v, (g D)' 0 - 5 . Note the different form of definition for
Froude number (i.e. to the one used by W e b e r [45]).
Using the continuity Equation (6.18) and applying the scale-up condition of Apsl =
Aps2. results in the following relationship.
m
^s1
^s2
,0.3/
s2
msi I
\-2.0
li
1.45
(6.22)
VPf1>
After substituting Equation (6.22) into Equation (6.19), Equation (6.23) is obtained.
-1.429/p >2.214
ms2
- (SJ
(6.23)
vDiy
116
The second expression is based on the work of W e n and Simons [46], who
conducted a series of experiments on glass beads and various coal powders
(having particle diameters from 71 to 754 u.m) using 12.7, 19.05 and 25.4 m m
internal diameter pipelines. As each length of test section w a s fixed at 3.048 m, a
relationship in terms of diameter will be investigated. Conversion to SI units of the
empirical pressure gradient expression presented by W e n and Simons [46], yields
% - 41.846X10- pbv -(If , i^ (6.24)
where pb = bulk density or dispersed density of the material (kg nr3)
vs =
solids velocity (m s-1).
Assuming Apt Aps (due to the relatively high values of mass flow ratio obtai
W e n and Simons [46], i.e. m* = 80 to 750) and after substituting Equations (6.11)
and (6.14) into Equation (6.24) and letting L| = L 2 ) t h e following equation is
obtained.
ms2
.-0.55 , _
m s 1 Pf2^
,2.25
(6.25)
ms1 |
| |
(8.27)
117
6.3 Experimental
Investigations
Results obtained from three materials (fly ash/cement mix, screened coke and PVC
powder) are presented to investigate scale-up with respect to diameter only, length
only, and both length and diameter, respectively. Physical properties of the three
products are given in Table 6.1. Note that the fly ash/cement mix comprised 89 wt.%
fly ash and 11 wt.% cement. Also, note that the P V C powder and screened coke are
the same materials listed in Table 5.1 (viz. Samples 9 and 10).
Median Particle
Diameter
dso (nm)
Solids
Density
p s (kg nr3)
Loose-Poured
Bulk Density
Pbl (kg nr3)
19
20
2130
3100
700
950
Screened Coke
470
1940
985
PVC Powder
135
1400
575
Material
Fly Ash
Cement Mix
Table 6.1
6.3.1
It is evident from Figures 6.2 and 6.3 that Equation (6.6) significantly underp
the values of m s 2 . In fact, for given values of air flow (> 0.3 kg s-1) and Apt, it is found
that the values of m S 2 are underpredicted by 33 %, as indicated in Table 6.2.
It is interesting to note that the general shape of the ms curves, when predicte
the Test Rig C1 results (i.e. shown in Figure 6.1), tends to be retained during scaleup, although s o m e change is noticed due to the Apf effect. Hence, not only does this
tend to cast s o m e doubt over the validity of scaling up typical dense-phase results
to an essentially dilute-phase regime, but also s e e m s to suggest that there is a
significant change in flow characteristics. That is, for a given m s , the variation of Ap t
with respect to mf in the larger diameter system generally tends to be more linear
and indicative of dilute-phase transport.
118
400
300
(kPa)
200
100
Figure 6.1
300
200
Ap
ti
(kPa)
100
d:
.2
.3
A.ir Onl^
L
.5
mfl (kgs-1)
Figure 6.2
119
300
200
Ap
t2
(kPa)
100
.1
.2
.3
mf2 (kgs-1)
Actual ms-|
(kg s"1)
10.0
15.0
20.0
m S 2 , Eqn. (6.6)
(kg s-1)
6.5
10.0
13.5
Error
(%)
-35.0
-33.3
-32.5
120
dilute-phase trends only will be considered (e.g. refer to Table 6.2 where results for
air flows > 0.3 kg S"1 only were presented). By using a trial and error procedure, the
determination of a suitable value for the power index TT in the equation
m s2
m S1 D,
(6.28)
resulted in the selection of T\ = 2.8. Application of Equations (6.5) and (6.28) to the
test rig data presented in Figure 6.1, produces the scale-up conveying
characteristics shown in Figure 6.4. From this plot it can be seen that there is good
agreement with the experimental m s l curves shown in Figure 6.2.
300
200
Ap
t2
(kPa)
100
Air Only
0
.1
-t
.2
JL_
.3
.4
.5
mf2 (kgs-1)
Screened Coke
121
ms
mf
(kg s"1)
Apt
(kPa)
(kg s-1)
0.0405
0.0400
0.0390
0.0385
15.0
42.0
53.0
62.0
0.12
0.29
0.33
0.39
60
Apt2
Predicted
Blockage
Boundary
(kPa)
40
0.3 "
20 -
O-^Ckgs-1)
.02
.04
.03
.05
.-i<
m f 2 (kgs" )
122
However, this additional work w a s not considered paramount to the purpose of the
present investigation. Furthermore, l_i and L 2 represent effective transport
distances [9] and hence, do allow for bends to s o m e extent. Nevertheless,
considering a hypothetical equivalent bend length of 4 m, the following evaluation
is made.
m s1
mS2
25 m
71 m m S1
0.352 ms1
whereas
m s2
m s1
25 m + 5 x 4 m
71 m + 13x4 m
s1 =
0.366 m s 1
P V C Powder
Both Test Rigs A 2 (L-| = 7 1 m & D-| = 0.052 m ) and C 3 (L| = 162 m & D 2 = 0.105 m )
were used to determine the steady-state pipeline conveying characteristics of the
P V C powder. The former characteristics have been presented previously in Figure
3.23 (viz. Section 3.4.3) and the latter are shown in Figure 6.6.
300
Blockage
Conditions
200 Blockage
Boundary
?ti
(kPa)
100
mf
Figure 6.6
(kg s a )
123
Applying the suggested scale-up equation
v2.8
mS2 = msi
(6.29)
T~
m s2
ro.iosY*-8 4.835 m
s1
10.052 J
(6.30)
200
Predicted
Blockage
Boundary
Ap
t2
(kPa)
100 -
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
m f 2 (kgs -1 )
124
Application of Equation (6.30) to the testrigm s i values of Figure 3.23, produces the
adjusted scale-up conveying characteristics presented in Figure 6.8. Subsequent
comparisons reveal that Equation (6.30) still overpredicts the values of m s2 ', but
only by an amount of = 3.0 %. However, despite this apparent improvement there is
still one area of concern that warrants further discussion (viz. the scale-up of
minimum transport boundaries). It can be seen from Figures 6.6 and 6.8 that the
blockage boundary, which w a s scaled up from the data obtained on Test Rig A2,
displays values of Vf i m j n lower than were obtained actually from Test Rig C3.
Hence, the dependency of Vf >m j n on m*. as suggested by Mills et al. [15], seems to
be inadequate and that a diameter effect m a y be involved. For example, Zenz [50]
carried out numerous experiments on a variety of products and found that the single
particle saltation velocity Vf S0 in a horizontal pipe increases with respect to pipeline
diameter according to the following relationship.
V fso
(6.31)
where 0.4 < 8 < 0.6. lt is expected that a similar effect also would occur for the
saltation velocity under load conditions, Vf S (i.e. for a given value of m s ) . This would
help explain the differences between the minimum transport boundaries depicted in
Figures 6.6 and 6.8. Note that these blockage boundaries for P V C powder seemed
to occur in the vicinity of saltation (see Section 5.5.2.2). A n alternative approach
based on minimum Froude number (viz. Fr m j n = Vf >m j n (g D)--5) is considered later
in Section 8.3. However, further detailed investigations into the minimum transport
behaviour of bulk solids in different pipe diameter systems still are required to test
the applicability and accuracy of such relationships (especially for fine powders
such as P V C powder, fly ash, cement, and so on).
300
m
s2
(kgS
-l-
200
Predicted
Blockage
Boundary
Pt2
(kPa)
100
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
m f 2 (kg s )
125
6.3.4
The scale-up condition Apsi = Aps2 is assumed valid for an installation containing a
total length of vertical lift, which is proportional to that used on the testrig,so that
v2
-v2 =
where
Lv2' =
Lh2' =
Lhi (L2/L|).
Lh2 = Ln2'
where
The pipeline air pressure drop component due to solids may be considered in the
general form
Aps
^ ( L K
+ KL,)
(6.32)
where K is the ratio of vertical to horizontal air pressure gradient due to solids. That
is,
K
fdPs") f d p s
,-1
IdL 1 VdL
(6.33)
Note that initially K will be assumed constant with respect to operating conditions
(i.e. mf, Apt and m s ) . Applying the condition Ap s i = A p S 2 to Equation (6.32) and
assuming that the pipeline air pressure gradient (due to solids) does not vary
significantly between pipeline configurations having the s a m e L2 but different total
lengths of vertical pipe (i.e. L V 2 > L V 2'), then it m a y be shown that
Ap s 2 * =
Aps1
fUo
-h2+ KoL,^
2 Lv2
(6.34)
Despite the fairly short length of vertical pipe used in Test Rig A2 (i.e. Lv = 3.6
measurements of pipeline pressure gradient were taken for fly ash [33] and the P V C
powder [51], and K w a s found initially to be contained in the range 1.7 < K < 2.2.
However, these results were obtained for a limited range of operating conditions
and on further inspection of the fly ash results, it w a s found that K approached unity
128
for dilute-phase (e.g. mf > 0.05 kg s*1) and values of 3 to 4 for dense-phase
conveying (e.g. mf < 0.02 kg s -1 ). Hence, it seems that it would be possible for the
test material to determine an empirical relationship between K and pertinent
operating conditions (e.g. mf, m s and Apt). This then could be used in the scale-up
procedures. However, the necessary measurements of (dp s /dL) n and (dps/dL)v
must be accurate and hence, should be carried out on a vertical pipe which is
significantly longer than those being used currently on the test rigs described in this
section of work. This additional effort w a s not considered paramount to the present
study and it is suggested further that in the absence of experimental data, the
approximation
K1 K2 2 (6.35)
could be used in Equation (6.34) for an initial estimation of Aps. This agrees w
with the findings of Reed [52], w h o also has suggested an average value of K 2.0
for a variety of materials.
6.4 Scale-Up of Apt
, kPa
Pfi D
(6.36)
127
3.
1.
.3
m.
f
(kgs"1)
.03
.01
10.
30.
m
D 5 IO7
I in5
100.
128
L D' 5 x 10"7
No.
L
(m)
(m)
(m nr )
A1
A2
A3
C1
C3
C4
25
71
96
162
162
553
0.052
0.052
0.052
0.060
0.105
0.068
6.58
18.67
25.25
20.83
1.27
38.03
Test Rig
Table 6.4
Coeff. x
Coeff. y
No. of Bends
mfm
Eqn. (6.9) Eqn. (6.9) (kg s"1)
Nb
293.34
803.55
1507.86
738.70
56.23
1783.73
1.513
1.525
1.623
1.555
1.233
1.610
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.17
0.45
0.15
5
13
17
5
5
17
Despite the significantly different number of bends used on the test rigs, there is still
good correlation between the predicted and experimental values of Apt.
Figure 6.9 also could be used to predict Apf for each section of a stepped
pipeline, which quite frequently is used for long-distance transportation. However,
the final values would tend to be conservative (i.e. too high for a given mf) because
Equation (6.37) would assume that the final air pressure of each pipeline section is
atmospheric. Hence, in this case, the following slightly modified version of Equation
(6.36) is suggested.
Ap f
11418.3 m f 1 8 5 L
Pf1 D5x107
, kPa
(6.38)
Again note the following units: mf (kg s"1), L (m), D (m) and Pfi (kPa abs). Using
Equation (6.38), the analysis procedure consists of the following steps.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
1819.0 m f
1.55
(6.39)
Values of mf = 0.10 and 0.15 kg s'1 were selected for this investigation and the
corresponding Apf values are summarised in Table 6.6.
129
L
(m)
D
(m)
No. of Bends
146
390
261
143
0.060
0.069
0.081
0.105
3
13
8
5
Nb
mf
(kg s-1)
0.10
0.15
Experimental
Theoretical
Apt, Eqn. (6.39) Apt, Eqn. (6.38)
(kPa)
(kPa)
61
107
51.3
96.1
Error
(%)
+19
+11
Table 6.6 Comparison of experimental and theoretical values of Apf for the
long-distance pneumatic conveying stepped diameter pipeline (Test Rig D2).
Although the maximum error shown in Table 6.6 is almost 20 %, the predic
values of Apf are only ~ 10 kPa greater than the experimental values. For a
stepped-diameter pipeline almost 1 k m in length, this result is considered quite
reasonable.
The analysis procedure commences with the final section of pipeline (i.e
+ Apf = 101 + Apf kPa abs) and then proceeds upstream until the initial or starting
section of pipe is reached. In this way, iterative calculations are not required.
6.5 Summary
-*' = u{%Y
(641)
130
is suggested as an improvement, where Li' and L 2 ' represent adjusted values of l_i
and L 2 to allow for any differences between the number (and type) of bends used
on the test rig and actual plant.
Equation (6.34) also should be used to modify the values of Aps2 if Lv2 > (L2 Lr1)
U n (i.e. if the total length of vertical lift for the actual or proposed plant proportionally
is greater than that used on the test rig). In the absence of experimental data, the
pressure gradient ratio K-i K 2 - 2 could be used as an initial estimation for use in
Equation (6.34).
If prediction of Apf is required (e.g. to determine Apt = Apf + Aps), then it is
suggested that Figure 6.9 or Equation (6.37) be used for conventional singlediameter pipelines, and Equation (6.40) for stepped-diameter pipelines.
6.6 Generalised Pipeline Conveying Characteristics
For the purposes of general design and feasibility studies, the construction of
multiple scale-up conveying characteristics (i.e. for different values of L and D) is
time-consuming and tiresome. Hence, it would be advantageous to either
computerise scale-up procedures or develop generalised conveying characteristics
(for a particular material), which would be applicable to any system of different L
and/or D (provided the extrapolation is within acceptable limits).
Interpretation of the recommended scale-up Equations (6.5), (6.41) and the
condition Ap s i = A p s 2 > indicates that the coordinate system mf D"2 (abscissa) and
A p s (ordinate) could be used to represent the parameter (m s L' D"2-8) for the
purpose of generalising pipeline conveying characteristics (obtained on a particular
test rig).
The subsequent conversion of the test rig data displayed in Figures 6.1 and 6,2 f
the fly ash/cement mix, results in the generalised conveying characteristics
displayed in Figures 6.10 and 6.11, respectively. Note that both L|' and L 2 ' have
been assumed equal to 162 m for these calculations. Either graph can now be used
to predict values of A p s (for a given m s , L' and D) or estimate suitable values of D
(for a given m s a n d L').
For example, consider the requirement to estimate the smallest value of D that
would transport the fly ash/cement mix at a rate of 151 rr1 (i.e. 4.167 kg s'1) over a
distance of 620 m for an operating pressure not exceeding 200 kPag. From Figure
6.11, an initial value of (m s L' D-2-8 x 10'5) = 20 is selected, from which D = 0.093 m
is calculated. Note that for the purpose of this example, no allowance has been
made for bends (i.e. L' has been assumed equal to 620 m ) .
131
250
200
150
100
Ap
r
s
(kPa)
Figure 6.10
250
200
--
_20
150
--
_ 15
100
Ap
r
s
(kPa)
10
5
50
/kg s-1m\
m L
D2'8s 105
1
10
20
\ -2'a i
1
30
40
50
m D"(kg S^m"2)
Figure 6.11
132
Selecting a 100 m m N B Schedule 40 (i.e. D = 0.102 m ) mild steel pipeline, the
following corrected value of Ap s is obtained.
msL'
=
15.4,
Aps
145 kPa (Figure 6.14)
28
5
D x10
for a minimum safe value of mf D"2 = 20 kg s-"1 nr2. Therefore, mf = (20) (.102)2 =
0.208 kg s_1. The corresponding value of Apt may then be determined by predicting
Apt from either Figure 6.9 or Equation (6.37). That is, for (L D~ 5 ) = 5.616 x 10 7 and
mf = 0.208 kg S'1, Apf is estimated at 27 kPa, so that Apt = 172 kPa.
Not only does the above example demonstrate the usefulness of generalising
pipeline characteristics, but it also indicates that this procedure m a y be used
effectively in future investigations on other materials to further evaluate and improve
the accuracy of the scale-up equations presented in this thesis.
133
CHAPTER 7
134
7.
THEORETICAL
ANALYSES
7.1 Introduction
135
4+dp(!
+
dr vr
dr2
ldoV_^(YYi) .
c dry
p s c dr
(7.3)
~dr
(7.4)
Ph
and using r = 1 - .
Ps
3. Equation of Motion for the Bulk Solid
PbV s dv
da Xi a
dp
1
Y
~z
+ Pb 9 i + rr z =-?
1 -sin8 dr
dr
r
w i dr 1 - sin8
(7.5)
136
7.2.1
"
v$o
'so
(7.6)
w,
A3
A!
2A,
0.5
2Ai
K _2
m so
(7.7)
(7.8)
4 D o Pbovso
where
Ai
Pbo
rw
T3
- Gi r0
Tlln
rT\ ^(Zi-D
f,
T T (Z -1)(1 -sinS)
1 4
T4
2-b
\N,
(1 - b) (1 - sinS)
'o
VrT>
flo
Pbo
Pbc
C,
P
Uo,
(7.9)
(7.10)
137
CT
o 0 (1 + sinS)
Gi
Pbob(YY 1 )
(1 - b) p s c 0
1
1 - sinS
Xi
2 sinS
1 - sin5
1o
sin(a+2p)~
sina
(1 - sinS) sin3(a+p)
Y! (1 - sinS) sin2(a+p)
2 [ 1 - cos(a+p)]
By integrating Equation (7.3) with respect to r, the following general expressions for
the air pressure and the air pressure gradient inside the blow tank were derived (i.e.
for the case of a static consolidation stress distribution).
v
d1 v
so 'o
rVi
T^-DUo
^W-M-M
-Pc
PT
Zi-1
r V1"1
VZt-DU
v
Gi1 v
so
dp
dr
PT-PO
<-(*f
Ziln +ln
(7.11)
+ (Zi-D
rfi
(Zi-DrJUT
(7.12)
Note that the above equations are similar to the ones derived by McLean [61], for
the case of a bin discharging under gravity, except for the additional pressure drop
terms appearing in Equations (7.11), (7.12) and in the expression for the coefficient
A3 given in Equation (7.7).
7.2.1.1 Results
For a given material, blow tank geometry and transition pressure, value
m s o were able to be calculated by adopting the following procedure.
1. Calculate the material parameters Xi, Yi, YY1 and C.
2. Assume vso = 0.25 m s-1 and pt>o = Pbc-
138
(7
- 13)
5. Calculate Gi, Ai, A2, A3 and the new value of vso according to Equation (7.7).
6. Recalculate o0 with this new value of vso and using Equation (7.13).
7. Compare the old and new values of o0. If the difference is greater than 0.1%,
go to Step 4 to continue the iteration procedure. Otherwise, calculate m S o
using both Equation (7.8) and the final value of v s o obtained from Step 5.
The above procedure was incorporated onto the University's mainframe computer
(using Fortran 77) and enabled the variation of m s 0 , with respect to D 0 and ApDt =
P T - po to be predicted for a given a, as shown in Figure 7.2. Note that the
parameters a = 20 and D j = 0.917 m were selected to simulate the Sturtevant
blow tank geometry shown in Figure 2.1. Also, the material properties, which were
used to generate this plot, were obtained from the Tallawarra pulverised coal
sample (refer to Table 5.1) and consisted of
a
8
832.4 kg m *
6020.57 Pa
0.0351
11.9 x 10"9m 4N-l s-1
6020.57 Pa
0.2036
40
25
Ps
1600 kg nr3.
Pbc
cic
b
c
=
=
=
=
0"1p =
7.2.1.2
Discussion
139
a short distance of approximately 1.3 metres. Results from the fly ash test
program seemed to indicate that Apbt occurs in the range 1 to 10 kPa,
which would be approximately 1 to 5 % of a 200 kPag typical operating
pressure (blow tank top-air). A direct measurement of Apbt w a s attempted
without success, mainly due to the inappropriateness of the pressure
tapping design (similar to that shown in Figure 2.4) to monitor accurately
small differences in air pressure. Other designs were investigated (e.g.
an open pressure hole with an in-built purge system) but also were found
to be unsuitable.
2. The demands of the fly ash test program, which commenced effectively in
October 1983, generally reduced the emphasis on the blow tank
investigations.
3. The pneumatic conveying test results obtained during the fly ash program
also revealed that the blow tank top-air only conveying m o d e (which is
required for the application of the mathematical model) provided
insufficient air for the transport of this material over the testrigdistance of
71 m. Hence, not only did this prevent any 'parallel' investigations to be
carried out, it also initially threw s o m e doubt over the practical usefulness
of such a model. However, it w a s later realised that continued effort in this
area still could ultimately lead to a unified blow tank theory, which also
would allow for the various types of configuration [63].
4. Due to the requirements of the fly ash test program and industry in
general, it w a s decided to concentrate the theoretical investigations on
the development of a reliable scale-up model to predict plant operating
conditions based on test rig data (e.g. refer to Chapter 6) and correlation
analysis to design and optimise long-distance stepped-diameter
pipelines (considered later in Section 7.3).
Although a thorough assessment of the mathematical model was not able to be
completed due to the lack of experimental data, approximate values of Apbt were
calculated for a number of experiments, which were carried out during the fly ash
program (i.e. using the extrapolation technique depicted in Figure 3.20). After
comparing the corresponding pipeline values of m s with the m s o predictions shown
in Figure 7.2, the results s e e m to indicate that the model underestimates the m s o
values.
7.2.2 Numerical Analyses
The numerical solution of the three governing differential equations (viz. (7.2),
and (7.5)) w a s investigated using the Runge-Kutta technique of numerical
integration. A number of software programs were written on the Univac computer to
predict the parameters v s , p, dp/dr and a at various levels inside the blow tank
(based on a given set of initial boundary conditions at either the outlet or the
transition, depending on the direction of integration). However, occasional
convergence problems, which occurred during the integration procedure, prompted
a more detailed investigation of the actual equations and the initial assumptions
which were used. Several modifications and improvements to the numerical model
were introduced and a summary of the latest version is presented below.
140
20.0
10.0
2.0 -
1.0
0.2
0.1
Figure 7.2
2vs
r
v s dp b
pb dr
(7.14)
2u
r
du
dr
u + v s r dp
P
dr
dPb v s
dr Pb
(7.15)
(7.16)
H T-3
QV50 ~
1.75 P(1 -D
k
" RTd^T3
Note that the median particle size dvso (based on a volume diameter
distribution, see Section 5.2.1) was used to represent the material in
these equations.
(7 18)
'
where pbi is the loose-poured bulk density of the material (kg m-3).
Note that, due to the use of the Ergun [64] equation (instead of Darcy'
Law), the permeability coefficient c of the bulk solid is not required for this
analysis.
142
5.
The equation of motion for the bulk solid essentially remains unchanged
(as presented in Equation (7.5)) except for the differences introduced by
the modified compressibility equation.
1
dp [ 2 p b v s 2
r - p b g Y i - 1 - sinS dr ' r (1 - sinS)
da
(7.19)
2
dr
Pbbv
s
1
(1 + a) (1 - sinS)
6. The variation of pb with respect to r, which was also required for the
application of the Runge-Kutta technique, w a s obtained by simply
differentiating Equation (7.18).
^ = 7^ (7.20)
dr
1 + G dr
7.2.2.1 Results
Due to similar reasons stated in Section 7.2.1.2, only preliminary results were
to be obtained from the numerical model. For example, refer to Figure 7.3, which
presents typical variations of vs, p, a and pb (with respect to r/rj) obtained for
Tallawarra pulverised coal where
pb = 760(1+o)-0138kgrrr3
d V 5o
= 30 u.m
ps
= 1 6 0 0 kg nr 3
8
=
40
$
=
25
a
=
20
D0
= 0.052 m Sturtevant blow tank (Figure 2.1)
Dy
= 0.917 m
Patm
=
1010 hPa
T
= 293.15 K,
and for the following initial conditions selected at the transition
VST = 0.002 m s-1
(dp/dr)T =
0
PT
=
150kPag
or
=
1.0 kPa.
The corresponding value of ms, which is constant with respect to r, is calculate
be 1.07 kg s"1. Note the slight convergence problem which still prevails towards the
outlet of the blow tank (i.e. referring to Figure 7.3(c), the mean consolidation stress,
o, is seen to increase as r/rj approaches r0/rj). Various values of initial condition
were tested and the trends seem to indicate that the Ergun [64] equation provides a
more realistic prediction for dp/dr, u and, hence, m s . However, extensive
experimentation is still required before any conclusive assessment can be made.
143
I 'I 'i I
U ^
L1
o>
Z oo
CO
CO
CO
(to s-
to
S-
* s_
c
o
o
CO
- CO
CO
"ca
o
CM
CM
CD
E
D
C
CO
;
. I . I I I . I . I . I . I . t .
ea
esa
CO
CD
U)
T3 ~
ea
ea
CM
13
CO
CD
v_
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IO
CD
Q. E
cn
ea
co
"CD
E
c
03
JIII|IIII|IIII|IIII|IIM|IIILJ^
j 111111111111111111
-I'
TT
- o>
a>
- CO
co
0)
Q.
- r-
- co
cc
x
LU
CO
CO
CD
^^
S-
i_
L
co
- CM
IO
CO
CM
CM
CO
>
c/> I
co
E
t>
CL.
144
7.3 Dense-Phase Pipeline Conveying Characteristics
Several existing theories [17, 59, 60, 65, 66] were reviewed for the purpose
predicting dense-phase pneumatic conveying parameters in horizontal and vertical
pipes and around different types of bends. Although all these theories were found to
be limited to horizontal pipes, they still were considered to be worthy of
investigation for the following reasons.
1. A large number of pipeline configurations that are used in industry
contain at least 90 % horizontal pipe.
2. For the applications where the vertical pipe cannot be neglected,
appropriate modifications to the horizontal data (similar to that proposed
in Equation (6.34)) can be incorporated into the model.
3. To allow for the different types and numbers of bends, the experimental
techniques described by Mills et al. [48] and Mills and Mason [49] could
be employed to obtain an equivalent length of pipe for the bend(s), so
that the total length of pipeline could be increased accordingly.
However, of the five theories that were investigated, the more simplified ap
Muschelknautz and Krambrock [59] was found to be most applicable to the work on
pulverised coal and fly ash (viz. dense-phase conveying of fine powders) and is
reviewed in the following section. The other four theories were found to be limited to
particular applications. For example,
1. Konrad et al. [17] mainly considers the specialised case of transporting
discrete plugs of cohesionless material (viz. in the pulse-phase mode,
which is more applicable to granular products).
2. Chari [60] presents empirical correlations for solids friction factor bas
on materials with mean particle diameters in the range 140|im to 2629
urn.
145
7.3.1.1
Theory
Considering the full-bore plug transport system displayed in Figure 7.4 and
assuming that the pressure drop acting across the plug of length L is proportional to
the wall friction caused by the body forces, it has been shown that
3
f2
exp
fym'gLV^
RTV
(7.21)
Pf2 are the initial and final pipeline air pressures (Pa abs)
material coefficient 0.6 (average),
total length of plug (m),
gas constant for air = 287.1 (N m kg-1 K" 1 ),
absolute temperature of air (K),
superficial air velocity (m s'1),
velocity of plug (m s -1 ),
mass flow ratio = m s m f 1 (kg kg-1).
, D
Figure 7.4
Operational data from actual dense-phase systems have shown that there is a
relationship between the ratio (V p Vf 1 ) and the parameters m*. p* and , where
Pf1 + Pf2
2 Pw
(7.22)
146
Initial value of air density (kg nr 3 )
Final value of air density (kg nr 3 )
Loose-poured bulk density of the material (kg nr 3 )
Pfi
Pf2
Pbl
1.6x10"^%*
Frc
(7.23)
V,
Fr
(7.24)
V?TJ
Fre
(7.25)
go
free settling velocity of the material based on pbi (m s -1 ).
and v 0
Note that pbi is used instead of ps- Figure 7.5 presents the relationship that was
obtained [59] between (V p Vf 1 ) and (m* p*) for % = 0.01, 0.1,1.0 and 10.0.
7.3.1.2 Calculation Procedure
For ease of calculation, the following step-wise procedure is proposed for the
application of the Muschelknautz and Krambrock [59] model.
1. Determine Voo using either Figure 7.6 (for air at 20 C) or the drag
correlations recommended by Clift et al. [41]. The latter method requires
use of
0.5
3C n
(7.26)
and
Res
where
and
pf Voo d v 5 0
Co =
Res =
(if =
(7.27)
drag coefficient,
Reynolds number at free settling velocity (m s -1 ),
absolute or dynamic viscosity of air (Pa s).
147
CO
LO
o ^
r-l
't
(J)
LO
I
\\
II
1J
>^
*
o
o
CD
\\ \ \
*'
yv \ V/CJ
\\ \ \
\\ \ \
o
c
o
i_
>
Q.
*-*
\\ \ V^^3
o
c
o
H*
c
o
i_
cc
>
LO
r^
LO
LfJ
C\J
CD
k.
3
LL
= 1 1 II Mil
IO
1 1
1 1 1 lllll
3
Ps = 10000 kgm" ^
8000 >
6000 >x
x.
4000N
2650.
1500 >
m*.
's
yS
1000 >
10s
500^
s" )
10
0.1 "~~/.// /
0.01
'\ 1 lllll
10
11
1 1 1 lllll
IO2
d (um)
1 lllll 1 1 1 lllll
10:
10"
149
5.
f2
~\
VM2
(7.28)
and
mf
0.00935 kg S'1
ms
2.93 kg s-1
m*
313.4
Apt =
75 kPa.
Also note that the air temperature was 20 C and Patm = 101000 Pa abs. These
data now are used as part of a worked example to demonstrate the Muschelknautz
and Krambrock [59] model and the calculation procedure described previously.
1. From Figure 7.6, vo = 0.02 m s_1, for dV50 = 30 u.m and pbi = 760 kg nr3
(obtained from Table 5.1). This value of v ^ agrees well with the one
calculated using the Clift era/. [41] drag correlations, where
Voo
Re s
cD
=
=
=
0.0204 m s'1
0.0406
596
150
Therefore, from Equation (7.24)
V,
Fr
3.67
V9.81 x .052
Vg~D
5.14
.020
V9.81 x .052
Vg~D
,028
(Pfi
rP
2x760
Jl + 1
*<Pf2
+1
VH2
1.6x10"^!^*
Fre
5 r 1.2
fP
(1.6 x 10"3) (5.14)
Jl + 1
P
.028
2x760 V f2
= .1614 f ^ + 1
4. to 7.
Assumed
(Pfi Pf2-1)
m* p*
(Vp Vf 1 )
(Figure 7.5)
2.00
1.57
1.65
1.63
.74
.64
.66
.65
.48
.42
.43
.43
1.21
1.10
1.13
1.12
1.57
1.65
1.63
1.63
Table 7.1
Note that the calculated values of (Pfi Pf2'1) shown in Table 7.1 were
based on L = 25 m. That is, no allowance was made for the 3.6 m vertical
lift or the five 1 metre radius 90 bends.
151
8.
Substituting the final calculated value of (Pfi Pf2"1) = 1.63 into Equation
(7.28) yields
Apt = rdir--A
VH2
= (101000) (1.63-1)
= 63630 Pa
- 64 kPa.
152
7.4.1
Ap f + A p s
(^ + m * Xs) KT 2 T p
(7.29)
Unfortunately, the data that were used by Stegmaier [68] to generate the line-ofbest-fit given in Equation (7.30), were based mainly on small pipe diameters (e.g. 8
and 40 m m ) . Also in Figure 7.7, it can be seen that the proposed correlation does
not represent accurately the data points that are plotted for Fr > 30. It w a s decided
therefore, to investigate this apparent inadequacy in an attempt to develop an
improved correlation for fly ash (and other fine powders, such as pulverised coal),
which would be applicable to large values of L, D and m*.
153
0,3 ,--0,25 , . ,
A'
.0,1
Zelchen
PrwJukt
symbol
solid
\
10v
8
6
4
V
X
\ :
: \
VV
y.
(^.i
War 5 !
70
1500
Quelle
ref.
catalyst
sand
69
26 50
Totallt
to
2200
flyash
2J60
to
catalyst
70
1500
sand
69
2650
to
Totalit
2200
to
quaxzpowder
15
260
TO
KBUer
alumina
280
to
Llppert
ferrous sul
phate waste
112
MOO
to
MOO
to
Bohnet
\
10* J
8
6
4 -I
8 \
\g
10-2
8
fi
U A
o
4
' 0.<b
a t *
V A ITFT
\A
10"
8 10
20
40
=*
60 80
154
A summary of the data and associated pipeline configurations are presented in
Table 7.2. Appendix C contains a complete list of all steady-state operating
conditions (viz. mf, m s and Apt) for each material and pipeline configuration. Note
that the values of m * applicable to the data presented in Table 7.2, vary in the ranqe
7<m*<413.
No.
Material
Tallawarra
pulv. fuel
Tallawarra
fly ash
Eraring fly
ash
Munmorah
fly ash
Vales Point
fly ash
Gladstone
fly ash
Wallerawang
fly ash
Liddell fly
ash
Fly ash cement mix
Fly ash f591
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
13
D
(m)
Code
Name
Test
Rig
TWPF
TWASH
A1
A3
B1
25 .052
96 .052
71 .052
11
1.0, 2.0,3.0
ERASH
B1
71 .052
13
1.0,2.0,3.0
MNASH
B1
71 .052
12
1.0,2.0,3.0
VPASH
B1
71 .052
12
0.5, 1.5,2.5
GLASH
71 .052
162 .105
71 .052
12
8
WGASH
B1
C3
B1
12
1.0,2.0,3.0
5.0, 10.0, 15.0
0.5, 1.5,2.5
LDASH
B1
71 .052
12
1.0,2.0,2.5
PFAC
C1
C3
162 .060
162 .105
1200 .200
17
12
2.0,4.0,6.0,8.0, 10.0
5.0, 10.0, 15.0, 20.0
13.98
PFA
L
(m)
Total N o .
Data Pts.
5
2
Values of m s
(kg s-1)
2.62, 2.93, 3.99, 4.47, 4.50
1.41, 1.47
155
Using a Fortran 77 program on the University's mainframe computer, values of Fr,
m*. Xs and Frs were calculated initially from the data sets listed in Appendix C (and
the physical properties of each material). This information then w a s grouped
according to Equations (7.31) and (7.32) and plotted on the same axes which were
used by Stegmaier [68]. The resulting plot is shown below in Figure 7.8, which
includes the correlation given by Equation (7.33).
X
Fr
(7.31)
^(m^Fr;0-5^)0'1
(7.32)
2.1 XT'
(7.33)
TiiTr-
i i
MATERIAL (L.D)
ie
in
L
U_
ca
co
THPF(2S..052)
TWPFC96..0S2)
o THASH171.-B52I
A ERASH171..052)
+ MNASHH1..052)
X VPASHC71..052)
GLASH(71..052J "
CLASH 1162.. 1051
X HGASH(71.-052)
K LDASH171..052)
S PFACtl62..060)
X PFAC 1162..105)
I PFA 11200. -200)
<*
II*
i
I _ L
100.
X = Fr
156
Note that Fr w a s assumed to represent the velocity Vf at the end of the pipeline (i.e.
at essentially atmospheric conditions) and similarly pf w a s assumed to be constant
at 1.2 kg nr 3 . A s various groups of data (for a given product) were plotted by
Stegmaier [68] at a constant value of Fr (e.g. refer to quartz powder in Figure 7.7),
these assumptions do s e e m to be valid. Also, note that d V 5o w a s employed to
represent each product, whereas Stegmaier [68] m a y have used a m e a n value (no
definition w a s presented). However, the subsequent effect on the location of the
data points shown in Figure 7.8 is expected to be minor.
One further aspect that should be considered and discussed in more detail is the
calculation of Xs (i.e. refer to Equation (7.29)). As indicated previously, the friction
factor is based on the total pipeline air pressure drop Apt and hence, includes any
effect due the bends and vertical lift. Unfortunately, at the time of undertaking the
various test programs, the pipelines had not been instrumented sufficiently to
extract accurate straight pipeline air pressure gradients from the recorded data.
Also, it is believed that the sections of pipe used on most of the test rigs (viz. Test
Rigs A 1 , A 3 and B1) were not long enough to ensure fully established flow (i.e. due
to reacceleration of the product after each bend). A s far as vertical lift on Test Rigs
A1, A 3 , B1, C1 and C 3 is concerned, the ratio (Lv L_1) is seen to vary between 0.027
and 0.144. Also, most of the data presented in Figure 7.8 were obtained on Test
Rigs B1, C1 and C 3 , where 0.027 < (Lv L'1) < 0.051. T o evaluate the possible effect
on X-s, the ratio of vertical to horizontal pressure gradient K is assumed = 2 (i.e. refer
to Equation 6.35 in Section 6.3.4). This allows an equivalent length of 2 x L v to be
calculated for the vertical lift. The subsequent percentage increase in total pipeline
length (i.e. L + L v ) for Test Rigs B1, C1 and C 3 is seen to vary between 2.7 and 5.1
%, which only would have a minor effect on the data points plotted in Figure 7.8. In
fact, as the values of Xs and hence Y would reduce slightly as a result of this
allowance, any correlations representing such data would be considered slightly
conservative. Also, it is believed that the trends displayed in Figure 7.8 would not be
affected by this modification. In contrast, the effect due to bends m a y have a
significant influence on Apt (e.g. refer to [48,49,72]). However, the results obtained
from more recent investigations on pulverised brown coal (presented in the
following section) indicate that under certain circumstances (e.g. relatively few
number of bends for a given length of pipeline, moderate conveying rates for a
given D ) , the presence of bends m a y be ignored for the calculation of straightpipeline air pressure gradient and hence, Xs. Note that the effective length [9] of a
1 m radius 90 bend (i.e. 2 metres) is included in the determination of L (i.e. the total
effective length of a pipeline) and hence, to s o m e extent would compensate for the
pressure loss caused by the bend. However, for the data presented in Figure 7.8, it
is difficult to estimate the degree of compensation. Nevertheless, for the main
objective of identifying possible areas of improvement, the use of Apt to calculate Xs
is considered sufficiently accurate. In fact, it is believed that the trends displayed in
Figure 7.8 (and future analyses) are not affected severely by this approximation.
For example, in both Figures 7.7 and 7.8, the data points for Fr > 20 are seen to
diverge a w a y from the Stegmaier correlation (i.e. for increasing Fr). During the
preliminary stages of developing an improved correlation (i.e. based on the data
presented in Table 7.2 and Appendix C ) , it w a s found that this effect w a s caused
largely by not including the variation of average air density pf in the correlation
157
analysis. Also, the power index for m* used by Stegmaier [68] (i.e. 0.3) did not seem
to represent adequately the changes in pipe diameter (for the s a m e product).
The final set of axes that were selected as most appropriate (i.e. to represen
the experimental data), are summarised in Equations (7.34) and (7.35).
X
Fr m p f m
-0.5
(7.34)
,1 \0.8 ,
Y =
N0.85
Mm*)- Fre- (^ D
(7.35)
v50.
9x106X"1J82
(7.36)
.18+808
co
CS
CD
10+007 -
ca
to
GO
il-
10*006 ea
09
10+005
100.
X = Fr m
Figure 7.9
tpfm>
-.50
158
Note the values of pf m and Fr m , which were used for this correlation analysis, were
calculated from the following equations.
Pf2 + 0.5 Aps
Pfm =
RJ
(7.37)
4 mf
Frm =
*n no.5n2.5
(7.38)
D
Pfm 9
It is evident from Figure 7.9 that the scatter of experimental data has been reduced
significantly and the divergence effect observed previously (i.e. in Figures 7.7 and
7.8) for the larger values of Fr has been eliminated. It is interesting to note that to
improve the accuracy of the correlation (i.e. as shown in Figure 7.9), the pipeline
length L had to be included in Equation (7.35). This w a s unexpected and possibly
could be a result of either not selecting an optimal power index for pf m (i.e. -0.5) or
using Apt in Equation (7.29). That is, in relation to the latter possibility, the inclusion
of L may be compensating for the different number of bends, as well as the various
values of (Lv L -1 ). Nevertheless, even though there exists s o m e doubt over the
numerical accuracy of this correlation (i.e. mainly due to using Apt in Equation
(7.29)), it still m a y be concluded from the trends observed in this investigation, that
employing the mean values pfm and Frm significantly reduces the scatter
shown in Figure 7.8 (which is based on the exit values of pf and Fr),
including air density pf m in the correlation analysis reduces the scatter of
data points (i.e. for a given material and pipeline) and also improves the
divergence problem for large Fr m ,
the power index for m* provides a better representation of larger and
different values of D (i.e. for a given material).
In applying the improved solids friction factor correlation (i.e. as presented in
Equation (7.36)), to the prediction of pressure drop for various materials, pipeline
configurations and operating conditions, the resulting iterative calculations were
found to display poor convergence and in fact, on several occasions unable to
provide a confident value for Ap s and hence, Apt (i.e. using the suggested Equation
(6.40) to calculate Apt). However, due to the following reasons, it w a s decided to
postpone any further investigations into this matter.
Some uncertainty exists over the accuracy of the solids friction factor
correlation shown in Figure 7.9 (i.e. due to including the effect of bends
and vertical lift in the pressure drop data).
G o o d accurate data (e.g. obtained from long straight sections of pipe of
different diameter) are essential for the efficient investigation of such
problems. That is, numerous experiments on different products and
pipelines would have to be carried out for this purpose.
The general objectives of this section of work largely have been fulfilled
(i.e. reviewing generalised correlations and identifying possible areas of
improvement).
159
Instead, it w a s decided to concentrate on developing a test-design procedure for
the purpose of determining an accurate correlation for a given material and
different values of L and D (i.e. after isolating the relevant physical variables and
dimensionless groupings). In this way, as several different materials are tested and
correlated in the s a m e manner, the generalisation of solids friction factor (and the
troubleshooting of any divergence problems) can proceed with confidence.
Investigations into determining an accurate correlation for pulverised brown coal
(applicable to single- and stepped-diameter pipelines, over short and long
distances) are considered in the following sections. However, the principles of
designing a stepped pipeline are reviewed initially.
7.4.2 Design of Stepped-Diameter Pipelines
Over the past decade, only a number of investigations [5,6] have been carried out
this area of pneumatic conveying design and these have been limited to longdistance pneumatic transportation. That is, the application of stepped-diameter
pipelines to large throughput conveying and/or over relatively short distances has
not received m u c h attention. The major difficulties that need to be overcome before
a stepped-diameter pipeline can be designed a n d optimised for a particular
application, include the determination of the following items.
(i) Number of different pipe diameters (i.e. n) for a given L
(ii) Size of each pipe section (i.e. Dj for i = 1 to n).
(iii) Location of each transition (i.e. ALj for i = 1 to n).
(iv) Minimum m a s s flow rate of air (i.e. min. mf) to suit (i) and (ii).
However, the first decision to make is the maximum operating pressure. This will
depend on the type of feeder (e.g. 100 kPag for a rotary valve, 300 kPag for a single
(i.e. batch) blow tank, 500 kPag for a tandem blow tank system) and the required
overall reliability of the system. For example, the operating pressure may need to be
reduced to increase the service life of the hardware and components (e.g.
discharge and vent valves for blow tanks, rotary valve clearances). Once deciding
on this parameter, it then is necessary to optimise Items (i), (ii) and (iii), which are
dependent on the material (as well as its minimum transport properties), the
operating conditions (e.g. conveying rate m s , solids to air m a s s flow rate ratio m* =
m s m r 1 ) and the available sizes of pipe (e.g. 100, 125, 150 m m N.B.). It is
suggested from experience that the increment in pipe diameter (i.e. in the direction
of flow) be kept to a minimum (e.g. 100 to 125 m m N.B. and not 100 to 150 m m
N.B.). Selecting the number and sizes of the different pipe sections (i.e. n and Dj for
i = 1 to n) is a difficult task and usually relies on experience and/or trial and error.
Note that it would be advantageous to minimise the value of D at the end of the
pipeline for reasons of ease/cost of installation and avoiding the use of large bends
and valves that m a y be required (e.g. diverters, unblocking systems). A practical
upper limit s e e m s to be 250 m m N.B., although 200 m m N.B. would be preferred, if
possible. Note that the pipe sizes 50, 80, 100, 125, 150, 200 and 250 m m N.B.
would cater for most applications with the latter five being used more frequently for
long-distance and large-throughput transportation.
160
Once selecting n and the values of Dj (i.e. for i = 1 to n), the next stage of the design
process involves determining the location of each pipe transition (i.e. the values of
ALj for i = 1 to n). T h e ultimate aim of selecting the combinations of Dj and ALj is to
minimise the total pipeline air pressure drop Ap t , which then is compared with the
selected value of m a x i m u m operating pressure. For the purpose of this approach, it
is suggested initially to maximise Al_i for Di (where i = 1 represents the final or
largest size of pipe) and then A L 2 for D 2 , and so on until i = n for the initial or
smallest size of pipe. In this way, it m a y be determined whether
the number of different pipe sizes (i.e. n) is excessive, adequate or
insufficient for the total length of pipeline L,
n e w combinations of Dj and ALj m a y be necessary to either increase or
decrease Apt (i.e. with respect to the m a x i m u m operating pressure).
Ideally, it is desired to achieve this result with the smallest possible value of
which (in conjunction with the other different pipe sections) produces a Apt just
below the m a x i m u m operating pressure. In this way, the required values of air flow
(i.e. mf) are minimised as well. For the purpose of maximising ALj for each Dj (i.e.
starting from the end of the pipeline), the following information must be determined
for the product(s) in question and also each section of pipe.
(a) Minimum transport behaviour and properties (e.g. minimum superficial air
velocity Vffmin or Froude number Fr m j n ).
(b) M a x i m u m transport velocity Vf ) m a x or Froude number Fr m a x .
(c) Pressure drop for the air and solids components (viz. Ap,- = Aptj + ApSi).
Note that Apt represents the total air pressure drop for the overall pipeline,
whereas Ap,- represents the total pressure drop for pipe section No. i, which may
include bends and/or vertical lifts. That is, Apt = Z (Apj) for i = 1 to n. Items (a), (b)
and (c) constitute the mechanism that is necessary to optimise the combinations of
Dj and AL,- and hence, the design of the overall pipeline. T h e following section
considers both Items (a) and (b) in the light of existing criteria to step pipelines, and
Item (c) is investigated in Section 7.4.3.
7.4.2.1 Stepping pipe criteria
In relation to Item (a) above, a minimum Froude number (Frmjn) approach often is
used by researchers. For example, refer to Bohnet [73]. However, from experience it
is believed that for a given material, Fr m j n should be modified by air density pt, as
suggested by Equation (7.39), where i and v are exponents and E is a constant.
Frmin(pf)T = EOrfT (7.39)
This is supported by the findings of Roski [5], who determined the following
relationship for natural anhydrite
, x0.15
Frmin - ^ V pf.atm /
= ( 1 1 4 . 3 6 +159.23 m * ) 0 5
(7.40)
161
where pf.atm is the atmospheric air density. S o m e attempts have been m a d e to
generalise Fr m j n for different products. For example, Weber [45] suggested the
following relationships for Fr m j n in terms of the single particle settling velocity v< and
the particle to pipe diameter ratio (d D" 1 ).
f ft N r H \~^
Frmin
=
(^ v^ + 7J (m*) 0 2 5 (^J
forvoo<3ms- 1
(7.41)
Frmin
x0.25 I d
0.1
15(m*r^^J
for^^rns"1
(7.42)
r- M mjn
pfFrmin
Pf-j==
(7.43)
Vg D
Also, Schade [74] predicted the critical or minimum conveying velocity Vf>min for
coarse products (d = 0.3 to 3.5 m m ) with a mean linear deviation of 19 % using the
relationship
/
x-0.025 / _, N-0.34
Frmi=
(mT'()
(7.44)
which was based on 151 experimental measurements and where ps is the particle
density. Note that from Equations (7.40), (7.43) and (7.44), it can be seen that as pf
increases Frmjn decreases. This effect due to air density indicates that Frmin and
hence Vf >m j n (as well as mf) may be reduced for higher operating pressures (i.e.
towards the upstream end of each pipeline section). Therefore, in order to allow for
this effect (so that the stepped-pipeline configuration m a y be optimised), the
experiments must be carried out at air densities ranging from pf pf,atm to pt.max.
which corresponds to the selected value of maximum operating pressure. Rizk [7]
proposed an alternative approach by correlating the pressure minimum curve
(defining the transition between the dilute- and dense-phase regimes) and
suggesting the relationship
m* = _J__ Frx = Ki Fr* (7.45)
10<
where the exponents co and % are dependent on the equivalent particle diameter of
the product and the pipe material (for bulk solids with an approximately constant
value of p s ). In fact, Rizk [7] demonstrated that for three different sizes of polystyrol
(d = 1 to 2.5 m m ) conveyed through four different pipe diameters (D = 50 to 400
m m ) , the resulting pressure minimum curves could be correlated by the equation m*
= Ki Fr 4 to an accuracy of 15 %. This could be applied to the design of a steppeddiameter pipeline by assuming Fr m j n the Froude number given in Equation (7.45).
Note this will give a conservative result, as for most materials the onset of solids
deposition or flow instability occurs at a critical or minimum Froude number which is
less than the pressure-minimum value (i.e. Fr in Equation (7.45)). Also, again it is
believed that such a relationship should be modified to allow for air density. At this
stage, therefore, it is suggested that in order to determine an accurate expression
f
material(s)
or Fr (e.g.
in question
similar toand
Equation
for the (7.39)),
expectedexperiments
range of airshould
densities.
be carried
Once obtaining
out on thea
162
complete set of data, it then is possible to evaluate the various approaches
described above and determine the best relationship between Fr m j n , m* and pf.
As far as Item (b) in Section 7.4.2 is concerned, Marcus and Bettman [6]
recommended simply that an increase in pipe diameter should occur when Fr
reaches a selected maximum (i.e. Fr m a x ) and also suggested that F r m a x is a function
of the energy utilisation and the required levels of product degradation or damage.
It is believed that
erosion of the bends and pipeline also should be considered in the selection
of Frmax,
increasing the length of a particular section of pipe (i.e. increasing ALj for a
given Dj in the direction of flow) to ensure Fr = F r m a x is not necessary and in
fact, could hamper the ultimate objective of minimising pressure drop,
F r m a x should be used mainly as a guide to ensure Fr m j n < Fr < F r m a x (i.e. for
any section of pipeline).
7.4.3 Test-design procedure
Using generalised correlations for the determination of solids friction factor Xs
the equation [45]
ft} = (Xf + m*U^ (7.46)
where Xf is the air-only friction factor, certainly avoids the use of extensive t
For example, refer to W e b e r [69]. However, with typical m e a n linear deviations
ranging between 30 and 40 %, it is believed that the resulting degree of uncertainty
would be too great for long-distance applications, especially when the operating
pressures are in excess of 300 kPag. Also, the more recent predictions of
Chambers and Marcus [70] to within a factor of 2 are considered too inaccurate for
this application. Hence, as suggested in Section 7.4.2, sufficient experiments
should be carried out to determine an accurate relationship between Fr, m* and Xs.
For this purpose, the following test-design procedure is recommended. Note, to
demonstrate this procedure, results from recent investigations into the long-distance
pneumatic conveying of pulverised brown coal (median particle diameter dV50 = 21
[im, p s = 1500 kg rrr3, loose-poured bulk density pbi = 515 kg nr 3 ) are presented
where appropriate.
(i) For a wide range of mf, ms and pf, record the pressure drop Apj and upstream
static gauge pressure for a test section of pipeline (of diameter Dj), which
should have a length of ALj 10 to 20 m. Note the test section should be
located along a straight section of pipe and sufficiently distant from any bend
effects. T o minimise the total number of experiments it m a y be convenient to
use two test sections, one at the beginning of the pipeline and the other
towards the end. Note, the latter could be installed in a larger size of pipe (i.e.
using a stepped-diameter test rig pipeline) to establish/verify the variation of Xs
with respect to D. Also, it is suggested to monitor and develop a correlation for
the pressure drop caused by a bend. A s demonstrated by Bradley [72], this
163
ALi
(m)
No. of Bends
D|
(m)
4
3
2
1
.060
.069
.081
.105
146.0
390.0
261.0
150.0
3
13
8
5
Pipe No.
Table 7.3
Nb
Note that at the time of undertaking the test program on the pulverised brown
coal, the preferred method of pressure drop measurement described above
had not been installed. Instead, three to five single pressure tappings points
were used along selected sections of straight pipe for each of the different
diameters listed in Table 7.3. T o determine the required values of pressure
gradient, lines of best fit were drawn through each set of data. For the nine
experiments which were data-logged, the effect of the bends on pressure drop
w a s found largely to be insignificant (possibly due to the relatively few number
of bends with respect to each ALj and also the effective length [9] of each bend
being included in ALj). Examples of the pressure gradients which were
obtained for the Dj = 0.060 m pipe (two test sections) are presented in Figure
7.10. Therefore, it was decided for each experiment to calculate the pressure
drop caused by each Dj and hence, obtain an average pressure gradient.
Also, this technique was found to minimise s o m e of the experimental scatter.
The overall operating conditions obtained from each experiment as well as the
various values of Apj (for i = 1 to 4) are summarised in Table 7.4.
164
m*
mf
ms
NO. (kg S'1) (kg s"1) (kg kg-1)
AP4
AP3
Ap 2
AP1
Apt
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
91
96
72
76
75
76
76
85
110
165
175
147
143
150
138
145
166
209
81
91
73
72
72
69
72
97
108
29
32
25
27
28
23
27
32
38
366
394
317
318
325
306
320
380
465
Exp.
0
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
20.83
23.15
15.00
21.67
24.60
13.36
7.94
8.95
14.70
13
Table 7.4 Steady-state operating conditions for the 947 m Test Rig E1 pipeline.
500
60
400 U
CO
CO
CU
u
P-,
Vi
H
<J
CU
300 -
C
H
H
CU
O.
H
PM
200
50
100
150
Figure 7.10 Examples of air pressure drop for the Dj = 0.060 m section of pipe,
showing the vertex location of the three 1 m radius x 90 bends.
165
(ii) Using the data obtained from each experiment, the following calculations are
performed. A summary of the results are presented in Appendix D.
Pfm (Pa abs) = Mean absolute air pressure of test section =
f1 + f2
2
Pfm
pfm (kg m - 3 ) = M e a n air density = ==
H\
Pfi (Pa abs) = Absolute air pressure at upstream end of test section.
Pf2 (Pa abs) = Absolute air pressure at downstream end of test section.
4 mf
71 pfm D2
Vfm
Fr m = Mean Froude number =
VgDi
2DjAp
X\ = Overall friction factor for test section =
pfm V f m AL,
1.85
1141.83 rry-^AL,
Apf (Pa) = Air only component of pressure drop [53] =
Pfi Dj5
2 Dj Apf
Xf = Air only friction factor =
Pfm Vf m2 ALj
X[ Xf
7
Xs = Solids friction factor =
m
(iii) The values of Xs then are plotted against Fr m , as shown in Figure 7.11. Note
the actual value of m * for each A,s and F r m has been included on this plot with
the decimal point representing its actual location . It can be seen from Figure
7.11 that due to the large amount of scatter, it is difficult to establish a
relationship between Xs and F r m (i.e. for any given value of m*). Although a
correlation could be fitted statistically to these data, it is believed that the
resulting errors would be too great for the design of long-distance pipelines.
The results presented previously in Section 7.4.1 indicated that this type of
scatter w a s caused largely by not including air density in the relationship
between Xs and Fr m .
166
025
14-6
020
21-7
.015
IS'O
/34
20-6
7*9
24-6
24-6 23-2
2+*
.010
21-7
2/7
9-0
2I7
("0
20-8
2og
)3-+
(4-7
23-2
23-2
20-tf
23-2
9-0
7-9
79
9-o
/4*7
005
7-9
9-0
1
15
10
/47
J
20
Fr_
m
Figure 7.11
167
(iv) T o generalise the relationship between Xs and Fr m (i.e. in terms of pf m and m*),
values of Xs are plotted initially against X = F r m (p f m ) e for different values of e
(e.g. refer to Figure 7.12), and then modified using Y = Xs (m*)f. After
determining the best values for exponents e and f, X and Y are replotted on
log-log scales, as shown in Figure 7.13, which includes the following line-ofbest-fit for the pulverised brown coal.
Y = 1.8076 X-1-423
(747)
where X = Frm (pfm)0-2 and Y = Xs (m*)-5. From Equation (7.47), the following
expression w a s obtained for Xs.
Xs = 1.8076 (m*)-0-5 (Frm)-1 -423 (pfm)'0-2846 (7.48)
(v) To evaluate the accuracy of Equation (7.48), predicted values of Xs are plott
against the experimental values, as shown in Figure 7.14. It can be seen that
for the pulverised coal, Equation (7.48) predicts Xs well within 10 %. Also, a
good comparison can be seen in Figure 7.12 between the actual values of m*
and the curves predicted from Equation (7.48). Noting that the experimental
data were obtained from four different diameters of pipe section and also
would be subjected to a certain degree of scatter (i.e. due to the tests being
undertaken over a total distance of 947 m ) , this is considered to be a good
result. Also, this indicates that the s a m e correlation (i.e. Equation (7.47)) would
have been obtained if only one pipe section had been monitored and
analysed (i.e. 0.060, 0.069, 0.081 or 0.105 m ) . However, as operating
pressures of the test section must approach the m a x i m u m value suggested for
the actual plant, either the 0.060 m or 0.069 m sections of pipe would have
been preferred.
A computer program also was written to predict values of Apt for the test rig
pipeline (using the operating conditions listed in Table 7.5). Note that the
calculation procedure c o m m e n c e s at the end of the pipeline (where Pf2 =
101000 P a abs and T = 293.15 K are assumed) and then involves iteration for
each different diameter section of pipe. The corresponding predicted values of
total pipeline air pressure drop have been included in Table 7.5.
(vi) Plotting the predicted operating conditions listed in Table 7.5 and
superimposing the experimental data given in Table 7.4, results in the pipeline
conveying characteristics for the pulverised coal, as shown in Figure 7.15. This
graph demonstrates further the good accuracy of Equation (7.48) and the
design/analysis technique. To determine the amount of relative error, values of
Apt also were predicted for the experimental values of mf and m s listed in
Table 7.4 and have been summarised in Table 7.6.
168
.020
015
.010
.005
Fr
0-2
m 'fm
169
200
~i
.100
Y = 1.8076 X-1'1*23
.080
.060
.040
020
010
-i
i_
10
'
'
'
20
30
170
.01
.02
Xg (Experiment)
m s (kg s*1)
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
mf (kg s-1)
.10
.15
.20
.10
.15
.20
.10
.15
.20
388.1
425.4
464.4
319.7
357.1
397.1
234.7
273.2
314.8
I
i
Table 7.5 Predicted values of pressure drop for the test rig pipeline,
based on Equation (7.48).
171
(kg s-i)
2
400
Apt
(kPa)
200
0
mf (kg s_I)
0.1
0.2
0.3
No.
(kg s- )
(kg s-1)
Exp. Apt
(kPa)
0
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
2.50
2.94
1,80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
366.0
394.0
317.0
318.0
325.0
306.0
320.0
380.0
465.0
Exp.
Table 7.6
mt
1
Predicted
Apt (kPa)
Error
370.0
404.2
319.0
322.8
320.7
312.6
336.2
381.4
460.7
+1.1
+2.6
+0.6
+1.5
-1.3
+2.2
+5.1
+0.4
-0.9
(%)
j
I
172
From these results, it can be seen that the largest difference in pressure drop is
16.2 kPa, which represents a percentage error of +5.1 %. This is considered
very accurate for a long-distance stepped-diameter pipeline. However, it
should be noted that the test rig bends are included in the correlation
presented in Equation (7.48). Hence, it is believed that any predictions for
pipelines containing a relatively smaller number of bends will be conservative.
Further experiments and detailed investigations are required before an
accurate correlation for bends can be developed and at this stage are
considered beyond the present aims of this section.
(vii) To determine for a proposed length of pipeline, the optimal number and
location of pipeline transitions (i.e. stepped diameters), the minimum Froude
number (Frmin) approach, as defined by Equation (7.39), is suggested. Refer to
Section 7.4.2.1. Unfortunately, insufficient data were generated during the
initial test program on pulverised coal to determine accurate values for z and i).
Nevertheless, to demonstrate the principles of this approach and also the
advantages of stepping pipelines (i.e. in relation to using a single-diameter
pipeline), Frmin 6 is used to optimise the design of a hypothetical 1.8 k m
pipeline, which is required to transport the pulverised brown coal at a
continuous rate of 24 t rr1. Due to this substantial conveying rate (and hence,
relatively high operating pressure), a tandem blow tank system is suggested.
Also, for long term reliability of the hardware and components, a 400 kPag
m a x i m u m operating pressure is suggested (i.e. Apt < 400 kPa).
(viii) Using the same computer program referred to in (v) and adjusting the variou
lengths of selected diameter sections to maintain Frmin ~ 6.0, results in the
prediction of operating conditions for five different pipeline configurations (D =
.127/.154 m, .127/.154/.203 m, .154/.203 m, .154 m and .203 m ) . The final
results are presented in Table 7.7.
ms
AL,
(m)
(m)
.154
.127
1140
660
.203
.154
.127
.203
.154
475
710
615
880
920
m*
mf
Ap|
1
(kg s* )(kg s- ) (kg kg-1) (kPa)
1
Fr2
Ap t
(kPa)
Vfi
(m s'1)
FM
505
7.4
6.7
6.0
6.0
27.3
10.8
22.2
9.7
8.4
7.3
6.6
6.0
6.0
6.0
14.2
14.6
10.8
10.0
11.9
9.7
(-)
Vf 2
(m s"1)
(-)
6.7
.61
11.0
6.7
.55
12.2
6.7
.78
8.6
137
240
377
8.5
7.4
6.0
6.0
20.1
14.8
14.2
12.0
273
232
69
169
211
449
.154
1800
6.7
.95
7.1
479
479
7.4
6.0
42.5
34.6
.203
1800
6.7
1.37
4.9
319
319
8.5
6.0
35.3
25.0
Table 7.7
173
In relation to minimising air pressure, velocity and the total amount of air
required, the advantages of selecting a stepped pipeline (i.e. instead of a
single-diameter) can be seen from the results presented in Table 7.7.
Note that the above predicted values of Ap, (and hence Apt) are considered
conservative for the following two reasons.
(i) The effect of bends were included in the pressure drop data, which
were used to generate the correlation represented by Equation
(7.48).
(ii) It is believed that Frmin (and hence, Vfimin as well as mf) can be
reduced for higher operating pressures' (i.e. towards the start of
each pipeline section). Refer to Section 7.4.2.1.
174
CHAPTER 8
175
8.
CONCLUSIONS
While some progress has been made during the last decade in the understanding
of pneumatic transportation, the technology that is required to design or select
industrial pneumatic conveyors with complete confidence is somewhat limited. The
primary objective of this thesis is to provide industry with s o m e of this technology in
relation to the pneumatic transportation of fine powders (e.g. pulverised coal, fly
ash, P V C powder) and s o m e coarser products (e.g. crushed bath, bone char,
screened coke). T h e work undertaken considers the main areas of determining
pipeline conveying characteristics, evaluating various types of conveying m o d e and
blow tank configuration, developing powder characterisation techniques and
formulating mathematical models to predict s o m e of the more important design
parameters.
Pipeline conveying characteristics and the transient plots of major conveying
parameters demonstrate the large differences that can occur in the flow
performance and the minimum transport behaviour of bulk solids. Pilot-plant testing
is essential for reliable design, where it is necessary to be aware of any operational
problems resulting from unusual material properties (e.g. strong plugging).
A standardised-test procedure comprising three different types of experiment is
developed to generate data efficiently for the presentation of pipeline conveying
characteristics and also delineate any unstable or unreliable transport phenomena.
The application of this procedure to different materials on the one test rig provides
an accurate m e a n s of comparing their relative performance in a pneumatic
conveying system (e.g. dense-phase). Also, in conjuction with accurate scale-up
equations or solids friction factor correlations, the technique provides a basis for the
future design of pneumatic conveying systems.
The pipeline conveying characteristics and the transient plots of the major
conveying parameters demonstrate the wide range rangeability of conveying
parameters and hence, good dense-phase performance of pulverised coal and fly
ash. However, other results from slightly coarser materials (e.g. P V C powder,
screened coke and coarse ash) emphasise the large differences that can occur in
flow performance and minimum transport (dense-phase) behaviour (e.g. unstable
plugging in the vicinty of saltation).
The introduction of supplementary conveying-air at the blow tank outlet provides
smoothing effect upon conveying parameters. This result is particularly important if
lower values of conveying pressure or air flow rate are required or if longer
transport distances are desired. Additional results from the fly ash test program
emphasise the importance of considering material properties w h e n selecting an
appropriate blow tank configuration and an efficient method of air injection (for the
dual purpose of fluidisation and pressurisation).
The transient plots of major conveying parameters demonstrate the importance of
blow tank air injection on the overall performance of a plug-phase pneumatic
conveying system. Although this method of transport is able to handle a wide range
of conventionally difficult dense-phase materials (e.g. crushed bath, screened
coke), it is relatively sensitive to changes in the physical properties of a material
(e.g. particle size). However, to s o m e extent, it is possible to compensate for such
changes by selecting a different method of air injection.
176
Experimental results from fly ash/cement mix and P V C powder indicate the
inadequacy of the original scale-up criteria, which were employed initially to design
pneumatic conveying systems. Improved design equations are derived from these
results and modified to allow for the relatively longer lengths of vertical that are
used usually in industry. The scale-up of the air-only component of pressure drop is
an equally important design consideration (especially for long-distance
applications). Accurate equations are developed, and their predictions compare
favourably with 27 data points from 7 different configurations of pipeline (including a
940 m long stepped-diameter pipeline). A technique to generalise pipeline
conveying characteristics also is proposed and simplifies scale-up procedures for
design.
Despite certain limitations (e.g. particle size distribution), the Geldart [24] an
[23] classifications generally provide a useful technique to indicate the fluidisation
performance of bulk solids (important for efficient transportation and blow tank
operation) and assessing a material's suitability to be conveyed in the dense-phase
mode. However, although such information is important for design, it still only
provides a qualitative evaluation of the material.
The results from an approximate analytical model to represent the governing
differential equations of a converging flow channel seem to underestimate the rate
of solids discharging from the outlet of a blow tank (i.e. for a given pressure drop
across the material). A thorough assessment of the mathematical mode! still is
required and depends on the accurate measurement of the relevant variables, such
as pressure and velocity inside the blow tank.
After several changes and improvements, the predictions of solids discharge rate
from the latest version of a numerical model to predict blow tank characteristics
seem to be more realistic (i.e. w h e n compared with the analytical model). Five
pipeline theories also are evaluated with one being recommended for predicting
pressure drop in the dense-phase pneumatic transportation of fine powders. A
worked example is presented and the results compare favourably with data
obtained from the initial test program on pulverised coal.
Generalising solids friction factor correlations for the prediction of pressure dr
avoids the need of extensive test work. However, the applicability of such
correlations to industry is limited, especially when good accuracy is required (e.g.
for long-distance and/or large throughput conveying). The results from preliminary
investigations into identifying possible areas of improvement indicate that mean air
density should be included in the correlation analysis.
Stepped-diameter pipelines provide definite advantages for long-distance and
large-throughput pneumatic conveying, but also could be applied to short-distance
applications involving heavy, coarse and/or abrasive materials. Based on existing
criteria and the results of this thesis, a combined test-design procedure is proposed
and demonstrated for the ultimate objective of obtaining an optimal configuration of
pipeline. Results from recent investigations into the long-distance pneumatic
conveying of pulverised brown coal, demonstrate the applicability and good
accuracy of this test-design procedure by predicting to within 5 % the operating
conditions obtained from a 947 m x 60/69/81/105 m m I.D. stepped pipeline.
177
These results demonstrate further that the s a m e correlation and predictions could
have been obtained using only one size of pipe. This also indicates that
experimental work in the future only m a y need to be carried out on a short-distance
pipeline (i.e. to predict operating conditions for long-distance and/or largethroughput applications). However, operating pressures in the test rig still are
required to approach those expected for the actual or proposed system. Perhaps
this could be achieved by replacing the test rig receiving silo with a pressure vessel
having good back-pressure and flow rate control. Various configurations of pipeline
are optimised (based on a simplified minimum Froude number approach) for a
hypothetical application requiring 24 t h"1 of pulverised coal over a total distance of
1800 m and demonstrate the advantages of selecting a stepped-diameter pipeline,
in terms of minimising pressure, velocity and air flow requirements.
8.1 Further Work
Although the results obtained in this thesis have contributed significantly to
predicting and understanding the pneumatic transportation of bulk solids, the
following areas of investigation still require immediate attention.
(a) The equipment and test procedures that are used to measure the
permeability (fluidisation) and deaeration characteristics of products
need to be developed and standardised for the formulation of a unified
classification technique (i.e. to evaluate the dense-phase suitability of
bulk solids). Numerous experiments (as well as pneumatic conveying
tests) should be carried out on a wide range of materials having narrow
and wide particle size distributions. These investigations also should be
extended to encompass the different possible m o d e s of dense-phase
conveying (e.g. by-pass pipelines, plug-phase, pulse-phase) and include
an evaluation of
the relevance of mean (or median) particle diameter and size
distribution to the prediction of fluidisation behaviour and
slugging (dense-phase) performance,
other possible influential factors or variables (e.g. ratio of
tapped to poured bulk density [43]) that m a y assist in the
classification of fine or cohesive powders (e.g. [25]).
(b) Despite the developments made in improving the accuracy of the scaleup equations presented in Chapter 6, it is believed that the application of
this macro or systems approach to design still is somewhat limited (e.g.
approximations are used to allow for vertical lifts and bends). The
correlation results presented in Section 7.4.3, indicate that a micro or
components
approach m a y be more useful and accurate in predicting
pipeline operating conditions (even for large values of L and D ) . To
evaluate the general applicability of this approach to design, the
procedure proposed in Section 7.4.3 should be employed to examine a
wide range of materials (e.g. fine powders and coarse products). These
investigations also should include
178
a test program to identify the relevant variables that affect and
define minimum transport behaviour (e.g. air density, minimum
Froude number, mass flow ratio),
the introduction of additional instrumentation to monitor the
pressure drop caused by bends,
an evaluation of undertaking the necessary experiments on
only a small-scale testrig(i.e. replacing the receiving silo with
a certified pressure vessel to generate high operating
pressures and simulate long-distance conveying),
the development of accurate empirical correlations that will
allow each component of a pipeline (e.g. bends, straight pipe
sections, vertical lifts) to be analysed,
the development of computer software to optimise the
correlations for solids friction factor and bend pressure loss.
These correlations may then be used in the development of an
analysis package to predict with confidence the operating
conditions for a given material and different configurations of
pipeline (including long-distance, stepped-diameter pipelines).
(c) After a wide range of materials have been investigated in (b) above, it
then will possible to conduct investigations into generalising correlations
for solids friction factor and bend pressure loss. T h e importance of
particle size distribution and a representative diameter also will need to
be investigated for this purpose (e.g. refer to Werner [29]).
With the results presented in this thesis, together with those obtained from the
above investigations, it then m a y be possible to predict with confidence and good
reliability the most suitable m o d e of conveying and the pneumatic conveying
performance for any material and configuration of pipeline (i.e. based on benchtype experiments and perhaps only a small-scale test rig).
179
CHAPTER 9
180
REFERENCES
181
12. Mason, J. S., D. Mills, A. R. Reed and C. R. Woodcock. Introduction to
pneumatic conveying. Powder Europa 80, Industrial Awareness Seminar
Lecture Notes, Seminar D. Organised by the International Powder Institute,
London, England, January, 1980, pp. 1-57.
13. Duckworth, R. A. Introduction to pneumatic conveying. Pneumatic
Conveying of Solids, Chapter 1, L.S. Leung (Editor). Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia, 1977.
16. Wypych, P. W. and P. C. Arnold. The use of powder and pipe properties i
prediction of dense-phase pneumatic transport behaviour. Pneumatech 2,
Int. Conf. on Pneumatic Conveying Technology, University of Kent,
Canterbury, England, 4-6 September, 1984. Organised by the Powder
Advisory Centre, London, England. Proc. of the Technical Program, pp. 340355.
17. Konrad, K., D. Harrison, R. M. Nedderman and J. F. Davidson. Prediction
pressure drop for horizontal dense-phase pneumatic conveying of particles.
Pneumotransport 5, Int. Conf. on the Pneumatic Transport of Solids in
Pipes, London, England, 16-18 April, 1980, Paper A3.
18. Wirth, K.-E. and O. Molerus. Prediction of pressure drop with pneumatic
conveying of solids in horizontal pipes. Pneumatech 1, Int. Conf. on
Pneumatic Conveying Technology, Stratford-Upon-Avon, England, 3-5 May,
1982. Organised by the Powder Advisory Centre, London, England. Proc. of
the Technical Program, Session 5, pp. 1-14.
19. Zenz, F. A. and P. N. Rowe. Particle conveying in extrusion flow. Fluidi
Technology, Volume 2, Series in Thermal and Fluids Engineering, D.L.
Keairns (Editor). Proceedings of the Inf. Fluidisation Conf. held at Asilomar
Conference Grounds, Pacific Grove, California, U.S.A., 15-20 June, 1975, pp.
151-158.
20. Zenz, F. A. Minimum velocity for catalyst flow. Petroleum Refiner, Vol.
No. 6, 1957, pp. 133-142.
182
22. Lohrmann, P. C. and R. D. Marcus. The performance of a bottom-discharge
blow vessel pneumatically conveying three Group A materials. Bulk Solids
Handling, Vol. 4, No. 2, June, 1984, pp. 409-412.
23. Dixon, G. Pneumatic Conveying. Plastics Pneumatic Conveying and
Bulk Storage, Chapter 2. Applied Science Publishers, London, 1981.
34. Leva, M. Fluidisation. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, U.S.A., 19
183
36. Molerus, O. interpretation of Geldart's type A, B, C and D powders by taking
into account interparticle cohesion forces. Powder Technoloav Vol 33
ay
1982, pp. 81-87.
'
43. Jones, M. G., D. Mills and J. S. Mason. Pneumatic conveying of high bul
density products. Pneumatech 3, Int. Conf. on Pneumatic Conveying
Technology, Jersey, Channel Islands, England, 24-26 March, 1987. Organised
by the Powder Advisory Centre, London, England. Proc. of the Technical
Program, pp. 371-396.
44. Barth, W. Stromungsvorgange beim Transport von Festteilchen und
Flussigkeitsteilchen in Gasen (In German). Chemie-lngenieur-Technik,
Vol. 30, No. 3, 1958, pp. 171-180.
184
48. Mills, D., J. S. Mason and V. K. Agarwal. An analysis of the dilute-phase
pneumatic conveying of sand. Pneumatech 2, Int. Conf. on Pneumatic
Conveying Technology, University of Kent, Canterbury, England, 4-6
September, 1984. Organised by the Powder Advisory Centre, London,
England. Proc. of the Technical Program, pp. 258-278.
49. Mills, D. and J. S. Mason. The influence of bend geometry on pressure
pneumatic conveying system pipelines. 10th Annual Powder and Bulk
Solids Conference, Rosemont, Illinois, 7-9 May, 1985. Proc. of the
Technical Program, pp. 203-214.
58. Marcus, R. D. Pneumatic conveying of bulk solids. Notes for Short Cour
on Pneumatic Conveying of Bulk Solids, T U N R A Bulk Solids Handling
Research Associates, University of Newcastle, N.S.W., Australia, 1983.
60. Chari, S. S. Pressure drop in horizontal dense-phase conveying of airmixtures. A l C h E S y m p o s i u m Series-Fluidisation, Vol. 67, No. 116,
1970, pp. 77-84.
185
61. McLean, A.G. Flow Rate of Simple Bulk Solids from Mass Flow Bins. P h D
Thesis, Dept. of Mech. Eng., The University of Wollongong, 1979.
62. Enstad, G. On the theory of arching in mass flow hoppers. Chemical
Engineering Science, Vol. 30, 1975, pp. 1273-1283.
63. McLean, A. G. Blow tank design. Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 5, No. 1,
February, 1985, pp. 213-218.
64. Ergun, S. Fluid flow through packed columns. Chemical Engineering
Progress, Vol. 48, No. 2, 1952, pp. 89-94.
65. Fortier, A. Two-phase turbulent steady flow of air and solid particles
with high mass concentration in a pipe. Pneumotransport 3, Int. Conf. on
the Pneumatic Transport of Solids in Pipes, University of Bath, England, 7-9
April, 1976, Paper C2.
186
APPENDIX A
Compilation of Particle Size Data
(Samples 1 to 11, Table 5.1)
187
No.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0.0 - 4.7
4.7 - 6.6
6.6 - 9.4
9.4-13.0
13.0-19.0
19.0 - 27.0
27.0 - 38.0
38.0 - 53.0
53.0 - 75.0
75.0-106.0
106.0- 150.0
Average Size
dVi (nm)
2.35
5.65
8.00
11.20
16.00
23.00
32.50
45.50
64.00
90.50
128.00
Mass % in Range
AMj
6.0
5.1
6.1
7.2
9.7
12.4
14.3
15.7
12.3
7.4
3.8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
Average Size
dvi (nm)
Mass % in Range
AM;
3.0
5.5
8.5
8.0
9.0
9.0
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
26.0
26.0
16.0
6.0
No.
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0 - 200.0
200.0 - 300.0
Average Size
d V | (nm)
Mass % In Range
AMi
3.0
5.5
8.5
7.0
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
250.0
18.0
21.0
15.0
9.0
7.0
9.5
11.0
2.5
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
'8
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0 - 200.0
Average Size
d v | (nm)
M a s s % in Range
AMf
3.0
5.5
8.5
8.5
8.0
6.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
20.5
21.5
21.0
8.0
6.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0 - 20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
Average Size
dvi (nm)
5.5
8.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
M a s s % In Range
AM]
14.0
15.0
24.0
23.5
16.5
5.5
1.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0 -10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
Average Size
dVi (nm)
3.0
5.5
8.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
M a s s % In Range
AMj
12.0
13.0
10.0
19.0
22.0
16.0
7.0
1.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
Average Size
d V | (nm)
3.0
5.5
8.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
M a s s % In Range
AM]
16.0
17.0
13.0
25.0
19.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
Average Size
dvi (nm)
3.0
5.5
8.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
M a s s % In Range
AMj
17.0
16.0
10.0
15.5
15.5
14.0
7.5
4.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
40.0 - 75.0
75.0-100.0
100.0-130.0
130.0- 150.0
150.0-200.0
200.0 - 300.0
300.0 - 420.0
Average Size
dpi (nm)
57.5
87.5
115.5
140.0
175.0
250.0
360.0
M a s s % in Range
AMj
4.0
7.0
29.0
26.0
20.0
12.0
2.0
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
60.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
200.0 - 300.0
300.0 - 400.0
400.0 - 500.0
500.0 - 600.0
600.0 - 700.0
700.0 - 800.0
800.0 - 900.0
900.0-1000.0
1000.0 - 1200.0
1200.0 - 1500.0
Average Size
dpi (nm)
80.0
150.0
250.0
350.0
450.0
550.0
650.0
750.0
850.0
950.0
1100.0
1350.0
Mass % in Range
AMj
3.2
12.1
13.4
13.2
11.3
6.8
11.1
6.6
6.4
5.1
8.1
2.7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.0-5.8
5.8 - 7.2
7.2-9.0
9.0-11.4
11.4- 14.5
14.5 - 18.5
18.5-23.7
23.7 - 30.3
30.3 - 39.0
39.0 - 50.2
50.2 - 64.6
64.6 - 84.3
84.3- 112.8
112.8- 160.4
160.4-261.7
261.7-564.0
Average Size
dvi (nm)
2.90
6.50
8.10
10.20
12.95
16.50
21.10
27.00
34.65
44.60
57.40
74.45
98.55
136.10
211.05
412.85
Mass % in Range
AMj
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.4
1.1
1.3
4.1
7.4
7.2
14.5
20.1
20.2
15.1
5.6
191
APPENDIX B
Modified Slugging Diagrams
based on Dixon [23,39] and Clift et al. [41]
192
E
E
C\J
LO
co
E
CO
CD
*>
CD
E
Q
CD
v_
co
~ E
o>B
ZJ
co
CO
11
CD
c
o eg
c_
o
Q_
c
10
CD
CD
OJ Q.
X
o
O
E
CD
m
CD
* eouejej.^jg fiq.|sueg
193
LO
ca
+
ca
M i l i r
I I I If
E
E
CO
l">-
CO
1_
ca
ca
E
CO
i_
c
_
CD
-e>
CD
CD
D)
CO
T3
CT
-E
=3 CO
CO
ca
ca
:
co
~~*
' CD
g!
-p
CD
^ QCD -
c_
o
CJJ
c
o
in
ca
ea
+
ea
I I I.
ea
ea
ea
le-1" 6 ^* d-*d
h-
<B
>3
D)
C_3
CD
-C
m
Li.
Q.
ZD
O
Cd
CD
l l l l l
^= T3
O
CM
5E
n_
CD
ca
ca
ea
eoueje^jfj fi*|suefj
CD
2~
o
cc
194
E
E
CM
O
CO
ECO
t_
c_
CD
*>
CD
F
IO
C2
CD
c_
0
Q_
c0
CD
2 1
CO
o
D)
C
D)
D)
CO
, ,
CO
CO
c
oX
a-o
CD
*+
"a
Eo
CD
x:
Fco
m
CD
i_
3
D)
LL
eouejejjjQ
fi^jsueg
195
ca
ca
E
E
<*
LO
CO
F
rrt
ea
pa
ea
'
i_
D)
CO
T3
CD
D)
-fr>
CD
D)
E
0
CD
co
,.,
CO
o
-*>
c
0
Q_
c
0
CD
*+
T3
O
E
CD
-C
h-
CD
a
tt
CD
i_
3
cn
(e- w
l)
^d-Bd
* eoue je^j. j Q f H i s u e Q
196
LO
ca
ea
+
ea
E
E
co
o
CM
CO
E
"-*
c
CD
._>
CD
E
0
_
a
CD
a
.+>
a
ca
ea
c
0
0_
c
0
CD
E
O ) CD
.5 >>
co co
1 I
2,o
c E
o.BHC
=D Q.
o
ED
C
rLO
CD
CD
3
cn
ii
ea
ea
ca
UJ 6^) d-sd
* eoueje^j.jg
fHjsueg
>
CO CD
Dixo
e dia
ea
ea
ea
CO
D)
CO
197
APPENDIX C
Compilation of Operating Conditions for Correlation Analysis
(Samples 1 to 11, 12 and 13, Table 7.2)
Test Rig
A1
A3
mf (kg s"1)
m s (kg s-1)
Apt (kPa)
.0068
.0123
.0115
.0109
2.62
3.99
4.47
4.50
75
87
95
95
.0105
.0105
1.41
1.47
110
115
mt (kg s-1)
Test Rig
.018
.030
.040
.050
.016
.026
.036
.044
.014
.024
.038
B1
m s (kg s'1)
Apt (kPa)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
66
65
67
74
110
109
110
116
155
154
157
Test Rig
B1
mf (kg s'1)
m s (kg s*1)
Apt (kPa)
.010
.020
.036
.050
.016
.028
.042
.056
.022
.028
.036
.044
.050
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
61
56
60
75
102
94
100
120
140
135
134
141
149
Test Rig
mf (kg s_1)
m s (kg s"1)
Apt (kPa)
B1
.009
.020
.032
.042
.014
.022
.034
.046
.014
.030
.040
.049
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
70
60
60
68
113
103
100
110
152
135
140
162
200
Test Rig
B1
mf (kg s"1)
m s (kg s*1)
(kPa)
48
40
46
72
109
98
111
127
160
145
145
166
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
.008
.020
.040
.068
.017
.040
.056
.068
.023
.036
.052
.068
Apt
Test Rig
B1
C3
mf (kg s"1)
.020
.030
.045
.065
.023
.030
.045
.069
.025
.035
.055
.071
m s (kg s*1)
72
71
76
94
118
115
116
148
164
158
164
190
70
78
87
110
122
130
170
182
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
.200
.300
.400
.150
.300
.400
.300
.450
,
Ap t (kPa)
-.
Test Rig
mf (kg s'1)
m s (kg S"1)
Apt (kPa)
B1
.010
.030
.050
.070
.014
.030
.050
.070
.026
.040
.050
.062
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
45
45
57
76
105
93
102
130
150
136
141
156
Test Rig
B1
mf (kg s"1)
.020
.032
.048
.070
.024
.034
.048
.070
.026
.038
.056
.070
m s (kg s'1)
Apt (kPa)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
79
78
83
111
126
124
129
162
153
150
163
190
Test Rig
C1
C3
mf (kg s"1)
.035
.080
.120
.165
.045
.080
.120
.165
.055
.120
.165
.060
.090
.130
.065
.080
.100
.112
.300
.450
.134
.300
.450
.158
.300
.450
.184
.300
.450
m s (kg s'1)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Apt
(kPa)
108
108
122
156
170
172
188
226
222
246
304
270
280
320
310
316
334
66
74
89
98
108
124
132
143
163
167
180
202
Table C.9 Steady-state operating conditions of fly ash/cement mix (Sample 12)
for Test Rigs C1 (L = 162 m & D = .060 m) and C 3 (l_= 162 m & D = .105 m).
Test Rig
-
mf (kg s_1)
1.389
m s (kg s_1)
13.89
Apt
(kPa)
350
APPENDIX D
Summary of Solids Friction Factor Calculations for Pulverised
Brown Coal (Test-Design Procedure, Section 7.4.3)
204
mf
Ap-,
ms
Pfm
Pfm
Frm
Vfm
(kg s-1) (kg s-1) (kPa) (kPag) (kg m-3) (m s"1) (-)
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94 !
29
32
25
27
28
23
27
32
38
Table D.1
14.5
16.0
12.5
13.5
14.0
11.5
13.5
16.0
19.0
1.372
1.390
1.349
1.360
1.366
1.337
1.360
1.390
1.426
10.098
10.550
10.276
8.149
7.353
10.800
15.280
16.615
16.200
9.950
10.395
10.125
8.030
7.245
10.641
15.055
16.371
15.962
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
81
91
73
72
72
69
72
97
108
Table D.2
(-)
.2901
.2895
.2458
.4184
.5306
.2065
.1190
.1167
.1422
Apf
(kPa)
2.043
2.218
2.108
1.373
1.136
2.310
4.393
5.138
4.916
Xf
Xs
(-)
(-)
.0204
.0201
.0207
.0213
.0215
.0207
.0194
.0187
.0184
.0129
.0116
.0150
.0183
.0207
.0139
.0125
.0109
.0084
ms
Frm
Ap2
mf
Pfm
Vfm
Pfm
3
(kg s-1) (kg s-1) (kPa) (kPag) (kg m- ) (m s-1) (-)
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
Xi
69.5
77.5
61.5
63.0
64.0
57.5
63.0
80.5
92.0
2.026
2.121
1.931
1.949
1.960
1.883
1.949
2.157
2.293
11.495
11.621
12.061
9.561
8.612
12.881
17.926
17.998
16.925
12.896
13.036
13.531
10.725
9.661
14.450
20.110
20.190
18.987
x2
Xf
A-s
(-)
Ap f
(kPa)
(-)
(-)
.1877
.1971
.1613
.2508
.3072
.1370
.0713
.0862
.1020
8.020
8.390
8.504
5.600
4.644
9.456
17.915
18.930
17.628
.0186
.0182
.0188
.0195
.0198
.0188
.0178
.0168
.0166
.0081
.0077
.0095
.0107
.0117
.0089
.0067
.0077
.0058
205
mf
ms
AP3
Pfm
Pfm
Vfm
(kg s-1) (kg s-1) (kPa) (kPag) (kg m-3) (m s-1)
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
165
175
147
143
150
138
145
166
209
Table D.3
192.5
210.5
171.5
170.5
175.0
161.0
171.5
212.0
250.5
3.487
3.701
3.238
3.226
3.279
3.113
3.238
3.719
4.176
9.203
9.177
9.912
7.959
7.095
10.739
14.868
14.382
12.807
Fr m
x3
(-)
(-)
Apf
(kPa)
11.185
11.154
12.047
9.673
8.624
13.052
18.071
17.481
15.566
.1975
.1985
.1634
.2475
.3213
.1359
.0716
.0763
.1079
15.000
15.697
16.299
10.881
8.863
18.374
34.609
36.641
31.820
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
ms
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
()
.0180
.0178
.0181
.0188
.0190
.0181
.0171
.0168
.0164
Xs
(")
.0086
.0078
.0097
.0106
.0123
.0088
.0069
.0066
.0062
Fr m
Ap4
Vfm
Pfm
Pfm
3
(kg s-1) (kg s-1) (kPa) (kPag) (kg m- ) (m s-1) (-)
mf
Xf
91
96
72
76
75
76
76
85
110
320.5
346.0
281.0
280.0
287.5
268.0
282.0
337.5
410.0
5,008
5.311
4.539
4.527
4.616
4.384
4.551
5.210
6.072
8.475
8.457
9.351
7.500
6.666
10.084
13.990
13.577
11.650
11.046
11.023
12.188
9.776
8.689
13.143
18.235
17.696
15.186
Xf
Xs
(-)
Ap f
(kPa)
(-)
(-)
.2078
.2076
.1490
.2451
.3003
.1400
.0701
.0727
.1096
9.092
9.526
10.158
6.706
5.498
11.251
21.353
22.712
19.301
,0208
.0206
.0210
.0216
.0220
.0207
.0197
.0194
.0192
.0090
.0081
.0085
.0103
.0113
.0089
.0063
.0060
.0061
X4
Table D.4 Solids friction factor calculations for pipe section No. 4
(D4 = 0.060 m & AL4 = 146.0 m).