You are on page 1of 34

Pipeline Flow of Settling Slurries

Presentation to Institution of Engineers Australia (Mechanical Branch)

Jeff Bremer - 23 rd April 2008

Overview and Aims


1. Explain physical laws underlying the behaviour of settling solids in slurry pipeline flow. 2. Compare theories associated with pipeline flow. Why are there so many? 3. Show where and how the theories disagree. 4. Present some preliminary results from recent work (J. Bremer, V.Lim & R.Gandhi )

??

QUESTIONS
1. Where and why are slurry pipelines used? 2. What is a settling slurry? 3. What are the main features in pipeline flow? 4. Engineers are good at using theoretical and empirical best fit theories. Whats the problem? 5. What are the underlying equations and physical phenomena? 6. What are the theories of pipeline flow? 7. What do we know that is right, and can we easilly confirm that we have the right answer? 8. Whats the latest, and where to in future?

Slurry Pipelines
Slurry pipelines are used mostly for short haul duties, e.g. dredging (~300m ), process plants (~300m) and tailings (~3 km) In some long haul duties, minerals are pumped many hundreds of kilometres.

Alumbrera copper concentrate pipeline (316 km), Argentina

ENGINEERED BY PSI
Photos with permission of PSI Australia Pty. Ltd., 66 Kings Park Rd.,West Perth, WA 6005,Tel. no. (08) 9463-6606.

Slurry Pipelines
Each type of duty has its own best operation point, where the size of the particles and the tendency to settle has a strong impact on capital and operating cost.

ENGINEERED BY PSI
Photos with permission of PSI Australia Pty. Ltd., 66 Kings Park Rd.,West Perth, WA 6005,Tel. no. (08) 9463-6606.

Settling Slurries

Non Settling Slurries contain particles that remain in suspension for a long time

Settling Slurries contain particles that will fall and settle at the bottom of a container

NON-SETTLING
Particles < 40 m Viscosity modified by particles Increasingly non-Newtonian as concentration increases

SETTLING
Particles > 40 m Wide range of sizes from Small (suspensions) 40 m Medium (transition) 200 m Large (heterogeneous) 2 mm Very Large (hetero ) 5 mm ~ 200 m ~ 2 mm ~ 5 mm ~ >200 mm?

Transport velocity must increase as size increases

Settling Slurries

SETTLING
Particles > 40 m Wide range of sizes from Small (suspensions) 40 m Medium (transition) 200 m Large (heterogeneous) 2 mm Very Large (hetero ) 5 mm ~ 200 m ~ 2 mm ~ 5 mm ~ >200 mm?

Transport velocity must increase as size increases

Settling Slurries

SETTLING
Particles > 40 m Wide range of sizes from Small (suspensions) 40 m Medium (transition) 200 m Large (heterogeneous) 2 mm Very Large (hetero ) 5 mm ~ 200 m ~ 2 mm ~ 5 mm ~ >200 mm?

Dead Donkeys?

Pipeline Flow of Newtonian Liquids


P HW = g
f L D
HW
f L D = = = = = =

L V2 = f D 2g
(m) (dimensionless) (m) (m) (m /s) (m/s)
2

Darcy-Weisbach equation
head loss due to friction friction factor length of pipe internal diameter of pipe accelaration due to gravity mean Flow velocity

g V

Moody Diagram
HeadLoss HW H1= 1 +
g P 2 v 2g

+z1

H2= 2 +
g

2 v 2g

+z1

PipeFlow

C.Y. OConnor Pipeline c.a. 1899

Features of Settling Slurry Pipeline Flow

Fixed Bed Fluidised Fluidised Bed Heterogeneous Heterogeneous Flow

Homogeneous Homogeneous Flow

1. Size does matter.


Larger particles require increased transport velocity Smaller particles (particularly fines <40 m) can modify viscosity. Helps to suspend larger particles.

Hydraulic gradient, i ( m/m )

V1

V2

V3 =Vdep

V4
Settling Slurry

2. Flow velocity generates turbulence which keeps particles suspended.

Water Carrier

Mean Velocity , V (m/s)

3. The system curve has a minimum that bounds different flow / friction processes

Newitts Classification of Slurry Pipeline Flow

Solids

Concentration

Newitt et al (1955) described a range of flow flow/deposition phenomena after observing sand and coal particles in 25mm Perspex pipes. His classifications are still used today.
Newitt, D. M., J. F. Richardson, M. Abbott, and R. B. Turtle. 1955. Hydraulic Conveying of Solids in Horizontal Pipes. Trans. Institution of Chemical Engineers 33: 94-113.

Frictional Head loss Mechanisms


HeadLoss,5mmgravel,Cv=10%,DN400Pipe
500

450

400

Frictional Head Loss due to solids - Hs

H M = HW + H S
Water Settling Slurry Deposition Point

350 ) r 300 e t a W m ( 250 s o L d a e 200 H 150

Since we understand the behaviour of water (the carrier) we can calculate the frictional head losses caused by wall friction - HW The remainder must be friction losses between (a) particles and fluid

100

Frictional Head Loss due to wall friction of carrier fluid with pipe- HW

50

0 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

FlowVelocity(m/s)

(b) particles and pipe wall (c) particle-particle collisions.

Durand Theory -1952

= 82.1.5

V 2 iM iW CD = 82. CV .iW gD S

1.5

Durand, R. 1952. The Hydraulic Transportation of Coal and Other Materials in Pipes. Colloq. of National Coal Board, London.

Durand Theory (contd)


HeadLoss, 5mmgravel,Cv=10%,DN400 Pipe
500

450 400 350 ) r e 300 t a W m ( 250 s o L d a e H 200 150 100 50

H M = HW + H S
Frictional Head Loss due to solids - Hs

1. Durands Theory is purely correlative. 2. The curve fit was for 305 points, for sand and coal running between 200 m and 25 mm.
Water Settling Slurry Deposition Point

3. The results are in Head of Carrier Fluid usually water. 4. As transport velocity becomes large, the slurry curve converges to water head loss from above.

Frictional Head Loss due to wall friction of carrier fluid with pipe- HW

0 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

FlowVelocity(m/s)

i M iW C V .iW

V 2 = 8 2. gD S

CD

1 .5

= 8 2 . 1 .5

Nothing proves that such a formula is rigorously exact. Doubtless exists a more accurate and more complex means of notation, but the one given above groups quite favourably

= H W (1 + C V . 8 2 . 1 .5 )

More Theories
(To name a Few)
Correlation

1. Durand 1952 2. Homogeneous Mixture Theory 3. Newitt et. Al - 1955 4. Rose and Duckworth 1969 5. Heyden and Stelson - 1971 6. Volcado and Charles 1972 7. Wasp et al - 1977 8. Lazarus Neilson 1978 9. Wilson - 1992 10. Wilson Addie & Clift 1997
In Current Use Not in Use

Correlation Correlation Correlation Part theory part correlation Correlation

No Problem Ive got a Computer


HeadLossat6.6m/s,5mmgravel,Cv=10%DN400Pipex1000m
800 700 600 ) 500 m ( s o L 400 d a e H 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

Lazarus Neilson WilsonAddieClift Durand Water

Answers Using commonly accepted theories can vary by several hundred percent AND MORE!

FlowVelocity(m/s)

Settling and Drag Forces on Particles

Depends on density , particle diameter, shape, Reynolds number and surface effects

Settling and Drag Forces on Particles

Particles > 150 m

Drag coefficient as a function of Reynolds number for smooth spheres and cylinders (Munson et al. 2002, 582)

Known correlations to correction CD based on shape effect Slip Velocity to Produce drag force FD

Settling and Drag Forces on Particles

Turbulent fluctuation of particle velocity in the direction of flow

Settling and Drag Forces on Particles


HeadLoss,5mm gravel,Cv=10%,DN400Pipe
500

450

400

350 ) r 300 e t a W m 250 ( s o L d a e 200 H 150

Solids concentration approaches input concentration Hs=constant


Frictional Head Loss due to solids - Hs
Water Settling Slurry Deposition Point

= H

+ H

H M = HW (1 + CV .82.1.5 )

Hs

HW
100 50

0 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Frictional Head Loss due to wall friction of carrier fluid with pipe- HW
14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 Flow Velocity(m/s)

P HW = g

L V2 = f D 2g

In the limit the slip velocity is roughly constant as the average velocity of particles in direction of flow equals approaches the velocity of the liquid i.e.Vsolid = Vliquid the homogeneous limit . In other words Hs << Hw In Durand Theory in the limit Hs zero

Comparison of Theories
H e a d Lo s s , 5 m m gra ve l,C v= 1 0 % , D N 4 0 0 P ip e x 1 0 0 0 m
800

700

600

500 ) m ( s o 400 L d a e H 300 L azar u s N e ilso n W ilso n A d d ie C lift D u r an d

200

100

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 F lo w V e lo cit y (m / s) 12 14 16 18 20

Location of The Deposition Velocity and Head Loss at Deposition is the Key to having an accurate Theory. Clearly the state of the art is not good

Comparison of Theories
Head Loss, 100m particle, Cv=10%, DN100 pipe x 1000m
500 450 400 ) 350 m ( 300 s s o l 250 d a 200 e H 150 100 50 0 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

Wilson Addie Clift Durand Lazarus Neilson Water

Velocity m/s

Agreement is less critical at 100 m

Wilson Addie and Clift Theory

Slope M

Determined in tests on 400 m sand. Pressure gradient = 0.5 x sliding fr friction factor

Lazarus Nielsen Theory (1978)


Lazarus Neilsen Theory is a correlation theory that claims to be more accurate than Durand and Newitts theories. They proposed that the mass flow rate ratio (M*), defined as the ratio of mass flow of solids to carrier fluid, should be used instead of the volumetric concentration (Cv)

Lazarus Nielsen Theory (contd)


They plotted friction factor fM for the mixture against the base friction factor fB to develop their final correlation.

Current Work Particle Drag & Deposition Head and Velocity


Collaborators : J. Bremer (SKM) , Vincent Lim (K.J. Beer), Ramesh Gandhi (PSI California)

Began by describing the equations of drag and pressure loss due to solids at the deposition point. Assumes : All particles fluidised at the minimum in the pressure gradient curve

Fixed Bed Fluidised Fluidise d Bed Heterogeneous Heterogeneou s Flow Homogeneous Homogeneou s Flow

Hydraulic gradient, i ( m/m )

V1

V2

V3 =Vdep

V4
Settling Slurry

Water Carrier

Mean Velocity , V (m/s)

Particle Drag and Deposition Velocity and Head Loss(contd)

Particle Drag and Deposition Velocity and Head Loss(contd)

Pesky mean path length constan

Particle Drag and Deposition Velocity and Head Loss(contd)


All terms in the final equation are rearranged to solve for the Slip velocity V

This is Measurable from experiment!

Particle Drag a Virtual Experiment Based on Durand Points

4 10 5

Particle Drag a Virtual Experiment Based on Durand Points


System Parameter Lower Carrier density () Carrier viscosity () Pipe diameter (D) Particle density (p) Particle size (d) Concentration volume (Cv) Pipe length (L) Pipe roughness 1,000 Smooth m by 1,000 0.0008 0.1 2,160 (40 m) 0.05 Value Range Upper 1,250 0.001 0.9 4,000 0.02 (20 mm) 0.4 kg/m3 Pa.s m kg/m3 m Unit

200 Virtual data points (deposition velocity, and pressure at the deposition point) obtained using Durand equation to

4 10 5

Virtual Experiment Results Deposition Velocity

Deposition Velocity Average Error 0.05 % -- Maximum Error 0.42 %

4 10 5

Virtual Experiment Results Head Loss at The Deposition Point

Head Loss

Average Error 0.55 % -- Maximum Error 1.8 %

4 10 5

Conclusions
1. Not all is well with the theory of slurry transport. 2. There is considerable disagreement amongst theories regarding 1. Deposition velocity 2. Head Loss at Deposition

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