You are on page 1of 39

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2009, 48, 8159–8171

8159

Hydrodynamic Simulation of Horizontal Slurry Pipeline Flow Using ANSYS-CFX
Kalekudithi Ekambara, R. Sean Sanders, K. Nandakumar,†,* and Jacob H. Masliyah
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, UniVersity of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G 2G6

The behavior of horizontal solid-liquid (slurry) pipeline flows was predicted using a transient three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model based on the kinetic theory of granular flows. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation results, obtained using a commercial CFD software package, ANSYS-CFX, were compared with a number of experimental data sets available in the literature. The simulations were carried out to investigate the effect of in situ solids volume concentration (8 to 45%), particle size (90 to 500 µm), mixture velocity (1.5 to 5.5 m/s), and pipe diameter (50 to 500 mm) on local, time-averaged solids concentration profiles, particle and liquid velocity profiles, and frictional pressure loss. Excellent agreement between the model predictions and the experimental data was obtained. The experimental and simulated results indicate that the particles are asymmetrically distributed in the vertical plane with the degree of asymmetry increasing with increasing particle size. Once the particles are sufficiently large, concentration profiles are dependent only on the in situ solids volume fraction. The present CFD model requires no experimentally determined slurry pipeline flow data for parameter tuning, and thus can be considered to be superior to commonly used, correlation-based empirical models.
1. Introduction Solid-liquid (slurry) transport has been used for decades in the long-distance transport of materials like coal, mineral ore concentrates, and tailings. Over the past 20 years, the oil sands industry of northern Alberta has become one of the world’s most intensive users of slurry transport. Dense, coarse particle slurries of oil sand ore are transported by pipeline from mining sites to extraction facilities. Pipeline transport is also used to carry waste tailings to the final disposal site. In most cases, slurry pipelines are more energy efficient and have lower operating and maintenance costs than any other bulk material handling methods. Additionally, operations involving slurry flow play a significant role in many other industries, including pharmaceutical manufacturing, nanofabrication, and oil refining. Most engineering models of slurry flow have focused on the ability to predict frictional pressure loss and minimum operating velocity (or “deposition velocity”) for coarse-particle, “settling” slurries. Many models of this type exist and have varying degrees of success in predicting the aforementioned parameters. As noted in the following section, many of these models are phenomenological, meaning that some empirically derived parameters or relationships are required. Additionally, these models tend to provide macroscopic parameters only, for example, frictional pressure drop, deposition velocity, and delivered solids volume fraction for a narrowly sized slurry. Many industrial slurries, however, contain a range of different particle sizes. The location and velocity of these particles at different positions in the flow will drastically affect the pipeline operation. Knowledge of the variation of these parameters with pipe position is crucial if the understanding of mesoscopic processes (e.g., pipeline wear, particle attrition, or agglomeration) is to be advanced. Additionally, analysis of more complex three- or four-phase flows will require models that provide local values of particle concentration and velocity. Finally, accurate predictions of concentration and velocity distributions in more complicated geometries (pumps, hydrocyclones, mixing tanks)
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: nkrishnaswamy@pi.ac.ae. Tel.: +972 2 607 5418. Fax: 780-492-2881. † GASCO Chair Professor, The Petroleum Institute, P.O. Box. 2533 Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.

will require the development and validation of mechanistic computational models. With the advent of increased computational capabilities, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is emerging as a very promising new tool in modeling hydrodynamics. While it is now a standard tool for single-phase flows, it is at the development stage for multiphase systems. Work is required to make CFD suitable for slurry pipeline modeling and scale-up. In view of the current status on this subject, the application to horizontal slurry pipeline flow of a comprehensive three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow has been undertaken. The kinetic theory component of this model is critical because it accounts for the effects of the interactions between particles and between particles and the suspending liquid phase. Simulations have been carried out to investigate the effect of solids volume fraction, particle size, mixture velocity, and pipe diameter on spatial variations of particle concentration and liquid velocity, as well as frictional pressure losses. The model predictions were compared with existing experimental data over a wide range of

Figure 1. Grid structure for the horizontal slurry pipeline simulations.

10.1021/ie801505z CCC: $40.75 © 2009 American Chemical Society Published on Web 05/29/2009

8160 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 17, 2009
Table 1. Experimental Data Sets Modeled with Hydrodynamic Simulations measurement technique pipe diameter particle size solids volume particle specific mixture (mm) (µm) concentration (%) gravity (-) velocity (m/s)
50.7 51.5 263 495 Schaan et al.45 50 150 165 480 520 1300 85 90 100 420 420 26-47 2.65 1.8-5.8 pressure transducers γ-ray absorption magnetic flux flow meter 6-35 2.65 1.5-4.5

source
Roco and Shook27

pressure drop

particle concentration
γ-ray absorption

velocity
magnetic flux flow meter

15-45

2.65

0.8-5.0

pressure transducers γ-ray absorption

magnetic flux flow meter

Gillies and Shook12

105 264 495

Gillies et al.13

103

90 270

10-45

2.65

2.0-8.0

pressure transducers γ-ray absorption

electrical resistivity probe, magnetic flux flow meter

Kaushal and Tomita24

54.9

125 440

5-50

2.47

1.0-5.0

pressure transducers γ-ray absorption, sampling probe

pipeline operating conditions: that is, average solids concentrations of 8 to 45% (by volume), uniform particle sizes of 90 to 500 µm, mixture velocities of 1.5 to 5.5 m/s, and pipe diameters of 50 to 500 mm. Before the computational method and simulation results are discussed, a brief review of previous work in this area is presented below.

2. Previous Work Durand1 published a pioneering work on the empirical prediction of hydraulic gradients for coarse particle slurry flows. Wasp et al.2 improved the calculation method and applied it to commercial slurry pipeline design. Shook and Daniel3 used the pseudohomogeneous approach to model slurry flow. The unique aspect of this technique is that it allows description of the flow using a single set of conservation equations (as for single-phase flow). The dispersed solids phase is assumed to augment the carrier fluid’s density and viscosity by amounts related to the in situ solids volume fraction. Clearly, this technique is of limited value as it, by definition, assumes the slurry has no deposition velocity. It provides reasonable predictions of friction losses only for relatively fine particles, low solids volume fractions, and for a narrow range of operating velocities. Shook and Daniel4 improved on the pseudohomogeneous approach by considering the slurry as a pseudo single-phase fluid with variable density. However, because of the boundary conditions adopted in their approach, it is difficult to apply their model to actual flow situations. Oroskar and Turian5 used a “constructive energy” approach to calculate the deposition velocity. In their model, they assumed that the kinetic energy of turbulent fluctuations is transferred to discrete particles, which suspends them in the flow. Despite the fact that this model was oversimplified and not intended for dense slurries, predicted deposition velocities compared favorably with the experimental data over a wide range of solids volume fractions. Wilson6 developed a one-dimensional two-layer model wherein coarse-particle slurry flow is considered to comprise two separate layers. Each layer has a uniform concentration and velocity. Because Wilson assumed the particles were very coarse, they were contained in the lower layer (with the upper layer solids concentration being zero). Momentum transfer occurs between the layers through interfacial shear forces. The two-layer model has been extended by a number of researchers.7-13 Doron et al.7 developed a two-layer model for the prediction of flow patterns and pressure drops in slurry pipelines. This model is very similar to that proposed by Wilson,6 except that the lower layer may also be assumed to be stationary. However, the model did not predict the existence of a stationary bed at

Figure 2. Particle concentration profile sensitivity analysis (A) effect of forces: (O) exptl, (- · - · - · ) CFD-k-ε model with kinetic theory and drag force; (---) CFD- k-ε model with kinetic theory, drag force, and turbulent dispersion force; (s) CFD-k-ε model with kinetic theory, drag, lift, turbulent dispersion, and wall lubrication force. (B) radial distribution function and kinetic solids viscosity models of Gidaspow35 and Lun and Savage.37

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 17, 2009 8161

Figure 3. Comparison of predicted and experimentally determined13 concentration profiles for dp ) 270 µm and V ) 5.4 m/s: (A) R j s ) 0.10, (B) R j s ) 0.20, (C) R j s ) 0.30, (D) R j s ) 0.35, (E) R j s ) 0.40, and (F) R j s ) 0.45.

low flow rates, which also reduced the reliability of the pressure drop predictions. Wilson and Pugh8 developed a dispersiveforce model of heterogeneous slurry flow, which extended the applicability of the original Wilson layer model because it accounted for particles suspended by fluid turbulence as well as those providing contact-load (Coulombic) friction. The model was used to predict particle concentration and velocity profiles that were in good agreement with experimental measurements. Nassehi and Khan9 developed a numerical method for the determination of slip characteristics between the layers of a twolayer slurry flow, but no comparisons between experimental results and their numerical solutions were reported. Undoubtedly, the most commonly used version of the twolayer model is the SRC model developed by Gillies and co-workers.10-13 The SRC two-layer model provides predictions of pressure gradient and deposition velocity as a function of

particle diameter, pipe diameter, solids volume fraction, and mixture velocity. This model is “semimechanistic” in that the effect of pipe diameter on pipeline friction loss is specified mechanistically (i.e., does not depend on any empirically determined coefficients). The semiempirical coefficients it contains are based on thousands of controlled experiments done at the Saskatchewan Research Council Pipe Flow Technology Centre. Since the optimum pipeline velocity is usually close to the deposition velocity (Vc), most of the data that were incorporated in the model were obtained at mixture velocities that are just greater than the deposition velocity (Vc e V e 1.3Vc). Doron and Barnea14 extended the two-layer modeling approach to a three-layer model of slurry flow in horizontal pipelines. Their model considered the existence of a dispersive layer, which is sandwiched between the suspended layer and a

Gillies and Shook11 showed the most significant limitation of this type of model.33. (B) R j s ) 0. which is reasonable when the flow is in horizontal or nearhorizontal configurations. The model provides good predictions. Model predictions were compared with experimental data for solids volume fractions less than 35%. A no-slip condition between the solid particles and the fluid was assumed. however. as represented by a solids eddy diffusivity. which clearly demonstrated the limitations of this model. Kaushal and co-workers19-24 developed a diffusion model based on the work of Karabelas. 48. Over the years. and (D) R j s) 0. The model predictions were compared with experiments. where the one-dimensional Schmidt-Rouse equation11 (or equivalent. u∞ is the terminal particle settling velocity and y is a vertical position in the pipe. the degree of flow heterogeneity). Karabelas18 developed an empirical model to predict the particle concentration profiles based on this formulation.8162 Ind. deviations were significant at flow velocities near the deposition velocity. it contains many empirical parameters.29.19. Their function shows that the solids diffusivity increases with increasing solids concentration.16 also developed a threelayer solid model and applied to simulate slurry transport in inclined channels. however. They constructed an empirical correlation determining the ratio of the solids diffusivity to the liquid eddy diffusivity.0 m/s: (A) R j s ) 0. The model predictions showed satisfactory agreement with experimental data. They determined the transition lines between the so-called “flow patterns” and compared these results with experimental data. an empirical term characterizing the turbulent viscosity. The particle concentration profile was determined using a semiempirical diffusion equation similar to that described above. Vol. The dispersive layer was considered to have a higher concentration gradient than the suspended layer. 17. This model was not reliable at higher solids volume concentrations. No. which can be used to indicate the flow pattern (essentially. A separate (but related) approach to slurry flow modeling also exists. They accounted for turbulent properties of the flow by introducing in the Navier-Stokes equation. It is not applicable when the particle size is large enough that the particles cannot be supported by fluid . it does not take into account a significant dependence of the solids diffusivity on both particle size and pipe Reynolds number. Ramadan et al. εs: Rsu∞ . Eng. see Hunt17) is used to relate the rate of particle sedimentation to the rate of turbulent exchange.24. Res. However.25 They also compared their pressure drop data with the modified Wasp model. They considered the slurry to be a Newtonian fluid characterized using the mixture density and viscosity. (C) R j s ) 0.18 where they proposed a modification for the solids diffusivity for coarse particle slurry flow. time-averaged solids volume fraction. Roco and Mahadevan31 used a one-equation kinetic energy model for turbulent viscosity.26 considering the effect of efflux concentration on dimensionless solids diffusivity.20 and found good agreement at higher flow velocities.. Roco and co-workers30. Chem. bed.31 modified the turbulence model and used higher-order correlations to obtain a better estimate of eddy viscosity. Doron and Barnea21 also used a three-layer model to draw flow pattern maps. 2009 Figure 4.εs dRs )0 dy (1) where Rs is the local. Roco and Shook27-29 developed a similar model for dense slurry pipeline flows. Comparison of predicted and experimentally determined13 concentration profiles for dp ) 90 µm and V ) 3.

33 demonstrated that this effect is the result of a near-wall lift force that occurs in certain coarse-particle slurry flows. modified to include an interphase momentum transfer term: ∂ (F R u ) + ∇·(FlRlulul) ) -Rl∇p + FlRlg + ∇·τl + Fkm ∂t l l l (3) where g is the acceleration of gravity. It is also limited in application to straight runs of pipeline having a circular cross-sectional area. The momentum balance for the liquid phase is given by the Navier-Stokes equation. 17. 3. the following observations can be made: (i) Most of the investigations were conducted using small pipeline loops (D e 55 mm) to determine pressure gradients and deposition velocities. it is not suitable for more complex geometries that are of great interest in many mineral processing industries. that the smaller particles are fully encapsulated in the viscous sublayer and thus are not subjected to a near-wall force.33 Wilson and Sellgren32. meaning that they are limited in their ability to describe such characteristics as fluid turbulence.24. particle concentration. (ii) Many of the earlier studies considered only moderate solids volume concentrations (say up to 26%).Ind. As the particle diameter (and u∞) increases.. an attempt has been made to develop a comprehensive computational model to describe the hydrodynamics of horizontal slurry flow based on the kinetic theory of granular flow and using a commercially available CFD package (ANSYS-CFX 10. These researchers confirmed many of the findings of Wilson and Sellgren: most notably. can be found in Gidaspow. Res.78. Recently.11.44 mm) flowing in a 55 mm pipeline loop. In view of these limitations. deposition velocity). spherical. Numerous observations of a local maximum in particle concentration up from the bottom of the pipe have been made when the particle diameter is relatively large and the mixture velocity is high. which occurs approximately when u∞/u* ≈ 0. Comparison of predicted and experimentally determined45 concentration profiles for dp ) 90 µm and R j s ) 0. The solids viscosity and pressure are computed as a function of granular temperature at any time and position. local particle velocities. No. The volume-averaged continuity equation is given by (i ) liquid. Campbell et al. and energy conservation are then solved for each phase. u is the velocity vector.3. p is the thermodynamic pressure. it does not provide information about fluid turbulence. Each phase is described using volume-averaged. becoming largely dependent on local concentration and exhibiting almost no dependence on mixture velocity (or fluid turbulence levels).34 reported experimental observations of an unexpected lift-like interaction force at the center of channel containing a flowing solids-liquid mixture.0).0 m/s. which uses granular kinetic theory to describe particle-particle interactions. interfacial forces. or the radial variation of particle velocity or concentration.15: (A) V ) 1. for instance. (v) While the SRC two-layer model provides accurate predictions of frictional pressure drop and deposition velocity over a wide range of pipe diameter. 48. Mass exchange between the phases. Chem. Also. This force has no apparent analog for single particles in infinite fluids and appeared to be a result of multiparticle interactions. Continuity and Momentum Equation. Mathematical Modeling The CFD model used in this work is based on the extended two-fluid model.125 and 0. solids): ∂ (F R ) + ∇·(FiRiui) ) 0 ∂t i i (2) turbulence. and mixture velocity. where R is the concentration of each phase.32. momentum. concentration profiles take a noticeably different shape. From these publications. Particles are considered to be smooth. and to undergo binary collisions. particle size. 40%) of the total weight of particles in the channel and thus may play a role in offsetting the Coulombic (contact load) friction in coarse particle slurry flows. including the implementation of granular kinetic theory.. (iii) The purpose of many of the models that have been developed is to predict frictional pressure drop and/or minimum operating velocity (i. Figure 5. incompressible. is not considered. The magnitude of this force was found to be a significant fraction (e. in other words. (iv) Many of the models are 1D or 2D semiempirical models. transient Navier-Stokes equations. Fkm is the sum of the interfacial forces (including the . due to reaction or combustion. Appropriate constitutive equations have to be specified in order to describe the physical and/or rheological properties of each phase and to close the conservation equations.e. Vol.35 3. The fundamental equations of mass. Kaushal and Tomita24 conducted experiments with two slurries of narrowly sized glass beads (0.1.5 m/s. These results clearly demonstrated the importance of the near-wall lift force on concentration profiles and on frictional pressure gradient for slurries containing the coarse particles. many papers have been published in the past 50 years on the subject of horizontal slurry pipeline flow. and F is the density. or local particle concentrations. 2009 8163 As described above. inelastic. where u* is the friction velocity (u* ) (τw/F)1/2). Eng. (B) V ) 3. A more complete discussion of the extended two-fluid model..g.

In these models. τl. The conservation of the solids fluctuating energy balance36 can be written as 3 ∂ (R F Θ ) + ∇·(RsFsusΘs) ) τs:∇us + ∇·(ks∇Θ) . This is. Although eq 7 can be solved for the granular temperature. where local equilibrium of generation and dissipation of fluctuating energy is assumed. The first term on the right-hand side represents the fluctuating energy due to solids pressure and viscous forces. 2009 Figure 6. The liquid-phase stress tensor. µs: 2 τs ) (. 17. generalized to take account of inelastic particle collisions. Chem. In most kinetic theory models.8164 Ind. ζs.0 m/s. and R j s ) 0. where u′s is the solids fluctuating velocity.19.γs + 2 ∂t s s s Ωls (7) [ ] { } (6) 3. Contour plots for (A) particle concentration and (B) liquid velocity taken at regularly spaced axial positions over the 10 m control volume. Boemer et al. Eng. γs. the constitutive elements of the solids stress are functions of the solids phase granular temperature. and shear solids viscosity. No. a class of models based on the kinetic theory of gases. Obtained from numerical simulations of the following conditions: dp ) 90 µm.µl(∇·ul)I 3 The solids phase momentum balance is given by ∂ (F R u ) + ∇·(FsRsusus) ) -Rs∇p + FsRsg + ∇·τs + Fkm ∂t s s s (5) The solids stress tensor. can be represented as 2 τl ) µl[∇ul + (∇ul)T] .2. the granular temperature is determined from a transport equation. 48. V ) 3. defined The left-hand side of this equation represents the net change of fluctuating energy.. Ps. the procedure is complex and the boundary conditions are not well understood. The third term. The procedure is also computationally expensive. bulk solids viscosity. The second term is the diffusion of fluctuating energy in the solids phase. strictly speaking. the wall lubrication force FWL and the turbulent dispersion force FTD). Vol. A simpler and computationally cheaper method is to use an algebraic expression.(∇·us)I 3 (4) to be proportional to the mean square fluctuating particle velocity resulting from interparticle collisions: Θs ) u′s2/3. drag force FD. τs. can be expressed in terms of the solids pressure. represents the dissipation of fluctuating energy and Ωls is the exchange of fluctuating energy between the liquid and solids phase. Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow.Ps + ζs∇·us)I + µs [∇us + (∇us)T] .36 simplified eq 7 to . the virtual mass force FVM. the lift force FL. Res. Θs.

2009 8165 production ) dissipation ⇒ τsij The dissipation fluctuating energy is35 γs ) 3(1 . Predicted liquid velocity profiles for (A) dp ) 90 µm. Res. the value of the settled bed volume fraction should be measured. though.20. 48. (C) dp ) 480 µm.38 Figure 7. which quantifies the elasticity of particle collisions (one for fully elastic and zero for the fully inelastic).64 is often assumed for a random packing of monosize spheres.5Rsm (11) where e is the coefficient of restitution for particle collisions. was taken as 0.diVU π )) and Lun and Savage:37 (9) g0(Rs) ) (1 .13 .Ind. In practice. V ) 3. The g0 function becomes infinite when the in situ solids volume fraction approaches Rsm. 17.4 m/s and R j s ) 0. g0. V ) 5. and g0 is the radial distribution function at contact. dp is the particle diameter.(Rs / Rsm))-2.(Rs / Rsm)1/3)-1 (10) (( 4 dp Θs . No.0 m/s and R j s ) 0. V ) 3. where Rsm is the volume fraction of a settled bed of solids. The restitution coefficient. can be seen as a measure of the probability of interparticle contact.e 2 2 )Rs Fsg0Θs ∂ Ui ) γs ∂ xj (8) Popular models for the radial distribution function are given by Gidaspow:35 g0(Rs) ) 0. as it depends primarily on particle sphericity and particle size distribution..203. A value of Rsm ) 0. The radial distribution function. Vol.19.9. (B) dp ) 270 µm. Eng. Measurements of local particle velocity shown in panel A from Gillies et al.6(1 . Chem.44 m/s and R j s ) 0.

In these simulations. The wall lubrication constants C1 and C2. No. The particle pressure consists of a kinetic term corresponding to the momentum transport caused by particle velocity fluctuations and a second term due to particle collisions:35 2 Θs(1 + e)g0 Ps ) FsRsΘs + 2FsRs Here. 48.0 m were used.tur ∂ ε ∂ ∂ ∂ (FlRlε) + (FlRlulε) ) Rl µ + + ∂t ∂ xi ∂ xi σ∈ ∂ xi ε Rl (Cε1G . Timeaveraged distributions of flow variables are computed over a period of 100 s. This value is within the range suggested in the literature.us is the relative velocity between phases. The discretization of the three-dimensional domain resulted in 386 340 cells and the grid structure shown in Figure 1. Numerical Solution The system of equations. Three dimensional transient simulations were performed. which is in the normal direction away from the wall and decays with distance from the wall. 2009 The solids pressure represents the solids phase normal forces caused by particle-particle interactions. Cε2 ) 1. G represents the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradient. Chem.slip condition). No turbulence model is applied to the solids phase but the influence of the dispersed phase on the turbulence of the continuous phase is taken into account with Sato’s additional term.3.col + µs.001 s and pipe length of 10. The lift force can be modeled in terms of the slip velocity and the curl of the liquid phase velocity40. Cµ ) 0..41 as FL ) CLRsFl(us . At the inlet. taken here to be σtc ) 0. the pressure is specified (atmospheric). At the wall. 3. Grid independence was examined.01 and 0. dp is the mean particle diameter. 4.kin ( )( 8 1 + η(3η . which is given in standard form as: µl. with the aforementioned boundary conditions. the liquid velocities were set to zero (no.Cε2Rlε) (23) k In these equations.44 3. respectively.5.kin (14) (( (( ) ) ) ) The collisional component of the solids viscosity is modeled as 4 2 Fsdpg0(1 + e) µs.us) 4 dp (18) The drag coefficient CD has been modeled using the Gidaspow model. In the kinetic theory of granular flow. ur ) ul . For the liquid phase. Initial simulations were carried out with a coarse mesh to obtain rapid convergence and an indication of the positions where a high mesh density was needed. Turbulence Equations. The conservation equations were discretized using the control volume technique.(ur·nw)nw) max C1 + C2 .44. The SIMPLE algorithm was employed to solve the pressurevelocity coupling in the momentum equations.35 which employs the Wen and Yu model when Rs > 0. a constant time step of 0.us |(ul .0.ul) × ∇ × ul (19) The lift coefficient has been assigned a value of 0.uc) 4 dp σtc Rd Rc (12) In eq 6. was solved using the commercial flow simulation software ANSYS CFX 10.1 in the present simulation.Rlε) (22) µl. Interfacial Forces.tur ∂ k ∂ ∂ ∂ R µ+ + (F R k) + ( F R u k) ) ∂t l l ∂ xi l l l ∂ xi l σk ∂ xi Rl(G .42 are -0. Mass and momentum equations were solved using a second-order implicit method for space and a first-order implicit method for time discretization. σε ) 1. and nw is the unit normal pointing away from the wall. σtc is the turbulent Schmidt number for continuous phase volume fraction. both the kinetic and the collisional contributions are considered. Res.8166 Ind.09. but further grid refinement did not result in significant changes to the simulations results. The solids shear viscosity contains terms arising from particle momentum exchange due to collision and translation.kin ) 2 4 5√π Fsdp 1 + η(1 + e)g0Rs √Θ 48 (1 + e)g0 5 ( ) (16) and Lun and Savage37 5√π 1 8 ) Fd + Rs 96 s p ηg0 5 µs.41 The wall lubrication force.9.92.4. The turbulent dispersion force is modeled based on the Favre average of the interphase drag force using43 FTD ) ∇Rc ∇Rd 3 CD υtc RdFc(ud . σk ) 1.2 and employs the Ergun model when Rs e 0. is expressed as42 FWL ) -RsFl dp (ur . The interphase momentum transfer between solids and liquid due to drag force is given by 3 1 FD ) CDRsFl | ul . yw is the distance to the nearest wall. The turbulence model used for the liquid phase is a variant of the two-equation k-ε model.2.3. The velocity of the particles was also set at zero. Boundary Conditions. The solids shear viscosity is expressed as a sum of the kinetic and collisional contributions: µs ) µs.col ) Rs 5 Θ π 35 (15) and the kinetic component is determined based on µs. 17. 0 dp yw [ ] (20) .05. The high resolution discretization scheme was used for the convective terms. Vol.0. To initiate the numerical solution. Eng. a k-ε model is applied with its standard constants: Cε1 ) 1.2)g0Rs 5 √Θ 2-η (17) ) where η ) 1/2(1 + e) 3. velocities and concentrations of both phases are specified. the average solids volume fraction and a parabolic velocity profile are specified as initial conditions. At the outlet. as suggested by Antal et al. the solids bulk viscosity accounts for the resistance of the granular particles to compression and expansion and has the form39 4 2 Fsdpg0(1 + e) ζs ) R s 3 Θ π (13) ( ) (21) Here.

In the figures discussed here.27 Schaan et al.. Effect of particle size on concentration profile: (A) dp ) 90 µm. Each data set described in Table 1 was simulated using the model described in the previous sections.4 m/s. the local particle concentration is Rs. The predicted result is in good . and D ) 103 mm. where y is the distance from the pipe bottom. Initially. 17. and pipe diameter (50-500 mm) were considered.5 mm. R j s ) 0. the liquid velocity is ul. V ) 4. 5. Res. The model predictions are shown in Figure 2A. Results and Discussion The CFD simulations were carried out to match the experimental conditions of Roco and Shook.9 mm. where the predicted particle concentration profile shows a peak near the bottom of the pipe. V ) 3. V ) 3. and D ) 103 mm. V ) 5.5-5. Eng.0 m/s. In the first case.5 mm. (B) dp ) 125 µm.13and Kaushal and Tomita.Ind. y/D is the dimensionless position along the pipe’s vertical axis.5 m/s).19.85. The local solids volume fraction rapidly approaches zero at a vertical position of y/D ≈ 0. and the frictional pressure drop is ∆p/L. particle and liquid velocities. (D) dp ) 270 µm. The second simulation included drag force and the turbulent dispersion force. 48. time-averaged particle concentration profiles. The local. mixture velocity (1. V ) 3. R j s ) 0. and D ) 51. particle concentration profiles.203. and D ) 54.9 mm. (E) dp ) 440 µm.1. and mixture velocity.44 m/s. No. (C) dp ) 165 µm. and frictional pressure drop were obtained using the model and then were compared (where possible) with the existing experimental data.0 m/s. R j s ) 0. R j s ) 0. (F) dp ) 480 µm.12 Gillies et al. A wide range of particle size (90-500 µm).20. V ) 3.45 Gillies and Shook. and D ) 54.24 Table 1 summarizes the experimental conditions and measurement techniques employed to measure pressure drop. R j s ) 0. Sensitivity Analysis.20.17 m/s. Chem. and D ) 51.20. numerical simulations were conducted for three cases to demonstrate the effects that the inclusion of different forces had on the quality of the predictions. 5.0 m/s.. the simulations were carried out with the k-ε model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow and drag force only.. 2009 8167 Figure 8. R js ) 0. Vol.189. solids volume concentration (8-45%).

Solids Concentration Profiles. Additionally. In situ solids volume concentrations of 10 to 45% were tested (and simulated).35 Lift and wall lubrication forces were neglected in these simulations. Vol. agreement with the experimental data.5 mm. as shown in Figure 2B. and (iii) the Gidaspow radial distribution function/kinetic solids viscosity model. and wall lubrication force) were included. (B) D ) 51.5 mm. No. the results showed no significant improvement. and V ) 4. Essentially.273. 2009 Figure 9. R j s ) 0. pipe diameter.2. R j s ) 0.5 m/s. In the third case. and V ) 3.5 m/s. Chem. R j s ) 0. The experimental data were initially reported by Gillies et al. R j s ) 0. suspension results partly . (F) D ) 495 mm. and V ) 3. (ii) drag and turbulent dispersion forces. 17. R j s ) 0.8168 Ind.0918. R j s ) 0. 48. Effect of pipe diameter on concentration profile.46 Figure 3 shows the experimental and predicted concentration profiles for 270 µm sand slurries flowing at a constant mixture velocity (5. For these slurries.. lift. 5. instead.33 m/s. when all the forces (drag. it is important to test the ability of a model to predict these profiles. the numerical predictions show reasonable agreement with the experimental results. Additionally. particle size. (E) D ) 495 mm.0995. dp ) 165 µm: (A) D ) 51. there is no difference between the two. increasing the in situ solids concentration reduces the asymmetry of the concentration profiles because of increased particle interactions.268. and V ) 3. Eng. (C) D ) 263 mm. including mixture velocity.13 Generally. two radial distribution function and kinetic solids viscosity models35.78 m/s.16 m/s.286. fluid turbulence is not completely effective in suspending the particles. and V ) 3. Because concentration profiles depend on many parameters.104.37 were tested. the knowledge of solids distribution across the pipe cross-section is essential in the evaluation or prediction of pipeline wear. On the basis of these observations. It can be observed from the figures that for a given velocity. mixture density. and V ) 3.16 m/s. turbulent dispersion. Res. and particle density.4 m/s) in a 100 mm pipeline. (D) D ) 263 mm. all subsequent simulations were conducted using (i) k-ε turbulence model with the kinetic theory of granular flow.

2009 8169 Figure 10. indicating that the numerical simulations are providing results for fully developed flow. in situ solids concentration. R j s ) 0.Ind. No. (E) D ) 150 mm. the agreement between the numerical predictions and experimental results is good. Figures 4 and 5 show experimental data and numerical predictions for 90 µm sand slurries flowing in 100 and 154 mm pipelines..11. (F) D ) 150 mm. This reversal is not predicted in our simulations and may be related to the existence of near-wall forces described previously.39. dp ) 125 µm. The contour plots shown for axial positions 5 through 8 are nearly identical.3. 17.40. Overall. respectively. dp ) 90 µm. 5. Effect of pipe diameter on concentration profile for slurries of fine particles.25 m intervals are shown in Figure 6. Contour plots of particle concentration and liquid velocity along the pipe cross section at axial positions separated by 1. dp ) 125 µm. dp ) 90 µm. the results are encouraging.13 This is a good test of the model’s ability to predict the combined importance of fluid turbulence and shear-dependent (Bagnold-like) particle-particle interactions. R j s ) 0. R j s ) 0. 48. In Figure 3F. Overall.9 mm. dp ) 90 µm.32. R j s ) 0. as the relatively uniform concentration profiles at low in situ volume fractions attest. they are also dependent upon particle size.30.29. from particle-particle interactions. (D) D ) 103 mm. These concentration profiles can be accurately predicted using a Schmidt-Rouse 1D turbulent diffusion model. . Chem. Velocity Profiles.0 m/s: (A) D ) 54. (B) D ) 54. Velocity profiles in horizontal slurry flow are directly linked to the concentration profile.19-23 They also provide a good test of the numerical model’s ability to predict the importance of the turbulent dispersion forces.33. R j s ) 0. dp ) 90 µm. Significant differences in particle concentration and liquid velocity can be observed between the first and fourth axial positions. as such. (C) D ) 103 mm. Vol. Eng. V ) 3.9 mm. The particles in these slurries are effectively suspended by fluid turbulence. R j s ) 0. the experimentally determined concentration profile exhibits a reversal in local concentration near the pipe invert. Res.

because the particles are relatively fine and the mixture velocity in each case is significantly greater than the deposition velocity. Parity plot for frictional pressure gradient (experimental data: (O) Schaan et al..12 Gillies et al.. It also performs satisfactorily when the particles are coarse and concentration profiles are primarily dependent upon the in situ solids volume fraction. The mixture velocity is the same for each panel (V ) 3. A detailed comparison between the CFD simulation results and an expansive experimental data set (reported by Roco and Shook. for very coarse particles. 5. the agreement between measured and predicted profiles is encouraging. The left-hand figure shows a traditional velocity profile. No noticeable effect of pipe diameter is observed for these concentration profiles.8170 Ind. No. Generally.0 m/s). particle diameters. a distinct reversal in the concentration profile can be seen near the pipe invert (y/D < 0. In experimental data sets where the nearwall lift force was of sufficient magnitude to cause a reversal in the concentration profile near the pipe invert. Vol. The measured concentration profiles were taken from Roco and Shook. Figure 7 panels B and C show predicted liquid velocity profiles for slurries containing coarser particles (270 and 480 µm.4. 5.. This is related to the near-wall lift force described previously. Chem. Figure 9 shows both experimental and predicted concentration profiles for a 165 µm sand slurry flowing in pipes that are 51. mixture velocities. It can be seen that the velocity profiles become increasingly asymmetrical with increasing particle size. the simulation results were compared with the experimental data of Schaan et al. Figure 7 shows three pairs of illustrations.32 which occurs when the particle is large relative to the viscous sublayer thickness. In all cases.45 Gillies and Shook.27 Schaan et al. in situ solids volume fraction. each with a different particle size (90. depend primarily on in situ solids volume fraction. In situ solids volume fractions are comparable for these slurries (R j s ≈ 0.24 As the information presented in Table 1 indicates. Figure 10 panels A and B show the experimental measurements made by Kaushal and Tomita24 for slurries of 125 µm glass spheres in water flowing in a 54.. mixture velocity. 103. The relative importance of fluid turbulence vis-a ` -vis particle-particle interactions in determining the shape of the concentration profiles with increasing pipe diameter is clearly shown in Figure 9. Res. 125. 440. Effect of Pipe Diameter.. Eng. 6.13. these experimental data were collected for a wide range of particle size. The maximum local velocity is found in the upper portion of the pipe and not at the centerline. the model’s performance is satisfactory. the measured concentration profile of Figure 8F can be considered to be typical of one that would be found for any coarse particle slurry (dp > 300 µm).2). Otherwise. and 495 mm in diameter.5.13 and Kaushal and Tomita. and the in situ solids volume fraction. and 480 µm). Figure 10 provides similar findings for experimental measurements made with smaller particles of differing size and shape.13 and Kaushal and Tomita24) was presented. Frictional pressure gradients and local. The comparison of measured and predicted frictional pressure drop results is shown in Figure 11. which is shown in Figure 4A. excellent agreement between the predicted and the experimental data was obtained for a wide range of in situ solids volume fractions.27 This particular particle size was chosen for two reasons: data had been collected from experiments conducted with a wide range of pipe diameters and this sand size exhibits strong pipe diameter-dependent concentration profiles. Thus. Only slurries containing narrowly sized particles were simulated in this study.12 Gillies et al.0 m/s). Conclusions A transient three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow has been developed for horizontal slurry pipelines. In Figure 8E. respectively). the current CFD . The corresponding contour plot is the type that is readily attainable from CFD simulations. Concentration profiles of the type shown in Figure 8F. Figure 8 shows the measured and predicted concentration profiles for four different slurries. Note also the agreement between the measured particle Velocity and the predicted fluid Velocity is excellent. The degree of asymmetry in the concentration profiles depends primarily upon the particle diameter. time-averaged solids concentration and liquid/particle velocities were obtained.F. 263.19. from highly effective (Figure 8A) to completely ineffective (Figure 8F). the flow of a number of slurries in pipes of different diameter was considered. with only minimal dependence on mixture velocity or pipe diameter.6. Pressure Drop. Figure 10 panels C-F show results and predictions for narrowly sized 90 µm sand slurries flowing in 100 and 150 mm pipelines. Recall that the corresponding concentration profile. 270.9 mm pipeline loop. The predicted pressure drop is in good agreement with the experimental measurements for the wide range of slurry flow conditions represented by the data sets to which the numerical simulations were compared.5. confirming that the local.13 and (0) Kaushal and Tomita24). The predictions are in good agreement with the experimental data for all pipe diameters. 48.2). The CFD model described here is capable of predicting particle concentration profiles for fine particle slurries where fluid turbulence is effective at suspending the particles.12 (]) Gillies et al. To investigate the effect of pipe diameter on the performance of the numerical model developed here. where the local time-averaged liquid velocity along the pipe’s vertical axis is plotted. Pipeline pressure drop is one of the most important parameters in slurry pipeline design and operation. Again. and pipe diameter. This phenomenon has been demonstrated experimentally. the mixture velocity. 5.45 (∆) Gillies and Shook. and pipe diameters. V ) 3. time-averaged slip velocity approaches zero for slurries of this type. The current version of the CFD model is unable to reproduce this concentration reversal.45 Gillies and Shook. 2009 Figure 11. 150. is nearly symmetric. the concentration profile reversal seen in Figure 10 panels A and B is not accurately reproduced with the current model. The experimental data shown in these figures represent a broad spectrum of fluid turbulence effects on particle suspension. To validate the numerical results obtained with the CFD model. and mixture velocity. Figure 7A compares a measured particle velocity profile13 with predictions for a 90 µm sand slurry (R j s ) 0. Effect of Particle Diameter. 17.24. 165.27 Note also from the contour plots that the velocity distribution in a horizontal plane is symmetrical about the pipe axis.

Eng. Tech. Multiphase Flow 2004. (17) Hunt. International Association of Hydraulic Research. (46) Hoffman. McKibben. Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory Descriptions. Sci. Bed Combust. D.. R. The Effects of an Impact Velocity Dependent Coefficient of Restitution on Stresses Developed by Sheared Granular Materials. 1986. J. A. T. M. Part. Shook. P. Eng. A. 1986. An Improved Twolayer Model for Horizontal Slurry Pipeline Flow. Gandhi. Int. A. C. The Transverse Migration of Bubbles Influenced by Walls in Vertical Bubbly Flow. M. Powder Technol 2007.. Preliminary Observations of a Particle Lift Force in Horizontal Slurry Flow.. J. I. Can. 173–178.-M. Interaction of Particles and Near-wall Lift in Slurry Pipelines. Multiphase Flow 1980. (16) Ramadan. Chem. 29. J. A.. Xu.. J.. J. N. (22) Kaushal. K. Jeffrey. Shook. 123. Sellgren. K. Can. the present model can be considered to be superior to existing correlation-based. Multiphase Flow 1991. (5) Oroskar. 17–23. 1968. C. C. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Syncrude Canada Ltd. 78. J. C. R. Chem.. 1990. ASME 1995. 6. 61. S. R. (2) Wasp. including the associated boundary conditions. J. (25) Walton. D. 1983. Funatsu. A. 2009 Accepted March 11. C. P. Y. Dispersive-Force Modeling of Turbulent Suspension in Heterogeneous Slurry Flow. S. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Hydraulic Transport of Solids in pipes (Hydrotransport 4).. A. (20) Kaushal. Powder Technol. M. R. Literature Cited (1) Durand. C. G. 2005.. M. 1060–1065. K.. (12) Gillies. C. 13. (41) Tomiyama. K. 140. 717–725. Numer. Frank. J. 48. K. Acta Mech. Eng. Balakrishnan. 7.. Eng. 224. Y. Small.. S. Lift and Virtual Mass Forces Acting on a Single Bubble. The Effect of Particle Size. 30. D... J. Minnesota.Ind.. (29) Roco. Modelling High Concentration Slurry Flows. (11) Gillies. 82. 41. A.. C. C.. Z. (33) Wilson. Chem. Shook. J. (44) Sato. J. Eng. 196. D. (18) Karabelas. V. Shook. C. 721– 727. Powder Technol 2002. Two-Phase Flow Modell. Analysis of Phase Distribution in Fully-developed Laminar Bubbly Two Phase Flow. Tomita. R. 31. 1697–1717. (23) Seshadri. C. K. 2004. J. 1029–1043.. (15) Doron. K. Daniel. 322–335. Chem. M. Concentration at the Pipe Bottom at Deposition Velocity for Transportation of Commercial Slurries through Pipeline. 125.. Experimental Investigation of NearWall Lift of Coarser Particles in Slurry Pipeline Using Gamma-ray Densitometer. Basic Relationships of the Transportation of Solids in Pipes: Experimental Research. Soc. Powder Technol. 66. Y. A. C. D. BHRA Fluid Engineering: Cranfield. Sci. Tomita. J. Drag. N. 2000. U. K. Wilson. Can. Barnea. Chem. Lahey. Academic Press: New York. London. (45) Schaan. Turbulent Modeling. Y. 46. C. I. A. A Model for Turbulent Slurry Flow. J. Vertical Distribution of Dilute Suspensions in Turbulent Pipe Flow. (10) Gillies.. M. Shook. K. (21) Kaushal. A Unified Physical-based Analysis of Solid-Liquid Pipeline Flow. Savage. Saasen. 69. M. Technol 1994. R. Hamill. Kenny. 1815–1820. R. K. Multiphase Flow 2003. 1970. G. 22. D. S. Proceedings of the 5th Congress. D. J. U. 14. C. 1977. F. Barnea.. A... M. The Turbulent Transport of Suspended Sediment in Open Channels. E. 809–823. Eddy Diffusivity of Solid Particles in a Turbulent Liquid Flow in a Horizontal Pipe. J. Can. Sato. Expt. ReceiVed for reView October 6. J. Chem. Part 2: Two Mechanisms of Particle Suspension. 239–258. R.. J. 2009 8171 model was not able to reproduce this behavior. K. Multiphase Flow 1996. R. 1994. 167–173. R. 426–434. Eng.. Shalle. Vol. semiempirical models. P. Dighade. C. J. Int. Transition Velocities and Spatial Distribution of Solids in Slurry Pipelines. R. Flaherty. Qi. 551–558. Powd. (35) Gidaspow. 1984. A. Part. K. (32) Wilson. 28. A. Technol. (Pisa) 2004. Rheol... Int. 197–203.. R. J. D.K. Sci. M. Multiphase Flow 2005. Clift. G. A. is complete in the sense that no experimentally determined flow measurements are required as input data. Sekoguchi. 238–244. A. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes (Hydrotransport 1). J. J. 199–216. Sumner. (42) Antal. 709–716. 129. 1953. Hydraulic Eng. 5th International Conference on Multiphase Flow. Int. Symp. I. Yokohama.. No. (27) Roco.. R. 635. A. Aude. Flow of Suspensions of Solids in Pipelines. H. 3rd Int.. C. (36) Boemer. 89–101. 2004. R. J. R.. Japan. A. D. Int. Technol 2006. J. 63. Eng. Eng. 269–277. G. Solid Liquid Flow Slurry Pipeline Transportation. 1st ed. V. (40) Zun. 583–588. Eulerian Computation of Fluidized Bed HydrodynamicssA Comparison of Physical Models. R. (38) Shook. Multiphase Flow 1975. (43) Burns. Can. Seiter.. 45–69. (37) Lun.. 108. A. 2008 ReVised manuscript receiVed March 8. 3–13. D... Res. Shook. Y.. (3) Shook. Eng.. 431–456. Eng. Francisco. Application of a Three-Layer Modeling Approach for Solids Transport in Horizontal and Inclined Channels. L. Tomita. Singh.. Khan. 73–76. Int. A. Tomita. Germany. C. 775–787. Chem. Can.. J. B.. 15–44. Can. 19. (14) Doron.. 47. C. ICMF. J. D. Kinetic Theory for Granular Flow: Inelastic Particles in Couette Flow and Slightly Inelastic Particles in a General Flow Field. 1980. R. P. 1995. 1976. Fluid. 68. C.. Publications: Clausthal. S. B. Part 1. J. A 1954. J. D. A. 1984.. 2003. Chem. (31) Roco. AIChE J. Technol. Turian. (34) Campbell. B. Int. A Variable Density Model of the Pipeline Flow of Suspensions. 2. C. J. Boysan. 24. Can. Barnea. N. J.. Concentration Distribution of Sand Slurries in Horizontal Pipe Flow. A Model for the Prediction of Concentration and Particle Size Distribution for the Flow of Multisized Particulate Suspensions through Closed Ducts and Open Channels. A Three-Layer Model for Solid-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes.. P. 2002. Investigation of Some Hydrodynamical Factors Affecting Slurry Pipeline Wall Erosion. H. R. Paper A1. R. 1988.. (4) Shook. Drag Model for Turbulent Dispersion in Eulerian Multiphase Flows. 273–283. J.. J. Int. Comparative Study of Pressure Drop in Multisized Particulate Slurry Flow through Pipe and Rectangular Duct. Minneapolis. H... R. N. A. C. 2000. (30) Roco. Modeling of Slurry Flow: The Effect of Particle Size. 39. C. (26) Wasp. Solids Concentration Profiles and Pressure Drop in Pipeline Flow of Multi-Sized Particulate Slurries. Mahadevan. S. 1-16. Toyota. pp 53-76. Daniel. Renz. BHRA Fluid Engineering: Cranfield. C. 19–24.. 2009 IE801505Z . 17.. S. Fluid Mech. Ser. Chem. Liquid Velocity Distribution in Two-Phase Bubbly Flow.. Multiphase Flow 1987. (8) Wilson. Int. 22–24. Energy Res. 79–95. Pipelines 1984. 2557–2570.. J. Slurry Flow in Horizontal PipesExperimental and Modeling. J.. Pugh. J. C. 494–503. R... Shi. F.. 4.. (9) Nassehi. AIChE J. A. The model described here.K. R. C. Kaushal. 26. 78. S. (28) Roco. 172. 12. Can.. Gillies. S.. P. In this sense. Savage. 1983. Shook. 159– 176.. G. (13) Gillies. (19) Kaushal. The Effect of Particle Shape on Pipeline Friction for Newtonian Slurries of Fine Particles. Deposition Velocities. 1995. Liu. Modelling Heterogeneous Slurry Flows at High Velocities. B. Trans. R. Int.. Modeling Slurry Flow. 2. R. Modeling Slurry Flow. Method Fluids 1992. A. Multiphase Flow 2002. M. U. 29 (4). Sellgren. 23. T. Y. 223–235.. D. Finkers. 1977. A Numerical Method for the Determination of Slip Characteristics between the Layers of a Two-Layer Slurry Flow. J... Chepurnity. Chem. (24) Kaushal. J. T. S. A. Kenny. Vasqyez. J. Tomita. Paper H4. 1969. 1991. Granica. Eng. Flow Pattern Maps for Solid-Liquid Flow in Pipes. E. Operating Points for Pipelines Carrying Concentrated Heterogeneous Slurries. Proc. Chem. C.. Jacques. J.. 177–187.. Effect of Particle Size Distribution on Pressure Drop and Concentration Profile in Pipeline Flow of Highly Concentrated Slurry. The Critical Velocity in Pipeline Flow of Slurries.. Int. J. C. 60. 82. Shook. (7) Doron. AIChE J. (6) Wilson. A Relation for the Void Fraction of Randomly Packed Particle Beds. 535–547. Multiphase Flow 1993. (39) Lun. Computational Method for Coal Slurry Pipelines with Heterogeneous Size Distribution. 1473–1487.

The present CFD model requires no experimentally determined slurry pipeline flow data for parameter tuning. U. Finally. and pipe diameter on spatial variations of particle concentration and liquid velocity. The kinetic theory component of this model is critical because it accounts for the effects of the interactions between particles and between particles and the suspending liquid phase.ac. Additionally. 48. Excellent agreement between the model predictions and the experimental data was obtained. Eng. mixture velocity (1. mineral ore concentrates.O. Additionally. R. Many models of this type exist and have varying degrees of success in predicting the aforementioned parameters. and thus can be considered to be superior to commonly used. † GASCO Chair Professor. ANSYS-CFX. the application to horizontal slurry pipeline flow of a comprehensive three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow has been undertaken. In most cases. With the advent of increased computational capabilities.* and Jacob H. these models tend to provide macroscopic parameters only. As noted in the following section. mixture velocity. Sean Sanders. operations involving slurry flow play a significant role in many other industries. particle and liquid velocity profiles. 2533 Abu Dhabi. and tailings. many of these models are phenomenological. mixing tanks) * To whom correspondence should be addressed. The Petroleum Institute. P. however. coarse particle slurries of oil sand ore are transported by pipeline from mining sites to extraction facilities. analysis of more complex three. particle attrition. Over the past 20 years. computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is emerging as a very promising new tool in modeling hydrodynamics. contain a range of different particle sizes. Masliyah Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering.A. and pipe diameter (50 to 500 mm) on local. Res. accurate predictions of concentration and velocity distributions in more complicated geometries (pumps. Nandakumar. K. particle size. “settling” slurries. and delivered solids volume fraction for a narrowly sized slurry.5 m/s). Dense. Knowledge of the variation of these parameters with pipe position is crucial if the understanding of mesoscopic processes (e. correlation-based empirical models. Fax: 780-492-2881. The model predictions were compared with existing experimental data over a wide range of Figure 1.: +972 2 607 5418. Edmonton.†. 2009. Box. pipeline wear. Introduction Solid-liquid (slurry) transport has been used for decades in the long-distance transport of materials like coal.75 © 2009 American Chemical Society Published on Web 05/29/2009 . deposition velocity. obtained using a commercial CFD software package. Additionally. Once the particles are sufficiently large.1021/ie801505z CCC: $40. or agglomeration) is to be advanced. as well as frictional pressure losses. T6G 2G6 The behavior of horizontal solid-liquid (slurry) pipeline flows was predicted using a transient three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model based on the kinetic theory of granular flows.Ind.g. meaning that some empirically derived parameters or relationships are required. the oil sands industry of northern Alberta has become one of the world’s most intensive users of slurry transport. will require the development and validation of mechanistic computational models. Tel. including pharmaceutical manufacturing.. The location and velocity of these particles at different positions in the flow will drastically affect the pipeline operation. Chem. Simulations have been carried out to investigate the effect of solids volume fraction.5 to 5. particle size (90 to 500 µm). and frictional pressure loss. and oil refining. 8159–8171 8159 Hydrodynamic Simulation of Horizontal Slurry Pipeline Flow Using ANSYS-CFX Kalekudithi Ekambara. were compared with a number of experimental data sets available in the literature. frictional pressure drop. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation results. AB. time-averaged solids concentration profiles. slurry pipelines are more energy efficient and have lower operating and maintenance costs than any other bulk material handling methods. hydrocyclones. for example. 1. concentration profiles are dependent only on the in situ solids volume fraction. The simulations were carried out to investigate the effect of in situ solids volume concentration (8 to 45%). nanofabrication. Many industrial slurries. it is at the development stage for multiphase systems. The experimental and simulated results indicate that the particles are asymmetrically distributed in the vertical plane with the degree of asymmetry increasing with increasing particle size. UniVersity of Alberta.ae. Pipeline transport is also used to carry waste tailings to the final disposal site.E. 10. Work is required to make CFD suitable for slurry pipeline modeling and scale-up.or four-phase flows will require models that provide local values of particle concentration and velocity. E-mail: nkrishnaswamy@pi. In view of the current status on this subject. Grid structure for the horizontal slurry pipeline simulations. While it is now a standard tool for single-phase flows. Canada. Most engineering models of slurry flow have focused on the ability to predict frictional pressure loss and minimum operating velocity (or “deposition velocity”) for coarse-particle.

k-ε model with kinetic theory.· . and wall lubrication force.· ) CFD-k-ε model with kinetic theory and drag force. (B) radial distribution function and kinetic solids viscosity models of Gidaspow35 and Lun and Savage.0 pressure transducers γ-ray absorption electrical resistivity probe.9 125 440 5-50 2. 2009 Table 1. it is difficult to apply their model to actual flow situations.0 pressure transducers γ-ray absorption. 48. mixture velocities of 1. Shook and Daniel4 improved on the pseudohomogeneous approach by considering the slurry as a pseudo single-phase fluid with variable density.· . Each layer has a uniform concentration and velocity. average solids concentrations of 8 to 45% (by volume). by definition.7 developed a two-layer model for the prediction of flow patterns and pressure drops in slurry pipelines. and for a narrow range of operating velocities. (---) CFD.0-5. drag. The unique aspect of this technique is that it allows description of the flow using a single set of conservation equations (as for single-phase flow). they assumed that the kinetic energy of turbulent fluctuations is transferred to discrete particles. Wasp et al. However. uniform particle sizes of 90 to 500 µm. Shook and Daniel3 used the pseudohomogeneous approach to model slurry flow.8-5.45 50 150 165 480 520 1300 85 90 100 420 420 26-47 2. they were contained in the lower layer (with the upper layer solids concentration being zero). However.13 103 90 270 10-45 2. which suspends them in the flow. and pipe diameters of 50 to 500 mm. sampling probe pipeline operating conditions: that is.65 0.5 263 495 Schaan et al. Oroskar and Turian5 used a “constructive energy” approach to calculate the deposition velocity.37 . Momentum transfer occurs between the layers through interfacial shear forces. low solids volume fractions.65 2.7 51.8 pressure transducers γ-ray absorption magnetic flux flow meter 6-35 2. and turbulent dispersion force. It provides reasonable predictions of friction losses only for relatively fine particles.5 source Roco and Shook27 pressure drop particle concentration γ-ray absorption velocity magnetic flux flow meter 15-45 2. magnetic flux flow meter Kaushal and Tomita24 54. 17. (s) CFD-k-ε model with kinetic theory. Eng.5 m/s. 2. Wilson6 developed a one-dimensional two-layer model wherein coarse-particle slurry flow is considered to comprise two separate layers. The dispersed solids phase is assumed to augment the carrier fluid’s density and viscosity by amounts related to the in situ solids volume fraction.5-4. turbulent dispersion. this technique is of limited value as it. predicted deposition velocities compared favorably with the experimental data over a wide range of solids volume fractions. a brief review of previous work in this area is presented below. Experimental Data Sets Modeled with Hydrodynamic Simulations measurement technique pipe diameter particle size solids volume particle specific mixture (mm) (µm) concentration (%) gravity (-) velocity (m/s) 50.65 1.2 improved the calculation method and applied it to commercial slurry pipeline design.8-5.0 pressure transducers γ-ray absorption magnetic flux flow meter Gillies and Shook12 105 264 495 Gillies et al. because of the boundary conditions adopted in their approach. Particle concentration profile sensitivity analysis (A) effect of forces: (O) exptl. drag force. Despite the fact that this model was oversimplified and not intended for dense slurries.. Vol. No. In their model. lift. The two-layer model has been extended by a number of researchers.7-13 Doron et al. (. This model is very similar to that proposed by Wilson.47 1. the model did not predict the existence of a stationary bed at Figure 2. Res. Clearly. Before the computational method and simulation results are discussed. Previous Work Durand1 published a pioneering work on the empirical prediction of hydraulic gradients for coarse particle slurry flows. Chem. assumes the slurry has no deposition velocity.6 except that the lower layer may also be assumed to be stationary. Because Wilson assumed the particles were very coarse.65 1.0-8.5 to 5.8160 Ind.

Since the optimum pipeline velocity is usually close to the deposition velocity (Vc).e. 17.Ind.40. The model was used to predict particle concentration and velocity profiles that were in good agreement with experimental measurements.. Comparison of predicted and experimentally determined13 concentration profiles for dp ) 270 µm and V ) 5.10-13 The SRC two-layer model provides predictions of pressure gradient and deposition velocity as a function of particle diameter. and mixture velocity. solids volume fraction. Undoubtedly. (B) R j s ) 0. which is sandwiched between the suspended layer and a . most of the data that were incorporated in the model were obtained at mixture velocities that are just greater than the deposition velocity (Vc e V e 1.10. 2009 8161 Figure 3. the most commonly used version of the twolayer model is the SRC model developed by Gillies and co-workers. Their model considered the existence of a dispersive layer.30. Vol. Wilson and Pugh8 developed a dispersiveforce model of heterogeneous slurry flow. 48. Doron and Barnea14 extended the two-layer modeling approach to a three-layer model of slurry flow in horizontal pipelines.35.45. and (F) R j s ) 0.. Res. which extended the applicability of the original Wilson layer model because it accounted for particles suspended by fluid turbulence as well as those providing contact-load (Coulombic) friction. which also reduced the reliability of the pressure drop predictions. Eng. Chem. This model is “semimechanistic” in that the effect of pipe diameter on pipeline friction loss is specified mechanistically (i. Nassehi and Khan9 developed a numerical method for the determination of slip characteristics between the layers of a twolayer slurry flow. but no comparisons between experimental results and their numerical solutions were reported.20. does not depend on any empirically determined coefficients).4 m/s: (A) R j s ) 0. low flow rates. No. pipe diameter.3Vc). The semiempirical coefficients it contains are based on thousands of controlled experiments done at the Saskatchewan Research Council Pipe Flow Technology Centre. (E) R j s ) 0. (D) R j s ) 0. (C) R j s ) 0.

where the one-dimensional Schmidt-Rouse equation11 (or equivalent. It is not applicable when the particle size is large enough that the particles cannot be supported by fluid . 48. u∞ is the terminal particle settling velocity and y is a vertical position in the pipe. bed. which can be used to indicate the flow pattern (essentially. (C) R j s ) 0.26 considering the effect of efflux concentration on dimensionless solids diffusivity. They constructed an empirical correlation determining the ratio of the solids diffusivity to the liquid eddy diffusivity. it contains many empirical parameters. Comparison of predicted and experimentally determined13 concentration profiles for dp ) 90 µm and V ) 3. Their function shows that the solids diffusivity increases with increasing solids concentration. see Hunt17) is used to relate the rate of particle sedimentation to the rate of turbulent exchange. it does not take into account a significant dependence of the solids diffusivity on both particle size and pipe Reynolds number.24.8162 Ind.33. A no-slip condition between the solid particles and the fluid was assumed. Vol. The dispersive layer was considered to have a higher concentration gradient than the suspended layer. εs: Rsu∞ . time-averaged solids volume fraction. They considered the slurry to be a Newtonian fluid characterized using the mixture density and viscosity. They accounted for turbulent properties of the flow by introducing in the Navier-Stokes equation. Chem. The particle concentration profile was determined using a semiempirical diffusion equation similar to that described above. which clearly demonstrated the limitations of this model.25 They also compared their pressure drop data with the modified Wasp model. The model provides good predictions.εs dRs )0 dy (1) where Rs is the local. They determined the transition lines between the so-called “flow patterns” and compared these results with experimental data. A separate (but related) approach to slurry flow modeling also exists. (B) R j s ) 0. Over the years. 2009 Figure 4.20 and found good agreement at higher flow velocities. Gillies and Shook11 showed the most significant limitation of this type of model. Kaushal and co-workers19-24 developed a diffusion model based on the work of Karabelas.18 where they proposed a modification for the solids diffusivity for coarse particle slurry flow.19. Roco and Mahadevan31 used a one-equation kinetic energy model for turbulent viscosity. deviations were significant at flow velocities near the deposition velocity. Model predictions were compared with experimental data for solids volume fractions less than 35%.31 modified the turbulence model and used higher-order correlations to obtain a better estimate of eddy viscosity. 17.. However. The model predictions were compared with experiments. No. The model predictions showed satisfactory agreement with experimental data. an empirical term characterizing the turbulent viscosity. Eng. Ramadan et al. which is reasonable when the flow is in horizontal or nearhorizontal configurations. however.29. Doron and Barnea21 also used a three-layer model to draw flow pattern maps.0 m/s: (A) R j s ) 0.16 also developed a threelayer solid model and applied to simulate slurry transport in inclined channels. as represented by a solids eddy diffusivity. This model was not reliable at higher solids volume concentrations. Karabelas18 developed an empirical model to predict the particle concentration profiles based on this formulation. Roco and Shook27-29 developed a similar model for dense slurry pipeline flows. however. and (D) R j s) 0. Res. Roco and co-workers30. the degree of flow heterogeneity).

33 demonstrated that this effect is the result of a near-wall lift force that occurs in certain coarse-particle slurry flows. modified to include an interphase momentum transfer term: ∂ (F R u ) + ∇·(FlRlulul) ) -Rl∇p + FlRlg + ∇·τl + Fkm ∂t l l l (3) where g is the acceleration of gravity.Ind. Campbell et al. This force has no apparent analog for single particles in infinite fluids and appeared to be a result of multiparticle interactions. Numerous observations of a local maximum in particle concentration up from the bottom of the pipe have been made when the particle diameter is relatively large and the mixture velocity is high. As the particle diameter (and u∞) increases. it does not provide information about fluid turbulence.e. due to reaction or combustion.0 m/s. particle concentration. or local particle concentrations.34 reported experimental observations of an unexpected lift-like interaction force at the center of channel containing a flowing solids-liquid mixture. and F is the density. which uses granular kinetic theory to describe particle-particle interactions. local particle velocities. u is the velocity vector. The fundamental equations of mass. interfacial forces. The magnitude of this force was found to be a significant fraction (e. for instance. 3. Chem. Res.35 3. (iv) Many of the models are 1D or 2D semiempirical models.. spherical. The momentum balance for the liquid phase is given by the Navier-Stokes equation. incompressible. 40%) of the total weight of particles in the channel and thus may play a role in offsetting the Coulombic (contact load) friction in coarse particle slurry flows. including the implementation of granular kinetic theory. and mixture velocity. Vol. In view of these limitations. It is also limited in application to straight runs of pipeline having a circular cross-sectional area. Comparison of predicted and experimentally determined45 concentration profiles for dp ) 90 µm and R j s ) 0.33 Wilson and Sellgren32. it is not suitable for more complex geometries that are of great interest in many mineral processing industries. Recently. which occurs approximately when u∞/u* ≈ 0.0).32. deposition velocity). is not considered.78. Each phase is described using volume-averaged.1. that the smaller particles are fully encapsulated in the viscous sublayer and thus are not subjected to a near-wall force. No.44 mm) flowing in a 55 mm pipeline loop. the following observations can be made: (i) Most of the investigations were conducted using small pipeline loops (D e 55 mm) to determine pressure gradients and deposition velocities. Eng.3. becoming largely dependent on local concentration and exhibiting almost no dependence on mixture velocity (or fluid turbulence levels). (iii) The purpose of many of the models that have been developed is to predict frictional pressure drop and/or minimum operating velocity (i. These researchers confirmed many of the findings of Wilson and Sellgren: most notably. Fkm is the sum of the interfacial forces (including the .g. (v) While the SRC two-layer model provides accurate predictions of frictional pressure drop and deposition velocity over a wide range of pipe diameter. The solids viscosity and pressure are computed as a function of granular temperature at any time and position.24. (ii) Many of the earlier studies considered only moderate solids volume concentrations (say up to 26%). The volume-averaged continuity equation is given by (i ) liquid.15: (A) V ) 1. meaning that they are limited in their ability to describe such characteristics as fluid turbulence. (B) V ) 3. or the radial variation of particle velocity or concentration. momentum. Particles are considered to be smooth. From these publications. 2009 8163 As described above. solids): ∂ (F R ) + ∇·(FiRiui) ) 0 ∂t i i (2) turbulence. and energy conservation are then solved for each phase. many papers have been published in the past 50 years on the subject of horizontal slurry pipeline flow. in other words. Mathematical Modeling The CFD model used in this work is based on the extended two-fluid model. 48. Also. Kaushal and Tomita24 conducted experiments with two slurries of narrowly sized glass beads (0. Mass exchange between the phases. inelastic.. concentration profiles take a noticeably different shape. transient Navier-Stokes equations.125 and 0. particle size. Figure 5. where u* is the friction velocity (u* ) (τw/F)1/2). A more complete discussion of the extended two-fluid model. can be found in Gidaspow.11. where R is the concentration of each phase. These results clearly demonstrated the importance of the near-wall lift force on concentration profiles and on frictional pressure gradient for slurries containing the coarse particles.. an attempt has been made to develop a comprehensive computational model to describe the hydrodynamics of horizontal slurry flow based on the kinetic theory of granular flow and using a commercially available CFD package (ANSYS-CFX 10.5 m/s. Appropriate constitutive equations have to be specified in order to describe the physical and/or rheological properties of each phase and to close the conservation equations. 17. Continuity and Momentum Equation. p is the thermodynamic pressure. and to undergo binary collisions.

µs: 2 τs ) (. drag force FD. the virtual mass force FVM. The third term. τs. Θs. Vol. and R j s ) 0. γs.. defined The left-hand side of this equation represents the net change of fluctuating energy. Chem. where local equilibrium of generation and dissipation of fluctuating energy is assumed. In these models. A simpler and computationally cheaper method is to use an algebraic expression. This is.36 simplified eq 7 to . represents the dissipation of fluctuating energy and Ωls is the exchange of fluctuating energy between the liquid and solids phase. the granular temperature is determined from a transport equation. Eng.19. strictly speaking. 48. can be expressed in terms of the solids pressure. In most kinetic theory models. Although eq 7 can be solved for the granular temperature. The liquid-phase stress tensor. can be represented as 2 τl ) µl[∇ul + (∇ul)T] . Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow. the procedure is complex and the boundary conditions are not well understood. the wall lubrication force FWL and the turbulent dispersion force FTD). No. 17.µl(∇·ul)I 3 The solids phase momentum balance is given by ∂ (F R u ) + ∇·(FsRsusus) ) -Rs∇p + FsRsg + ∇·τs + Fkm ∂t s s s (5) The solids stress tensor. where u′s is the solids fluctuating velocity.2.γs + 2 ∂t s s s Ωls (7) [ ] { } (6) 3. Obtained from numerical simulations of the following conditions: dp ) 90 µm. and shear solids viscosity.Ps + ζs∇·us)I + µs [∇us + (∇us)T] . V ) 3. 2009 Figure 6. bulk solids viscosity. the constitutive elements of the solids stress are functions of the solids phase granular temperature. τl. a class of models based on the kinetic theory of gases.8164 Ind. Contour plots for (A) particle concentration and (B) liquid velocity taken at regularly spaced axial positions over the 10 m control volume. Res.(∇·us)I 3 (4) to be proportional to the mean square fluctuating particle velocity resulting from interparticle collisions: Θs ) u′s2/3. generalized to take account of inelastic particle collisions. the lift force FL. The first term on the right-hand side represents the fluctuating energy due to solids pressure and viscous forces. ζs. Boemer et al. The conservation of the solids fluctuating energy balance36 can be written as 3 ∂ (R F Θ ) + ∇·(RsFsusΘs) ) τs:∇us + ∇·(ks∇Θ) . Ps.0 m/s. The procedure is also computationally expensive. The second term is the diffusion of fluctuating energy in the solids phase.

Eng. In practice. V ) 5.19.Ind. 48. dp is the particle diameter.38 Figure 7.5Rsm (11) where e is the coefficient of restitution for particle collisions.13 . the value of the settled bed volume fraction should be measured. Res. V ) 3.9. was taken as 0. where Rsm is the volume fraction of a settled bed of solids.44 m/s and R j s ) 0.0 m/s and R j s ) 0.e 2 2 )Rs Fsg0Θs ∂ Ui ) γs ∂ xj (8) Popular models for the radial distribution function are given by Gidaspow:35 g0(Rs) ) 0. Chem.203. 17. The radial distribution function. No. g0.4 m/s and R j s ) 0. The g0 function becomes infinite when the in situ solids volume fraction approaches Rsm. which quantifies the elasticity of particle collisions (one for fully elastic and zero for the fully inelastic). A value of Rsm ) 0. Predicted liquid velocity profiles for (A) dp ) 90 µm. Vol.(Rs / Rsm))-2. (C) dp ) 480 µm. as it depends primarily on particle sphericity and particle size distribution. The restitution coefficient.6(1 . and g0 is the radial distribution function at contact. 2009 8165 production ) dissipation ⇒ τsij The dissipation fluctuating energy is35 γs ) 3(1 .20..diVU π )) and Lun and Savage:37 (9) g0(Rs) ) (1 .64 is often assumed for a random packing of monosize spheres.(Rs / Rsm)1/3)-1 (10) (( 4 dp Θs . (B) dp ) 270 µm. though. can be seen as a measure of the probability of interparticle contact. Measurements of local particle velocity shown in panel A from Gillies et al. V ) 3.

Rlε) (22) µl. the liquid velocities were set to zero (no.2 and employs the Ergun model when Rs e 0. The discretization of the three-dimensional domain resulted in 386 340 cells and the grid structure shown in Figure 1.us) 4 dp (18) The drag coefficient CD has been modeled using the Gidaspow model. ur ) ul . which is given in standard form as: µl. No. 17.3. Mass and momentum equations were solved using a second-order implicit method for space and a first-order implicit method for time discretization. The lift force can be modeled in terms of the slip velocity and the curl of the liquid phase velocity40. Grid independence was examined. velocities and concentrations of both phases are specified. is expressed as42 FWL ) -RsFl (ur . In these simulations.kin (14) (( (( ) ) ) ) The collisional component of the solids viscosity is modeled as 4 2 Fsdpg0(1 + e) µs.9.41 as FL ) CLRsFl(us .us is the relative velocity between phases.01 and 0. The particle pressure consists of a kinetic term corresponding to the momentum transport caused by particle velocity fluctuations and a second term due to particle collisions:35 2 Θs(1 + e)g0 Ps ) FsRsΘs + 2FsRs Here. At the outlet. 48.1 in the present simulation. The solids shear viscosity is expressed as a sum of the kinetic and collisional contributions: µs ) µs. as suggested by Antal et al. Cε2 ) 1. with the aforementioned boundary conditions. For the liquid phase. No turbulence model is applied to the solids phase but the influence of the dispersed phase on the turbulence of the continuous phase is taken into account with Sato’s additional term. the average solids volume fraction and a parabolic velocity profile are specified as initial conditions.42 are -0. To initiate the numerical solution. G represents the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradient. At the inlet.35 which employs the Wen and Yu model when Rs > 0.8166 Ind.tur ∂ ε ∂ ∂ ∂ (FlRlε) + (FlRlulε) ) Rl µ + + ∂t ∂ xi ∂ xi σ∈ ∂ xi ε Rl (Cε1G . σk ) 1.slip condition).0.44 3.us |(ul . 4. This value is within the range suggested in the literature. Res. The interphase momentum transfer between solids and liquid due to drag force is given by 3 1 FD ) CDRsFl | ul .0. a constant time step of 0.001 s and pipe length of 10. The velocity of the particles was also set at zero.41 The wall lubrication force.92.(ur·nw)nw) dp max C1 + C2 . σε ) 1. Eng.09.4. The solids shear viscosity contains terms arising from particle momentum exchange due to collision and translation. and nw is the unit normal pointing away from the wall.2)g0Rs 5 √Θ 2-η (17) ) where η ) 1/2(1 + e) 3. 3. respectively. Timeaveraged distributions of flow variables are computed over a period of 100 s.tur ∂ k ∂ ∂ ∂ (F R k) + ( F R u k) ) R µ+ + ∂t l l ∂ xi l l l ∂ xi l σk ∂ xi Rl(G .kin ( )( 8 1 + η(3η . both the kinetic and the collisional contributions are considered. The turbulent dispersion force is modeled based on the Favre average of the interphase drag force using43 FTD ) ∇Rc ∇Rd 3 CD υtc RdFc(ud . 2009 The solids pressure represents the solids phase normal forces caused by particle-particle interactions. Vol.2. The turbulence model used for the liquid phase is a variant of the two-equation k-ε model. Boundary Conditions. The wall lubrication constants C1 and C2.col + µs. Interfacial Forces.col ) Rs 5 Θ π 35 (15) and the kinetic component is determined based on µs. The conservation equations were discretized using the control volume technique. The high resolution discretization scheme was used for the convective terms.uc) 4 dp σtc Rd Rc (12) In eq 6.05. but further grid refinement did not result in significant changes to the simulations results.kin ) 2 5√π Fsdp 4 1 + η(1 + e)g0Rs √Θ 48 (1 + e)g0 5 ( ) (16) and Lun and Savage37 1 5√π 8 Fd ) + Rs 96 s p ηg0 5 µs. Cµ ) 0. σtc is the turbulent Schmidt number for continuous phase volume fraction.0 m were used. 0 dp yw [ ] (20) .44. Chem. which is in the normal direction away from the wall and decays with distance from the wall.. dp is the mean particle diameter. the pressure is specified (atmospheric). the solids bulk viscosity accounts for the resistance of the granular particles to compression and expansion and has the form39 4 2 ζs ) R s Fsdpg0(1 + e) 3 Θ π (13) ( ) (21) Here. yw is the distance to the nearest wall. taken here to be σtc ) 0. a k-ε model is applied with its standard constants: Cε1 ) 1.Cε2Rlε) (23) k In these equations.5. Numerical Solution The system of equations. The SIMPLE algorithm was employed to solve the pressurevelocity coupling in the momentum equations. At the wall. In the kinetic theory of granular flow. Three dimensional transient simulations were performed. Initial simulations were carried out with a coarse mesh to obtain rapid convergence and an indication of the positions where a high mesh density was needed.3.ul) × ∇ × ul (19) The lift coefficient has been assigned a value of 0. Turbulence Equations. was solved using the commercial flow simulation software ANSYS CFX 10.

and D ) 51. and mixture velocity. and frictional pressure drop were obtained using the model and then were compared (where possible) with the existing experimental data.20. where y is the distance from the pipe bottom. R j s ) 0. In the first case. R j s ) 0.. A wide range of particle size (90-500 µm).13and Kaushal and Tomita. 48. 2009 8167 Figure 8. Sensitivity Analysis. and the frictional pressure drop is ∆p/L. the liquid velocity is ul. (C) dp ) 165 µm. time-averaged particle concentration profiles. (B) dp ) 125 µm. The local solids volume fraction rapidly approaches zero at a vertical position of y/D ≈ 0. particle concentration profiles. R j s ) 0. where the predicted particle concentration profile shows a peak near the bottom of the pipe. the local particle concentration is Rs. R js ) 0.20..27 Schaan et al. V ) 3. particle and liquid velocities. solids volume concentration (8-45%). The model predictions are shown in Figure 2A.45 Gillies and Shook.5 mm. Results and Discussion The CFD simulations were carried out to match the experimental conditions of Roco and Shook.. and D ) 103 mm. 5.5-5. numerical simulations were conducted for three cases to demonstrate the effects that the inclusion of different forces had on the quality of the predictions. Chem. The second simulation included drag force and the turbulent dispersion force.9 mm. V ) 4. Initially. 17. (F) dp ) 480 µm. 5. R j s ) 0. (E) dp ) 440 µm.12 Gillies et al.0 m/s. Eng.44 m/s.5 m/s). and D ) 51. Each data set described in Table 1 was simulated using the model described in the previous sections. and pipe diameter (50-500 mm) were considered. mixture velocity (1.24 Table 1 summarizes the experimental conditions and measurement techniques employed to measure pressure drop. V ) 3. and D ) 54. R j s ) 0.203. Res. y/D is the dimensionless position along the pipe’s vertical axis. No.189.20.4 m/s.0 m/s. V ) 3. and D ) 54. The predicted result is in good .17 m/s. V ) 5.0 m/s.9 mm.Ind. Vol. The local.85.5 mm. In the figures discussed here.19. the simulations were carried out with the k-ε model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow and drag force only. and D ) 103 mm. (D) dp ) 270 µm. Effect of particle size on concentration profile: (A) dp ) 90 µm.1. V ) 3.

mixture density. particle size. all subsequent simulations were conducted using (i) k-ε turbulence model with the kinetic theory of granular flow. R j s ) 0. The experimental data were initially reported by Gillies et al.46 Figure 3 shows the experimental and predicted concentration profiles for 270 µm sand slurries flowing at a constant mixture velocity (5. and (iii) the Gidaspow radial distribution function/kinetic solids viscosity model. as shown in Figure 2B. and V ) 3.5 m/s.5 mm. and V ) 4.37 were tested. 5. pipe diameter. and V ) 3. and wall lubrication force) were included.0995. and particle density. lift.268. 2009 Figure 9.5 m/s.4 m/s) in a 100 mm pipeline.286. (C) D ) 263 mm. 17. Eng.104. the numerical predictions show reasonable agreement with the experimental results.16 m/s. (E) D ) 495 mm. Effect of pipe diameter on concentration profile. and V ) 3.78 m/s. (B) D ) 51. instead. turbulent dispersion. Additionally. Chem. For these slurries. agreement with the experimental data. Vol. R j s ) 0. R j s ) 0. increasing the in situ solids concentration reduces the asymmetry of the concentration profiles because of increased particle interactions. the knowledge of solids distribution across the pipe cross-section is essential in the evaluation or prediction of pipeline wear.8168 Ind. On the basis of these observations. Because concentration profiles depend on many parameters. two radial distribution function and kinetic solids viscosity models35. and V ) 3. 48. Essentially. fluid turbulence is not completely effective in suspending the particles. In situ solids volume concentrations of 10 to 45% were tested (and simulated).5 mm. (F) D ) 495 mm.16 m/s. the results showed no significant improvement. R j s ) 0.2. Solids Concentration Profiles. Additionally. In the third case.. there is no difference between the two.13 Generally. when all the forces (drag.33 m/s. It can be observed from the figures that for a given velocity. (ii) drag and turbulent dispersion forces. suspension results partly . dp ) 165 µm: (A) D ) 51. (D) D ) 263 mm.273. it is important to test the ability of a model to predict these profiles. R j s ) 0. including mixture velocity. and V ) 3.35 Lift and wall lubrication forces were neglected in these simulations. Res.0918. R j s ) 0. No.

No.40.19-23 They also provide a good test of the numerical model’s ability to predict the importance of the turbulent dispersion forces. R j s ) 0. R j s ) 0.Ind. Vol. 17. R j s ) 0. dp ) 90 µm. the agreement between the numerical predictions and experimental results is good.30. This reversal is not predicted in our simulations and may be related to the existence of near-wall forces described previously.39. These concentration profiles can be accurately predicted using a Schmidt-Rouse 1D turbulent diffusion model.11. Chem. Velocity Profiles. The contour plots shown for axial positions 5 through 8 are nearly identical. from particle-particle interactions. 48. Figures 4 and 5 show experimental data and numerical predictions for 90 µm sand slurries flowing in 100 and 154 mm pipelines. Velocity profiles in horizontal slurry flow are directly linked to the concentration profile. indicating that the numerical simulations are providing results for fully developed flow. 5.25 m intervals are shown in Figure 6. they are also dependent upon particle size.3.33. R j s ) 0. R j s ) 0.32. The particles in these slurries are effectively suspended by fluid turbulence. as such. the results are encouraging. . in situ solids concentration. Eng. Overall. dp ) 125 µm. dp ) 90 µm. dp ) 90 µm. (D) D ) 103 mm. Significant differences in particle concentration and liquid velocity can be observed between the first and fourth axial positions.29. 2009 8169 Figure 10.9 mm. as the relatively uniform concentration profiles at low in situ volume fractions attest. (B) D ) 54. Res. dp ) 90 µm. V ) 3. (F) D ) 150 mm.0 m/s: (A) D ) 54.. dp ) 125 µm. R j s ) 0. respectively.13 This is a good test of the model’s ability to predict the combined importance of fluid turbulence and shear-dependent (Bagnold-like) particle-particle interactions. Contour plots of particle concentration and liquid velocity along the pipe cross section at axial positions separated by 1.9 mm. Overall. In Figure 3F. (E) D ) 150 mm. the experimentally determined concentration profile exhibits a reversal in local concentration near the pipe invert. (C) D ) 103 mm. Effect of pipe diameter on concentration profile for slurries of fine particles.

The measured concentration profiles were taken from Roco and Shook. Chem.2). The predictions are in good agreement with the experimental data for all pipe diameters.12 (]) Gillies et al. 5. Pressure Drop. V ) 3. is nearly symmetric. 5. The degree of asymmetry in the concentration profiles depends primarily upon the particle diameter. and mixture velocity. Figure 8 shows the measured and predicted concentration profiles for four different slurries. Recall that the corresponding concentration profile. 270. in situ solids volume fraction. To investigate the effect of pipe diameter on the performance of the numerical model developed here. Figure 7A compares a measured particle velocity profile13 with predictions for a 90 µm sand slurry (R j s ) 0. Pipeline pressure drop is one of the most important parameters in slurry pipeline design and operation. the current CFD . a distinct reversal in the concentration profile can be seen near the pipe invert (y/D < 0. from highly effective (Figure 8A) to completely ineffective (Figure 8F).F. because the particles are relatively fine and the mixture velocity in each case is significantly greater than the deposition velocity. Concentration profiles of the type shown in Figure 8F. 17. and the in situ solids volume fraction. 6..24 As the information presented in Table 1 indicates.13. which is shown in Figure 4A. Effect of Particle Diameter. In all cases. excellent agreement between the predicted and the experimental data was obtained for a wide range of in situ solids volume fractions. Thus.27 Schaan et al. respectively). confirming that the local.12 Gillies et al. The comparison of measured and predicted frictional pressure drop results is shown in Figure 11. Only slurries containing narrowly sized particles were simulated in this study.8170 Ind. The left-hand figure shows a traditional velocity profile. 125.0 m/s). where the local time-averaged liquid velocity along the pipe’s vertical axis is plotted.45 Gillies and Shook.0 m/s).4.13 and Kaushal and Tomita24) was presented. The mixture velocity is the same for each panel (V ) 3. Otherwise.24. Frictional pressure gradients and local. the model’s performance is satisfactory.32 which occurs when the particle is large relative to the viscous sublayer thickness. Note also the agreement between the measured particle Velocity and the predicted fluid Velocity is excellent. the measured concentration profile of Figure 8F can be considered to be typical of one that would be found for any coarse particle slurry (dp > 300 µm). Figure 7 shows three pairs of illustrations.27 This particular particle size was chosen for two reasons: data had been collected from experiments conducted with a wide range of pipe diameters and this sand size exhibits strong pipe diameter-dependent concentration profiles.. It can be seen that the velocity profiles become increasingly asymmetrical with increasing particle size. The experimental data shown in these figures represent a broad spectrum of fluid turbulence effects on particle suspension. Vol. time-averaged slip velocity approaches zero for slurries of this type. Figure 9 shows both experimental and predicted concentration profiles for a 165 µm sand slurry flowing in pipes that are 51.45 (∆) Gillies and Shook. the agreement between measured and predicted profiles is encouraging. The CFD model described here is capable of predicting particle concentration profiles for fine particle slurries where fluid turbulence is effective at suspending the particles. Parity plot for frictional pressure gradient (experimental data: (O) Schaan et al. Figure 7 panels B and C show predicted liquid velocity profiles for slurries containing coarser particles (270 and 480 µm. for very coarse particles. with only minimal dependence on mixture velocity or pipe diameter. The corresponding contour plot is the type that is readily attainable from CFD simulations. Res. This phenomenon has been demonstrated experimentally.6.9 mm pipeline loop.. the simulation results were compared with the experimental data of Schaan et al.13 and Kaushal and Tomita.19. and pipe diameter. Conclusions A transient three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow has been developed for horizontal slurry pipelines. The maximum local velocity is found in the upper portion of the pipe and not at the centerline. 440. the concentration profile reversal seen in Figure 10 panels A and B is not accurately reproduced with the current model. mixture velocities.12 Gillies et al..45 Gillies and Shook. In Figure 8E. To validate the numerical results obtained with the CFD model. and 495 mm in diameter. It also performs satisfactorily when the particles are coarse and concentration profiles are primarily dependent upon the in situ solids volume fraction. these experimental data were collected for a wide range of particle size. 5. In situ solids volume fractions are comparable for these slurries (R j s ≈ 0. time-averaged solids concentration and liquid/particle velocities were obtained. 48.5. mixture velocity. This is related to the near-wall lift force described previously. A detailed comparison between the CFD simulation results and an expansive experimental data set (reported by Roco and Shook. The current version of the CFD model is unable to reproduce this concentration reversal. depend primarily on in situ solids volume fraction. and pipe diameters. the flow of a number of slurries in pipes of different diameter was considered. and 480 µm). Effect of Pipe Diameter. 165. 150. the mixture velocity. The relative importance of fluid turbulence vis-a ` -vis particle-particle interactions in determining the shape of the concentration profiles with increasing pipe diameter is clearly shown in Figure 9. Again.5. 263. No noticeable effect of pipe diameter is observed for these concentration profiles. Figure 10 panels C-F show results and predictions for narrowly sized 90 µm sand slurries flowing in 100 and 150 mm pipelines. No. Generally.13 and (0) Kaushal and Tomita24). Figure 10 panels A and B show the experimental measurements made by Kaushal and Tomita24 for slurries of 125 µm glass spheres in water flowing in a 54. 2009 Figure 11.2). Eng. 103.27 Note also from the contour plots that the velocity distribution in a horizontal plane is symmetrical about the pipe axis. each with a different particle size (90. In experimental data sets where the nearwall lift force was of sufficient magnitude to cause a reversal in the concentration profile near the pipe invert. The predicted pressure drop is in good agreement with the experimental measurements for the wide range of slurry flow conditions represented by the data sets to which the numerical simulations were compared. Figure 10 provides similar findings for experimental measurements made with smaller particles of differing size and shape. particle diameters..

1983. 47. D. (28) Roco. Eng. K. R. A. Seiter. C. 1986. J. Shook. (34) Campbell. Can. (41) Tomiyama.. A. Eng.. Chepurnity. Kaushal. Multiphase Flow 1987. K.. 68. 583–588. V. Drag Model for Turbulent Dispersion in Eulerian Multiphase Flows. 15–44. 1991. (29) Roco. J. Mahadevan. Basic Relationships of the Transportation of Solids in Pipes: Experimental Research. Deposition Velocities.. 1977. 3–13. D. C. Modeling Slurry Flow. J. M. 223–235. Vertical Distribution of Dilute Suspensions in Turbulent Pipe Flow. 39. C. 1953.. 1st ed. T. G. D. J. Tomita. 2557–2570. 1995.. Chem. Sato. Comparative Study of Pressure Drop in Multisized Particulate Slurry Flow through Pipe and Rectangular Duct. Funatsu. C. 238–244.. 22.. C. A. 13. Gillies. A. 7. Turbulent Modeling.K.. Chem. (33) Wilson. A. A. Eng. 1983. R. (10) Gillies. Renz. C. (42) Antal. Two-Phase Flow Modell. (13) Gillies. V. (32) Wilson. M. 1815–1820. R. J. Can. 1060–1065. (25) Walton. J.. Chem.. A Three-Layer Model for Solid-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes.-M. Kenny. Bed Combust. The Effects of an Impact Velocity Dependent Coefficient of Restitution on Stresses Developed by Sheared Granular Materials. J. 239–258. 1994. Academic Press: New York. R. 108. Multiphase Flow 1996. J. J. Y. 1473–1487. D. (43) Burns. (23) Seshadri. Savage. Tomita. R. Res. A Variable Density Model of the Pipeline Flow of Suspensions. J. K. the present model can be considered to be superior to existing correlation-based. Francisco. M. Kinetic Theory for Granular Flow: Inelastic Particles in Couette Flow and Slightly Inelastic Particles in a General Flow Field. U. Frank. C. No. D. Chem. M. 2000. 12. S. 82. A. Int. U. 167–173. Multiphase Flow 2005. J. R. Jeffrey. R. Clift. N. 41. A. M. 2000. P. 273–283. 2. (35) Gidaspow. Y. Modelling Heterogeneous Slurry Flows at High Velocities. C. D. Jacques. A. Flow of Suspensions of Solids in Pipelines. pp 53-76. 69. Fluid Mech. J. N. D. R. Technol.. The Critical Velocity in Pipeline Flow of Slurries. 717–725. Powder Technol. 14. J. A. (3) Shook. Tech. R. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Syncrude Canada Ltd..K. Int. Int. Concentration Distribution of Sand Slurries in Horizontal Pipe Flow. J. 61. Flow Pattern Maps for Solid-Liquid Flow in Pipes. S. 79–95. (4) Shook. M. G. K. C. Germany. Sci. Int. J. Tomita. 4. Boysan. J. Singh. Granica. 494–503. J. 1980. Shook. Multiphase Flow 2002. R. Toyota. International Association of Hydraulic Research. A.. 721– 727. Eng. 2008 ReVised manuscript receiVed March 8. H. London. C. Khan. Wilson... Small. Part 1.. AIChE J. (5) Oroskar. N. Analysis of Phase Distribution in Fully-developed Laminar Bubbly Two Phase Flow. 17. Z. Lift and Virtual Mass Forces Acting on a Single Bubble. Chem. K. J.. E. Computational Method for Coal Slurry Pipelines with Heterogeneous Size Distribution. Chem. (22) Kaushal. J. (6) Wilson. Liu.. H... Technol. Eng. Int. Barnea. Effect of Particle Size Distribution on Pressure Drop and Concentration Profile in Pipeline Flow of Highly Concentrated Slurry. S.. E. J. K. Symp. Operating Points for Pipelines Carrying Concentrated Heterogeneous Slurries. Pipelines 1984. Can. R. Can. M. Chem. 2009 Accepted March 11. I. 2009 IE801505Z . The model described here. ICMF. 197–203. Powder Technol 2002. S. A.. 2005. Int. 426–434. B.. K. Int. The Effect of Particle Shape on Pipeline Friction for Newtonian Slurries of Fine Particles. J. C. (27) Roco. 1969. Part 2: Two Mechanisms of Particle Suspension. R.. BHRA Fluid Engineering: Cranfield. Vasqyez. B.. Liquid Velocity Distribution in Two-Phase Bubbly Flow. Soc. C. Chem. J. C. 1995. F. A Model for Turbulent Slurry Flow. R. C. (31) Roco. 431–456. Yokohama. 23. (26) Wasp. Minnesota. 22–24. (11) Gillies. Can. K. 173–178. (9) Nassehi. A Unified Physical-based Analysis of Solid-Liquid Pipeline Flow. Solids Concentration Profiles and Pressure Drop in Pipeline Flow of Multi-Sized Particulate Slurries. Can. Minneapolis. 2004.Ind. J. Paper H4. Fluid. Sellgren. Solid Liquid Flow Slurry Pipeline Transportation. Acta Mech. D. Tomita. (21) Kaushal. 31.. Interaction of Particles and Near-wall Lift in Slurry Pipelines. 63. S. A. M. Eng. 48. Turian.. (7) Doron. 2009 8171 model was not able to reproduce this behavior. Can. 1977.. 17–23.. G. J. is complete in the sense that no experimentally determined flow measurements are required as input data. Transition Velocities and Spatial Distribution of Solids in Slurry Pipelines. R. 45–69. C.. Int. 24. (18) Karabelas. Int. I. 1986. Int. 1968. 1970. Modeling of Slurry Flow: The Effect of Particle Size. Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory Descriptions. 269–277. (12) Gillies. 159– 176. 46. Sellgren. 60. A. 775–787. C.. J. J. Lahey. including the associated boundary conditions. Kenny... U. Balakrishnan. (40) Zun. 30. 82.. (15) Doron. Y. 224. Preliminary Observations of a Particle Lift Force in Horizontal Slurry Flow. P.. (38) Shook. The Turbulent Transport of Suspended Sediment in Open Channels. R. Multiphase Flow 1991.. Flaherty. R. Dighade. semiempirical models. 1-16. D. (45) Schaan. Daniel. C.. 19. 709–716. J. (30) Roco. A.. Can. S. A 1954.. Shook. C. I. A. J. A. Ser. 78. Int.. 1697–1717.. Savage. 2004. Barnea. Y.. Shook. A Model for the Prediction of Concentration and Particle Size Distribution for the Flow of Multisized Particulate Suspensions through Closed Ducts and Open Channels. R. R. A... The Effect of Particle Size. S.. 123.. Multiphase Flow 2004. The Transverse Migration of Bubbles Influenced by Walls in Vertical Bubbly Flow.. Multiphase Flow 1993. 129. Experimental Investigation of NearWall Lift of Coarser Particles in Slurry Pipeline Using Gamma-ray Densitometer.. D. AIChE J. 172. A. Technol 1994. Vol. C. Multiphase Flow 2003. K. T. Hamill. F. 6. Dispersive-Force Modeling of Turbulent Suspension in Heterogeneous Slurry Flow. R. Chem. Shalle. AIChE J.. 26. Trans. BHRA Fluid Engineering: Cranfield. B. R. J. Eulerian Computation of Fluidized Bed HydrodynamicssA Comparison of Physical Models. Technol 2006.. 89–101.. In this sense. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Hydraulic Transport of Solids in pipes (Hydrotransport 4).. Japan.. (36) Boemer.. Eng. Y.. H. C. Method Fluids 1992. 809–823. Powder Technol. (19) Kaushal. P. Gandhi. 140. 2002.. Can. C.. Hydraulic Eng. A. Shook. R. K. Slurry Flow in Horizontal PipesExperimental and Modeling. Barnea. C. (16) Ramadan. Multiphase Flow 1975. 2. Multiphase Flow 1980. Shook. S.. C. Eng. 78. J. Proceedings of the 5th Congress. N. A Numerical Method for the Determination of Slip Characteristics between the Layers of a Two-Layer Slurry Flow. Sci. Numer. Part.. Paper A1. Sumner. Publications: Clausthal. J. (39) Lun. 1984. (24) Kaushal. J. D. 1029–1043. S. (Pisa) 2004. Powder Technol 2007. 73–76. G. 1990. (44) Sato. Shook. Qi. Chem. Eng. 125. 66. (14) Doron. Daniel. T. An Improved Twolayer Model for Horizontal Slurry Pipeline Flow. Eddy Diffusivity of Solid Particles in a Turbulent Liquid Flow in a Horizontal Pipe.. Chem. ASME 1995. C. 199–216. 2003. J. Literature Cited (1) Durand. Eng. ReceiVed for reView October 6. (8) Wilson. Energy Res. Shook. S. J. 19–24. Modelling High Concentration Slurry Flows. K. (17) Hunt. (46) Hoffman. Sci. Expt. (20) Kaushal. A Relation for the Void Fraction of Randomly Packed Particle Beds. R.. Rheol. 1988. C. R. Saasen. 635. J.. Part. 29. A. J. J. Sekoguchi. D. Tomita. 177–187. 5th International Conference on Multiphase Flow.. (37) Lun.. D. 29 (4). P. J.. G. K. Drag. Xu. Y. B. 535–547. 551–558. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes (Hydrotransport 1). (2) Wasp. A.. Finkers. 1984. J. A. R. 3rd Int. Concentration at the Pipe Bottom at Deposition Velocity for Transportation of Commercial Slurries through Pipeline. Pugh. Shi.. 322–335. L. Modeling Slurry Flow. McKibben. Powd. M. M. P. 196. C. P. Proc. Investigation of Some Hydrodynamical Factors Affecting Slurry Pipeline Wall Erosion. C. Eng.. J. 1976. Aude. 28. Application of a Three-Layer Modeling Approach for Solids Transport in Horizontal and Inclined Channels..

8159–8171 8159 Hydrodynamic Simulation of Horizontal Slurry Pipeline Flow Using ANSYS-CFX Kalekudithi Ekambara. contain a range of different particle sizes. The Petroleum Institute. accurate predictions of concentration and velocity distributions in more complicated geometries (pumps. operations involving slurry flow play a significant role in many other industries. Knowledge of the variation of these parameters with pipe position is crucial if the understanding of mesoscopic processes (e. these models tend to provide macroscopic parameters only. Canada.: +972 2 607 5418. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation results. Many models of this type exist and have varying degrees of success in predicting the aforementioned parameters. pipeline wear. and tailings. mixing tanks) * To whom correspondence should be addressed. T6G 2G6 The behavior of horizontal solid-liquid (slurry) pipeline flows was predicted using a transient three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model based on the kinetic theory of granular flows.Ind. particle and liquid velocity profiles. it is at the development stage for multiphase systems. particle size (90 to 500 µm). 10. The model predictions were compared with existing experimental data over a wide range of Figure 1. P.A. Nandakumar. Most engineering models of slurry flow have focused on the ability to predict frictional pressure loss and minimum operating velocity (or “deposition velocity”) for coarse-particle.75 © 2009 American Chemical Society Published on Web 05/29/2009 .ae. as well as frictional pressure losses.5 to 5. Simulations have been carried out to investigate the effect of solids volume fraction. many of these models are phenomenological. and pipe diameter on spatial variations of particle concentration and liquid velocity. time-averaged solids concentration profiles. With the advent of increased computational capabilities. Dense. 2009. particle size. mineral ore concentrates. meaning that some empirically derived parameters or relationships are required. slurry pipelines are more energy efficient and have lower operating and maintenance costs than any other bulk material handling methods. Additionally. “settling” slurries.* and Jacob H. AB. Over the past 20 years.O. UniVersity of Alberta. hydrocyclones. frictional pressure drop. Finally. † GASCO Chair Professor. The location and velocity of these particles at different positions in the flow will drastically affect the pipeline operation.5 m/s). were compared with a number of experimental data sets available in the literature. and frictional pressure loss. obtained using a commercial CFD software package. Pipeline transport is also used to carry waste tailings to the final disposal site. R. Many industrial slurries. The present CFD model requires no experimentally determined slurry pipeline flow data for parameter tuning. Grid structure for the horizontal slurry pipeline simulations. Edmonton. Excellent agreement between the model predictions and the experimental data was obtained. however. coarse particle slurries of oil sand ore are transported by pipeline from mining sites to extraction facilities. 1. ANSYS-CFX. As noted in the following section. mixture velocity. the application to horizontal slurry pipeline flow of a comprehensive three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow has been undertaken. deposition velocity. computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is emerging as a very promising new tool in modeling hydrodynamics. Box.†. or agglomeration) is to be advanced. particle attrition. Work is required to make CFD suitable for slurry pipeline modeling and scale-up. In most cases. and thus can be considered to be superior to commonly used. Res. The kinetic theory component of this model is critical because it accounts for the effects of the interactions between particles and between particles and the suspending liquid phase. Once the particles are sufficiently large.. concentration profiles are dependent only on the in situ solids volume fraction. and pipe diameter (50 to 500 mm) on local. Chem. 2533 Abu Dhabi. and oil refining. U. Introduction Solid-liquid (slurry) transport has been used for decades in the long-distance transport of materials like coal.or four-phase flows will require models that provide local values of particle concentration and velocity. analysis of more complex three. and delivered solids volume fraction for a narrowly sized slurry. including pharmaceutical manufacturing. will require the development and validation of mechanistic computational models. Masliyah Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering. correlation-based empirical models. E-mail: nkrishnaswamy@pi.1021/ie801505z CCC: $40. Additionally. 48. Eng. Additionally. The experimental and simulated results indicate that the particles are asymmetrically distributed in the vertical plane with the degree of asymmetry increasing with increasing particle size. the oil sands industry of northern Alberta has become one of the world’s most intensive users of slurry transport.E. mixture velocity (1. Fax: 780-492-2881. Sean Sanders. K.ac. The simulations were carried out to investigate the effect of in situ solids volume concentration (8 to 45%). In view of the current status on this subject. for example. nanofabrication. Tel. While it is now a standard tool for single-phase flows.g.

uniform particle sizes of 90 to 500 µm. Because Wilson assumed the particles were very coarse. Despite the fact that this model was oversimplified and not intended for dense slurries. (B) radial distribution function and kinetic solids viscosity models of Gidaspow35 and Lun and Savage. Vol.· . and wall lubrication force. Experimental Data Sets Modeled with Hydrodynamic Simulations measurement technique pipe diameter particle size solids volume particle specific mixture (mm) (µm) concentration (%) gravity (-) velocity (m/s) 50.65 1. drag force.0 pressure transducers γ-ray absorption electrical resistivity probe.65 0. sampling probe pipeline operating conditions: that is.8-5.· . this technique is of limited value as it. Before the computational method and simulation results are discussed. (s) CFD-k-ε model with kinetic theory. predicted deposition velocities compared favorably with the experimental data over a wide range of solids volume fractions. Clearly.0 pressure transducers γ-ray absorption magnetic flux flow meter Gillies and Shook12 105 264 495 Gillies et al.5 source Roco and Shook27 pressure drop particle concentration γ-ray absorption velocity magnetic flux flow meter 15-45 2. Each layer has a uniform concentration and velocity. (---) CFD.5-4.65 2.7-13 Doron et al. In their model.5 to 5. (. Wasp et al. turbulent dispersion.5 263 495 Schaan et al. The dispersed solids phase is assumed to augment the carrier fluid’s density and viscosity by amounts related to the in situ solids volume fraction. Oroskar and Turian5 used a “constructive energy” approach to calculate the deposition velocity. drag. and turbulent dispersion force. Res. The two-layer model has been extended by a number of researchers. 2009 Table 1.5 m/s.. This model is very similar to that proposed by Wilson. they were contained in the lower layer (with the upper layer solids concentration being zero). the model did not predict the existence of a stationary bed at Figure 2. and for a narrow range of operating velocities. The unique aspect of this technique is that it allows description of the flow using a single set of conservation equations (as for single-phase flow). 48. lift. they assumed that the kinetic energy of turbulent fluctuations is transferred to discrete particles. because of the boundary conditions adopted in their approach. However. Momentum transfer occurs between the layers through interfacial shear forces. it is difficult to apply their model to actual flow situations. 17. Shook and Daniel4 improved on the pseudohomogeneous approach by considering the slurry as a pseudo single-phase fluid with variable density.13 103 90 270 10-45 2. Shook and Daniel3 used the pseudohomogeneous approach to model slurry flow.k-ε model with kinetic theory. which suspends them in the flow. low solids volume fractions.· ) CFD-k-ε model with kinetic theory and drag force.8 pressure transducers γ-ray absorption magnetic flux flow meter 6-35 2. However. assumes the slurry has no deposition velocity. Previous Work Durand1 published a pioneering work on the empirical prediction of hydraulic gradients for coarse particle slurry flows.0-5. average solids concentrations of 8 to 45% (by volume).0 pressure transducers γ-ray absorption. by definition. 2. No. Wilson6 developed a one-dimensional two-layer model wherein coarse-particle slurry flow is considered to comprise two separate layers. Eng.7 51. and pipe diameters of 50 to 500 mm. Chem. Particle concentration profile sensitivity analysis (A) effect of forces: (O) exptl.8-5. a brief review of previous work in this area is presented below.47 1.6 except that the lower layer may also be assumed to be stationary. mixture velocities of 1.9 125 440 5-50 2.2 improved the calculation method and applied it to commercial slurry pipeline design.0-8. magnetic flux flow meter Kaushal and Tomita24 54.37 .45 50 150 165 480 520 1300 85 90 100 420 420 26-47 2.65 1.7 developed a two-layer model for the prediction of flow patterns and pressure drops in slurry pipelines. It provides reasonable predictions of friction losses only for relatively fine particles.8160 Ind.

Since the optimum pipeline velocity is usually close to the deposition velocity (Vc). (D) R j s ) 0. but no comparisons between experimental results and their numerical solutions were reported. The model was used to predict particle concentration and velocity profiles that were in good agreement with experimental measurements.30. (B) R j s ) 0. and (F) R j s ) 0.45. and mixture velocity.40.3Vc).. the most commonly used version of the twolayer model is the SRC model developed by Gillies and co-workers. does not depend on any empirically determined coefficients). solids volume fraction..4 m/s: (A) R j s ) 0. Wilson and Pugh8 developed a dispersiveforce model of heterogeneous slurry flow. Comparison of predicted and experimentally determined13 concentration profiles for dp ) 270 µm and V ) 5. 2009 8161 Figure 3. Vol. Chem. (E) R j s ) 0. (C) R j s ) 0. The semiempirical coefficients it contains are based on thousands of controlled experiments done at the Saskatchewan Research Council Pipe Flow Technology Centre. most of the data that were incorporated in the model were obtained at mixture velocities that are just greater than the deposition velocity (Vc e V e 1. No.e. 17. which extended the applicability of the original Wilson layer model because it accounted for particles suspended by fluid turbulence as well as those providing contact-load (Coulombic) friction. Doron and Barnea14 extended the two-layer modeling approach to a three-layer model of slurry flow in horizontal pipelines.20.10-13 The SRC two-layer model provides predictions of pressure gradient and deposition velocity as a function of particle diameter. which is sandwiched between the suspended layer and a . Eng.Ind. Res.35. Their model considered the existence of a dispersive layer. pipe diameter. low flow rates. Nassehi and Khan9 developed a numerical method for the determination of slip characteristics between the layers of a twolayer slurry flow. which also reduced the reliability of the pressure drop predictions. Undoubtedly.10. This model is “semimechanistic” in that the effect of pipe diameter on pipeline friction loss is specified mechanistically (i. 48.

48. εs: Rsu∞ . however.19. Over the years.33.0 m/s: (A) R j s ) 0. This model was not reliable at higher solids volume concentrations. Roco and co-workers30.24.20 and found good agreement at higher flow velocities. They determined the transition lines between the so-called “flow patterns” and compared these results with experimental data.8162 Ind. u∞ is the terminal particle settling velocity and y is a vertical position in the pipe. it does not take into account a significant dependence of the solids diffusivity on both particle size and pipe Reynolds number. 2009 Figure 4. A no-slip condition between the solid particles and the fluid was assumed.29. They considered the slurry to be a Newtonian fluid characterized using the mixture density and viscosity. Their function shows that the solids diffusivity increases with increasing solids concentration. Res. which is reasonable when the flow is in horizontal or nearhorizontal configurations. A separate (but related) approach to slurry flow modeling also exists. It is not applicable when the particle size is large enough that the particles cannot be supported by fluid . the degree of flow heterogeneity). Chem. The model predictions showed satisfactory agreement with experimental data. Ramadan et al. an empirical term characterizing the turbulent viscosity.16 also developed a threelayer solid model and applied to simulate slurry transport in inclined channels. However. Karabelas18 developed an empirical model to predict the particle concentration profiles based on this formulation. The particle concentration profile was determined using a semiempirical diffusion equation similar to that described above. and (D) R j s) 0. 17. deviations were significant at flow velocities near the deposition velocity. They constructed an empirical correlation determining the ratio of the solids diffusivity to the liquid eddy diffusivity. No. Model predictions were compared with experimental data for solids volume fractions less than 35%. Eng. Gillies and Shook11 showed the most significant limitation of this type of model.25 They also compared their pressure drop data with the modified Wasp model. however. (C) R j s ) 0. which clearly demonstrated the limitations of this model. Roco and Mahadevan31 used a one-equation kinetic energy model for turbulent viscosity. where the one-dimensional Schmidt-Rouse equation11 (or equivalent. Doron and Barnea21 also used a three-layer model to draw flow pattern maps.26 considering the effect of efflux concentration on dimensionless solids diffusivity. time-averaged solids volume fraction. see Hunt17) is used to relate the rate of particle sedimentation to the rate of turbulent exchange. Vol.εs dRs )0 dy (1) where Rs is the local. (B) R j s ) 0. Roco and Shook27-29 developed a similar model for dense slurry pipeline flows. which can be used to indicate the flow pattern (essentially. it contains many empirical parameters.31 modified the turbulence model and used higher-order correlations to obtain a better estimate of eddy viscosity. They accounted for turbulent properties of the flow by introducing in the Navier-Stokes equation. The dispersive layer was considered to have a higher concentration gradient than the suspended layer. The model predictions were compared with experiments. The model provides good predictions. bed. Kaushal and co-workers19-24 developed a diffusion model based on the work of Karabelas.18 where they proposed a modification for the solids diffusivity for coarse particle slurry flow. Comparison of predicted and experimentally determined13 concentration profiles for dp ) 90 µm and V ) 3. as represented by a solids eddy diffusivity..

These researchers confirmed many of the findings of Wilson and Sellgren: most notably.Ind. In view of these limitations. The magnitude of this force was found to be a significant fraction (e.33 demonstrated that this effect is the result of a near-wall lift force that occurs in certain coarse-particle slurry flows. Campbell et al. Mathematical Modeling The CFD model used in this work is based on the extended two-fluid model. spherical. Particles are considered to be smooth. and F is the density.34 reported experimental observations of an unexpected lift-like interaction force at the center of channel containing a flowing solids-liquid mixture. and to undergo binary collisions. for instance. which uses granular kinetic theory to describe particle-particle interactions. The fundamental equations of mass. modified to include an interphase momentum transfer term: ∂ (F R u ) + ∇·(FlRlulul) ) -Rl∇p + FlRlg + ∇·τl + Fkm ∂t l l l (3) where g is the acceleration of gravity. it is not suitable for more complex geometries that are of great interest in many mineral processing industries.3. Continuity and Momentum Equation. Each phase is described using volume-averaged. can be found in Gidaspow. It is also limited in application to straight runs of pipeline having a circular cross-sectional area. As the particle diameter (and u∞) increases. Numerous observations of a local maximum in particle concentration up from the bottom of the pipe have been made when the particle diameter is relatively large and the mixture velocity is high. the following observations can be made: (i) Most of the investigations were conducted using small pipeline loops (D e 55 mm) to determine pressure gradients and deposition velocities. Recently. where R is the concentration of each phase. deposition velocity).1. is not considered. in other words. (ii) Many of the earlier studies considered only moderate solids volume concentrations (say up to 26%).. This force has no apparent analog for single particles in infinite fluids and appeared to be a result of multiparticle interactions. Kaushal and Tomita24 conducted experiments with two slurries of narrowly sized glass beads (0. transient Navier-Stokes equations. many papers have been published in the past 50 years on the subject of horizontal slurry pipeline flow. The volume-averaged continuity equation is given by (i ) liquid. No. From these publications. local particle velocities. particle concentration.5 m/s. Fkm is the sum of the interfacial forces (including the .15: (A) V ) 1. Figure 5. 3. solids): ∂ (F R ) + ∇·(FiRiui) ) 0 ∂t i i (2) turbulence.e. 48. Mass exchange between the phases.24. (iii) The purpose of many of the models that have been developed is to predict frictional pressure drop and/or minimum operating velocity (i.78. Chem.44 mm) flowing in a 55 mm pipeline loop. it does not provide information about fluid turbulence. which occurs approximately when u∞/u* ≈ 0. becoming largely dependent on local concentration and exhibiting almost no dependence on mixture velocity (or fluid turbulence levels). A more complete discussion of the extended two-fluid model. 17. Also. These results clearly demonstrated the importance of the near-wall lift force on concentration profiles and on frictional pressure gradient for slurries containing the coarse particles. Comparison of predicted and experimentally determined45 concentration profiles for dp ) 90 µm and R j s ) 0. 40%) of the total weight of particles in the channel and thus may play a role in offsetting the Coulombic (contact load) friction in coarse particle slurry flows. incompressible. or the radial variation of particle velocity or concentration.32. an attempt has been made to develop a comprehensive computational model to describe the hydrodynamics of horizontal slurry flow based on the kinetic theory of granular flow and using a commercially available CFD package (ANSYS-CFX 10. p is the thermodynamic pressure. that the smaller particles are fully encapsulated in the viscous sublayer and thus are not subjected to a near-wall force. concentration profiles take a noticeably different shape. u is the velocity vector. meaning that they are limited in their ability to describe such characteristics as fluid turbulence. particle size. 2009 8163 As described above. including the implementation of granular kinetic theory. due to reaction or combustion. and energy conservation are then solved for each phase.0). The solids viscosity and pressure are computed as a function of granular temperature at any time and position.35 3. Vol.33 Wilson and Sellgren32. The momentum balance for the liquid phase is given by the Navier-Stokes equation..11..0 m/s. Res. Appropriate constitutive equations have to be specified in order to describe the physical and/or rheological properties of each phase and to close the conservation equations. momentum. and mixture velocity. (iv) Many of the models are 1D or 2D semiempirical models. (B) V ) 3. or local particle concentrations. inelastic. (v) While the SRC two-layer model provides accurate predictions of frictional pressure drop and deposition velocity over a wide range of pipe diameter. Eng. where u* is the friction velocity (u* ) (τw/F)1/2).g.125 and 0. interfacial forces.

V ) 3. the procedure is complex and the boundary conditions are not well understood. can be expressed in terms of the solids pressure. defined The left-hand side of this equation represents the net change of fluctuating energy. Contour plots for (A) particle concentration and (B) liquid velocity taken at regularly spaced axial positions over the 10 m control volume. The conservation of the solids fluctuating energy balance36 can be written as 3 ∂ (R F Θ ) + ∇·(RsFsusΘs) ) τs:∇us + ∇·(ks∇Θ) . where local equilibrium of generation and dissipation of fluctuating energy is assumed. This is. The liquid-phase stress tensor. Obtained from numerical simulations of the following conditions: dp ) 90 µm. In these models. In most kinetic theory models.19. can be represented as 2 τl ) µl[∇ul + (∇ul)T] . the wall lubrication force FWL and the turbulent dispersion force FTD). generalized to take account of inelastic particle collisions. Eng. µs: 2 τs ) (. drag force FD. the granular temperature is determined from a transport equation. and R j s ) 0. 2009 Figure 6.8164 Ind. Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow. the virtual mass force FVM. A simpler and computationally cheaper method is to use an algebraic expression. The third term. Although eq 7 can be solved for the granular temperature.36 simplified eq 7 to . τl. a class of models based on the kinetic theory of gases. 17. No.Ps + ζs∇·us)I + µs [∇us + (∇us)T] .(∇·us)I 3 (4) to be proportional to the mean square fluctuating particle velocity resulting from interparticle collisions: Θs ) u′s2/3.µl(∇·ul)I 3 The solids phase momentum balance is given by ∂ (F R u ) + ∇·(FsRsusus) ) -Rs∇p + FsRsg + ∇·τs + Fkm ∂t s s s (5) The solids stress tensor. The second term is the diffusion of fluctuating energy in the solids phase. Ps. The procedure is also computationally expensive.2. Chem.0 m/s. bulk solids viscosity. and shear solids viscosity. the constitutive elements of the solids stress are functions of the solids phase granular temperature.γs + 2 ∂t s s s Ωls (7) [ ] { } (6) 3. Θs. represents the dissipation of fluctuating energy and Ωls is the exchange of fluctuating energy between the liquid and solids phase. Boemer et al. τs. where u′s is the solids fluctuating velocity.. the lift force FL. The first term on the right-hand side represents the fluctuating energy due to solids pressure and viscous forces. ζs. strictly speaking. Vol. γs. Res. 48.

e 2 2 )Rs Fsg0Θs ∂ Ui ) γs ∂ xj (8) Popular models for the radial distribution function are given by Gidaspow:35 g0(Rs) ) 0.38 Figure 7.6(1 .5Rsm (11) where e is the coefficient of restitution for particle collisions. though.13 . 48.203. Chem. Vol. The radial distribution function. dp is the particle diameter. 2009 8165 production ) dissipation ⇒ τsij The dissipation fluctuating energy is35 γs ) 3(1 .19.Ind.0 m/s and R j s ) 0.(Rs / Rsm)1/3)-1 (10) (( 4 dp Θs . Measurements of local particle velocity shown in panel A from Gillies et al. The g0 function becomes infinite when the in situ solids volume fraction approaches Rsm. and g0 is the radial distribution function at contact. V ) 5. was taken as 0. g0.(Rs / Rsm))-2. A value of Rsm ) 0. (C) dp ) 480 µm. which quantifies the elasticity of particle collisions (one for fully elastic and zero for the fully inelastic). No.. can be seen as a measure of the probability of interparticle contact. Predicted liquid velocity profiles for (A) dp ) 90 µm.44 m/s and R j s ) 0.20. Res.9.4 m/s and R j s ) 0. the value of the settled bed volume fraction should be measured. The restitution coefficient. (B) dp ) 270 µm. as it depends primarily on particle sphericity and particle size distribution. In practice. V ) 3.diVU π )) and Lun and Savage:37 (9) g0(Rs) ) (1 . 17.64 is often assumed for a random packing of monosize spheres. Eng. V ) 3. where Rsm is the volume fraction of a settled bed of solids.

92. Grid independence was examined.3. σtc is the turbulent Schmidt number for continuous phase volume fraction. In the kinetic theory of granular flow.tur ∂ ε ∂ ∂ ∂ (FlRlε) + (FlRlulε) ) Rl µ + + ∂t ∂ xi ∂ xi σ∈ ∂ xi ε Rl (Cε1G . which is given in standard form as: µl. G represents the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradient. Numerical Solution The system of equations.2 and employs the Ergun model when Rs e 0. The wall lubrication constants C1 and C2.4. 4.(ur·nw)nw) dp max C1 + C2 . with the aforementioned boundary conditions. In these simulations.9. Initial simulations were carried out with a coarse mesh to obtain rapid convergence and an indication of the positions where a high mesh density was needed. This value is within the range suggested in the literature.41 The wall lubrication force. which is in the normal direction away from the wall and decays with distance from the wall. No. as suggested by Antal et al. Interfacial Forces. the solids bulk viscosity accounts for the resistance of the granular particles to compression and expansion and has the form39 4 2 ζs ) R s Fsdpg0(1 + e) 3 Θ π (13) ( ) (21) Here. ur ) ul .0 m were used. The turbulence model used for the liquid phase is a variant of the two-equation k-ε model. 0 dp yw [ ] (20) .09.us |(ul .Cε2Rlε) (23) k In these equations. The high resolution discretization scheme was used for the convective terms. To initiate the numerical solution. At the inlet.1 in the present simulation. the liquid velocities were set to zero (no.col ) Rs 5 Θ π 35 (15) and the kinetic component is determined based on µs. The SIMPLE algorithm was employed to solve the pressurevelocity coupling in the momentum equations. was solved using the commercial flow simulation software ANSYS CFX 10. is expressed as42 FWL ) -RsFl (ur . but further grid refinement did not result in significant changes to the simulations results. Boundary Conditions.41 as FL ) CLRsFl(us . both the kinetic and the collisional contributions are considered. The velocity of the particles was also set at zero. the pressure is specified (atmospheric). The solids shear viscosity is expressed as a sum of the kinetic and collisional contributions: µs ) µs.3.8166 Ind. σε ) 1.001 s and pipe length of 10. Cε2 ) 1.0. Mass and momentum equations were solved using a second-order implicit method for space and a first-order implicit method for time discretization.kin ( )( 8 1 + η(3η . Chem. 48. σk ) 1.2)g0Rs 5 √Θ 2-η (17) ) where η ) 1/2(1 + e) 3. The interphase momentum transfer between solids and liquid due to drag force is given by 3 1 FD ) CDRsFl | ul .35 which employs the Wen and Yu model when Rs > 0.ul) × ∇ × ul (19) The lift coefficient has been assigned a value of 0. Eng.44. 17. Res.01 and 0. a k-ε model is applied with its standard constants: Cε1 ) 1. The discretization of the three-dimensional domain resulted in 386 340 cells and the grid structure shown in Figure 1.tur ∂ k ∂ ∂ ∂ (F R k) + ( F R u k) ) R µ+ + ∂t l l ∂ xi l l l ∂ xi l σk ∂ xi Rl(G .2.kin (14) (( (( ) ) ) ) The collisional component of the solids viscosity is modeled as 4 2 Fsdpg0(1 + e) µs. The conservation equations were discretized using the control volume technique. a constant time step of 0.05. velocities and concentrations of both phases are specified.0. and nw is the unit normal pointing away from the wall.Rlε) (22) µl. Vol.us) 4 dp (18) The drag coefficient CD has been modeled using the Gidaspow model. the average solids volume fraction and a parabolic velocity profile are specified as initial conditions.42 are -0.col + µs. 3. Timeaveraged distributions of flow variables are computed over a period of 100 s..us is the relative velocity between phases. 2009 The solids pressure represents the solids phase normal forces caused by particle-particle interactions. respectively. Cµ ) 0. The turbulent dispersion force is modeled based on the Favre average of the interphase drag force using43 FTD ) ∇Rc ∇Rd 3 CD υtc RdFc(ud .uc) 4 dp σtc Rd Rc (12) In eq 6.kin ) 2 5√π Fsdp 4 1 + η(1 + e)g0Rs √Θ 48 (1 + e)g0 5 ( ) (16) and Lun and Savage37 1 5√π 8 Fd ) + Rs 96 s p ηg0 5 µs.5. Turbulence Equations. dp is the mean particle diameter. The lift force can be modeled in terms of the slip velocity and the curl of the liquid phase velocity40. At the outlet. yw is the distance to the nearest wall. The solids shear viscosity contains terms arising from particle momentum exchange due to collision and translation. No turbulence model is applied to the solids phase but the influence of the dispersed phase on the turbulence of the continuous phase is taken into account with Sato’s additional term.slip condition). Three dimensional transient simulations were performed. At the wall. For the liquid phase.44 3. taken here to be σtc ) 0. The particle pressure consists of a kinetic term corresponding to the momentum transport caused by particle velocity fluctuations and a second term due to particle collisions:35 2 Θs(1 + e)g0 Ps ) FsRsΘs + 2FsRs Here.

In the first case. No. (B) dp ) 125 µm.44 m/s..203.0 m/s. and D ) 51.19. the liquid velocity is ul.12 Gillies et al.45 Gillies and Shook. The local. particle and liquid velocities. Sensitivity Analysis.85.5 mm.4 m/s. the simulations were carried out with the k-ε model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow and drag force only. Vol. R j s ) 0. particle concentration profiles. Chem. V ) 3. and D ) 54.17 m/s. (F) dp ) 480 µm.. V ) 4. (C) dp ) 165 µm. R j s ) 0.20. The predicted result is in good . and D ) 103 mm. and mixture velocity.1. 48. and the frictional pressure drop is ∆p/L. the local particle concentration is Rs.189. Eng. (E) dp ) 440 µm.5 m/s). R js ) 0. and D ) 54.20. R j s ) 0. and frictional pressure drop were obtained using the model and then were compared (where possible) with the existing experimental data. V ) 3. The second simulation included drag force and the turbulent dispersion force. time-averaged particle concentration profiles. numerical simulations were conducted for three cases to demonstrate the effects that the inclusion of different forces had on the quality of the predictions.24 Table 1 summarizes the experimental conditions and measurement techniques employed to measure pressure drop. A wide range of particle size (90-500 µm).9 mm. and D ) 51. Each data set described in Table 1 was simulated using the model described in the previous sections. where the predicted particle concentration profile shows a peak near the bottom of the pipe. Res.. 2009 8167 Figure 8. V ) 3. Effect of particle size on concentration profile: (A) dp ) 90 µm.9 mm.27 Schaan et al. 5. 5. mixture velocity (1. Results and Discussion The CFD simulations were carried out to match the experimental conditions of Roco and Shook. and D ) 103 mm.0 m/s. y/D is the dimensionless position along the pipe’s vertical axis.20. In the figures discussed here.5 mm. where y is the distance from the pipe bottom.Ind. V ) 5. The local solids volume fraction rapidly approaches zero at a vertical position of y/D ≈ 0. and pipe diameter (50-500 mm) were considered. R j s ) 0.5-5.13and Kaushal and Tomita. solids volume concentration (8-45%). The model predictions are shown in Figure 2A. R j s ) 0. (D) dp ) 270 µm. V ) 3. 17.0 m/s. Initially.

0995.273. when all the forces (drag. (E) D ) 495 mm.46 Figure 3 shows the experimental and predicted concentration profiles for 270 µm sand slurries flowing at a constant mixture velocity (5. R j s ) 0. Res.4 m/s) in a 100 mm pipeline. turbulent dispersion. mixture density.5 m/s. and V ) 4.35 Lift and wall lubrication forces were neglected in these simulations. R j s ) 0. lift. 48. (F) D ) 495 mm. 2009 Figure 9.16 m/s. R j s ) 0. In the third case. 5.268. Chem. Effect of pipe diameter on concentration profile.286. (C) D ) 263 mm. suspension results partly .78 m/s. and V ) 3. Additionally. Vol.33 m/s.104. and V ) 3. On the basis of these observations. R j s ) 0. R j s ) 0. dp ) 165 µm: (A) D ) 51. the results showed no significant improvement. and V ) 3.8168 Ind. particle size. and (iii) the Gidaspow radial distribution function/kinetic solids viscosity model. Essentially. Additionally. R j s ) 0. For these slurries. instead. and wall lubrication force) were included.5 mm. two radial distribution function and kinetic solids viscosity models35. The experimental data were initially reported by Gillies et al. pipe diameter. increasing the in situ solids concentration reduces the asymmetry of the concentration profiles because of increased particle interactions.0918. the knowledge of solids distribution across the pipe cross-section is essential in the evaluation or prediction of pipeline wear. and V ) 3. In situ solids volume concentrations of 10 to 45% were tested (and simulated). (D) D ) 263 mm. all subsequent simulations were conducted using (i) k-ε turbulence model with the kinetic theory of granular flow. 17. and particle density. there is no difference between the two. including mixture velocity. it is important to test the ability of a model to predict these profiles. the numerical predictions show reasonable agreement with the experimental results.37 were tested.16 m/s.5 m/s.5 mm. (ii) drag and turbulent dispersion forces. as shown in Figure 2B. (B) D ) 51. No. Solids Concentration Profiles. and V ) 3.2. Eng.13 Generally. It can be observed from the figures that for a given velocity. fluid turbulence is not completely effective in suspending the particles. Because concentration profiles depend on many parameters.. agreement with the experimental data.

Effect of pipe diameter on concentration profile for slurries of fine particles. (B) D ) 54. Res. dp ) 125 µm.39.19-23 They also provide a good test of the numerical model’s ability to predict the importance of the turbulent dispersion forces.9 mm. R j s ) 0. dp ) 90 µm. . These concentration profiles can be accurately predicted using a Schmidt-Rouse 1D turbulent diffusion model. The contour plots shown for axial positions 5 through 8 are nearly identical. 2009 8169 Figure 10. 5. Significant differences in particle concentration and liquid velocity can be observed between the first and fourth axial positions.3.. respectively.11. Chem.30. Overall. 48. (F) D ) 150 mm. dp ) 90 µm. 17. The particles in these slurries are effectively suspended by fluid turbulence. in situ solids concentration.0 m/s: (A) D ) 54. dp ) 125 µm. (C) D ) 103 mm. indicating that the numerical simulations are providing results for fully developed flow. the agreement between the numerical predictions and experimental results is good. Figures 4 and 5 show experimental data and numerical predictions for 90 µm sand slurries flowing in 100 and 154 mm pipelines. Vol.13 This is a good test of the model’s ability to predict the combined importance of fluid turbulence and shear-dependent (Bagnold-like) particle-particle interactions. the results are encouraging.32. R j s ) 0. Overall. the experimentally determined concentration profile exhibits a reversal in local concentration near the pipe invert.29. Velocity profiles in horizontal slurry flow are directly linked to the concentration profile. This reversal is not predicted in our simulations and may be related to the existence of near-wall forces described previously. V ) 3. Eng.40. R j s ) 0.Ind.9 mm. (E) D ) 150 mm. No. Contour plots of particle concentration and liquid velocity along the pipe cross section at axial positions separated by 1. (D) D ) 103 mm. dp ) 90 µm. from particle-particle interactions. R j s ) 0.33.25 m intervals are shown in Figure 6. R j s ) 0. In Figure 3F. as such. they are also dependent upon particle size. Velocity Profiles. as the relatively uniform concentration profiles at low in situ volume fractions attest. dp ) 90 µm. R j s ) 0.

Concentration profiles of the type shown in Figure 8F. In situ solids volume fractions are comparable for these slurries (R j s ≈ 0. Figure 10 provides similar findings for experimental measurements made with smaller particles of differing size and shape. the concentration profile reversal seen in Figure 10 panels A and B is not accurately reproduced with the current model. The experimental data shown in these figures represent a broad spectrum of fluid turbulence effects on particle suspension. Note also the agreement between the measured particle Velocity and the predicted fluid Velocity is excellent. the model’s performance is satisfactory. and mixture velocity. with only minimal dependence on mixture velocity or pipe diameter.F. The measured concentration profiles were taken from Roco and Shook. Chem. depend primarily on in situ solids volume fraction. 165. which is shown in Figure 4A. Otherwise. 6. In experimental data sets where the nearwall lift force was of sufficient magnitude to cause a reversal in the concentration profile near the pipe invert. and 495 mm in diameter. The mixture velocity is the same for each panel (V ) 3. Figure 7 panels B and C show predicted liquid velocity profiles for slurries containing coarser particles (270 and 480 µm. V ) 3.12 Gillies et al. Only slurries containing narrowly sized particles were simulated in this study. Figure 8 shows the measured and predicted concentration profiles for four different slurries.12 Gillies et al. The maximum local velocity is found in the upper portion of the pipe and not at the centerline.13 and Kaushal and Tomita24) was presented.4. 440. Recall that the corresponding concentration profile. is nearly symmetric. Figure 10 panels C-F show results and predictions for narrowly sized 90 µm sand slurries flowing in 100 and 150 mm pipelines. A detailed comparison between the CFD simulation results and an expansive experimental data set (reported by Roco and Shook. Pipeline pressure drop is one of the most important parameters in slurry pipeline design and operation. mixture velocities. Effect of Particle Diameter. The relative importance of fluid turbulence vis-a ` -vis particle-particle interactions in determining the shape of the concentration profiles with increasing pipe diameter is clearly shown in Figure 9.5. The left-hand figure shows a traditional velocity profile. Figure 10 panels A and B show the experimental measurements made by Kaushal and Tomita24 for slurries of 125 µm glass spheres in water flowing in a 54.24. because the particles are relatively fine and the mixture velocity in each case is significantly greater than the deposition velocity. where the local time-averaged liquid velocity along the pipe’s vertical axis is plotted. the measured concentration profile of Figure 8F can be considered to be typical of one that would be found for any coarse particle slurry (dp > 300 µm).13 and (0) Kaushal and Tomita24). No noticeable effect of pipe diameter is observed for these concentration profiles.6. Figure 7A compares a measured particle velocity profile13 with predictions for a 90 µm sand slurry (R j s ) 0. 270.. from highly effective (Figure 8A) to completely ineffective (Figure 8F). The degree of asymmetry in the concentration profiles depends primarily upon the particle diameter.19. 263. confirming that the local.45 Gillies and Shook. 48. 5. and pipe diameter. Effect of Pipe Diameter. a distinct reversal in the concentration profile can be seen near the pipe invert (y/D < 0. The corresponding contour plot is the type that is readily attainable from CFD simulations. in situ solids volume fraction. and pipe diameters. for very coarse particles. 5. This phenomenon has been demonstrated experimentally. 17.24 As the information presented in Table 1 indicates. In Figure 8E. 150.0 m/s). 103. respectively). The CFD model described here is capable of predicting particle concentration profiles for fine particle slurries where fluid turbulence is effective at suspending the particles.27 Note also from the contour plots that the velocity distribution in a horizontal plane is symmetrical about the pipe axis.32 which occurs when the particle is large relative to the viscous sublayer thickness. To investigate the effect of pipe diameter on the performance of the numerical model developed here. Vol.. Thus. It can be seen that the velocity profiles become increasingly asymmetrical with increasing particle size.. Res. Conclusions A transient three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow has been developed for horizontal slurry pipelines.8170 Ind. the agreement between measured and predicted profiles is encouraging.. It also performs satisfactorily when the particles are coarse and concentration profiles are primarily dependent upon the in situ solids volume fraction..27 This particular particle size was chosen for two reasons: data had been collected from experiments conducted with a wide range of pipe diameters and this sand size exhibits strong pipe diameter-dependent concentration profiles. and the in situ solids volume fraction. the current CFD . 2009 Figure 11.2). mixture velocity. Parity plot for frictional pressure gradient (experimental data: (O) Schaan et al. the simulation results were compared with the experimental data of Schaan et al.2). The predictions are in good agreement with the experimental data for all pipe diameters. In all cases. Figure 7 shows three pairs of illustrations. The comparison of measured and predicted frictional pressure drop results is shown in Figure 11.9 mm pipeline loop. 125.12 (]) Gillies et al. Again. time-averaged slip velocity approaches zero for slurries of this type.13 and Kaushal and Tomita. Pressure Drop. excellent agreement between the predicted and the experimental data was obtained for a wide range of in situ solids volume fractions. No. these experimental data were collected for a wide range of particle size.45 Gillies and Shook. The current version of the CFD model is unable to reproduce this concentration reversal.27 Schaan et al.45 (∆) Gillies and Shook. Generally. the flow of a number of slurries in pipes of different diameter was considered. Eng.5.13. The predicted pressure drop is in good agreement with the experimental measurements for the wide range of slurry flow conditions represented by the data sets to which the numerical simulations were compared. time-averaged solids concentration and liquid/particle velocities were obtained. This is related to the near-wall lift force described previously. each with a different particle size (90. 5. Frictional pressure gradients and local. and 480 µm). the mixture velocity. particle diameters. To validate the numerical results obtained with the CFD model. Figure 9 shows both experimental and predicted concentration profiles for a 165 µm sand slurry flowing in pipes that are 51.0 m/s).

AIChE J. Chem. Analysis of Phase Distribution in Fully-developed Laminar Bubbly Two Phase Flow. Shook. A. K. 1473–1487. 1983. Eng. 1994. Tomita. C. I. Eng. 177–187. Deposition Velocities.. 22. A. Proc. Japan. An Improved Twolayer Model for Horizontal Slurry Pipeline Flow. Qi. 12. 89–101. Xu.. 82. J. A 1954. J. J. Vertical Distribution of Dilute Suspensions in Turbulent Pipe Flow. (15) Doron. C. Liu. 1060–1065. J. Savage. Germany. A. Flow Pattern Maps for Solid-Liquid Flow in Pipes. 1969.. McKibben. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Syncrude Canada Ltd.. 28. (28) Roco. 41. J. Tech. 431–456. Singh.. C. Multiphase Flow 1987.. Can. Fluid Mech. R. K. London. J. 4. G. (34) Campbell. Two-Phase Flow Modell. C.. C. Dispersive-Force Modeling of Turbulent Suspension in Heterogeneous Slurry Flow. Lift and Virtual Mass Forces Acting on a Single Bubble. AIChE J. Chem.Ind. C. M. R. 15–44. 2000. The Transverse Migration of Bubbles Influenced by Walls in Vertical Bubbly Flow. 223–235. Granica. Chem. R. 1st ed. Publications: Clausthal. Proceedings of the 5th Congress. 29. H. Computational Method for Coal Slurry Pipelines with Heterogeneous Size Distribution. (22) Kaushal. Barnea. 125. Can. J.. Symp. A. S. I. A. 13. N. J. Modeling Slurry Flow. A Three-Layer Model for Solid-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes. The Turbulent Transport of Suspended Sediment in Open Channels. Drag. K. J. K.K. 66. Y. Soc. (25) Walton. Flow of Suspensions of Solids in Pipelines. Turian. P. 224. A.. R. Technol 2006. H. Yokohama. P. 269–277.. (29) Roco. (13) Gillies. C. V. (8) Wilson. 82. 535–547.. Daniel. Modeling of Slurry Flow: The Effect of Particle Size. Sekoguchi. Application of a Three-Layer Modeling Approach for Solids Transport in Horizontal and Inclined Channels. (44) Sato. Jeffrey. Chem. R. 2009 8171 model was not able to reproduce this behavior. Modelling Heterogeneous Slurry Flows at High Velocities. 197–203. (40) Zun. D. R. 1984.. 129. A.. 2005.. R. Can. Kinetic Theory for Granular Flow: Inelastic Particles in Couette Flow and Slightly Inelastic Particles in a General Flow Field. D. Mahadevan. Transition Velocities and Spatial Distribution of Solids in Slurry Pipelines. (32) Wilson. J. S. C. 26. 1983. C. A. Int. J. U. C. 2004. Funatsu. 1029–1043. Chem. 5th International Conference on Multiphase Flow. C.. Wilson. A Unified Physical-based Analysis of Solid-Liquid Pipeline Flow.. Minneapolis. 2009 IE801505Z . 1984. pp 53-76. D. (33) Wilson. Can. Eng. B. C. B. J. 39. Dighade. (9) Nassehi. R.. 1988. A. (17) Hunt. 238–244.. Ser. (42) Antal. A Model for Turbulent Slurry Flow. 1970. 6. Shook. (36) Boemer. R. R. 1697–1717. P. J. Concentration Distribution of Sand Slurries in Horizontal Pipe Flow... A. D. Part. J. AIChE J.. U. In this sense. 17–23. Int. J.. Multiphase Flow 2002. Effect of Particle Size Distribution on Pressure Drop and Concentration Profile in Pipeline Flow of Highly Concentrated Slurry. F. 7.. Powder Technol. Liquid Velocity Distribution in Two-Phase Bubbly Flow. BHRA Fluid Engineering: Cranfield. A. Tomita. E. (46) Hoffman. Numer. Int. B. M. Lahey. Interaction of Particles and Near-wall Lift in Slurry Pipelines... A. semiempirical models. (10) Gillies. C. 2008 ReVised manuscript receiVed March 8. Bed Combust. Can. Shalle. Eng. 79–95. E. K. Y. Sci. Balakrishnan. Concentration at the Pipe Bottom at Deposition Velocity for Transportation of Commercial Slurries through Pipeline.. Chem. R. Y. Solid Liquid Flow Slurry Pipeline Transportation. Modelling High Concentration Slurry Flows. 17. (12) Gillies. K. A. Technol. 2004. The Effect of Particle Size. Daniel.. Can.... 61. J. P. The Effect of Particle Shape on Pipeline Friction for Newtonian Slurries of Fine Particles. 1986. Int. C.. M. A. J. K. Shook. (41) Tomiyama. R. 1968. Slurry Flow in Horizontal PipesExperimental and Modeling.. Powd. Vol. Kenny. M. 68. Small.. Int. J. 1977. (Pisa) 2004. J. A Model for the Prediction of Concentration and Particle Size Distribution for the Flow of Multisized Particulate Suspensions through Closed Ducts and Open Channels. Sellgren. (4) Shook. Preliminary Observations of a Particle Lift Force in Horizontal Slurry Flow. C. 78. Jacques. Sci. Chem. 426–434. D. (26) Wasp.. Acta Mech.. D. Multiphase Flow 1975. (24) Kaushal. 2557–2570. J.. Basic Relationships of the Transportation of Solids in Pipes: Experimental Research.. 167–173. Chem. K. (5) Oroskar. F. Multiphase Flow 1996. 46.. Y. The Effects of an Impact Velocity Dependent Coefficient of Restitution on Stresses Developed by Sheared Granular Materials. Comparative Study of Pressure Drop in Multisized Particulate Slurry Flow through Pipe and Rectangular Duct. Part 1. Investigation of Some Hydrodynamical Factors Affecting Slurry Pipeline Wall Erosion. Powder Technol... Clift. 199–216. 635. D. Eddy Diffusivity of Solid Particles in a Turbulent Liquid Flow in a Horizontal Pipe.. A Variable Density Model of the Pipeline Flow of Suspensions. Y. R. S.-M. Eng... Aude. Shook. C. J. J. Seiter. 721– 727. Gillies. 3rd Int. 19. (37) Lun.. Barnea. A. 123. Multiphase Flow 2003. D. R. (2) Wasp. 1990. J. C. Academic Press: New York. Eng. Eulerian Computation of Fluidized Bed HydrodynamicssA Comparison of Physical Models. J. Shook. Boysan. Pipelines 1984. R. A. 140. 173–178. J. Method Fluids 1992. 717–725. K. Powder Technol 2002. Res. Int. (18) Karabelas. ASME 1995. C. J. Multiphase Flow 1980.. A. C. 1815–1820. J.. A. J. D. Chem. 1991. A. M.. D. (30) Roco. Hamill. S. (23) Seshadri. 273–283. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Hydraulic Transport of Solids in pipes (Hydrotransport 4). Experimental Investigation of NearWall Lift of Coarser Particles in Slurry Pipeline Using Gamma-ray Densitometer. K. the present model can be considered to be superior to existing correlation-based. including the associated boundary conditions. G. R. 196. (27) Roco. U. D. 2003. Gandhi. ICMF. 172... M. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes (Hydrotransport 1). D. (7) Doron. A. No. 2009 Accepted March 11. Paper A1.. G. M. N. 30. Toyota. 1977.K. Eng. The Critical Velocity in Pipeline Flow of Slurries.. Int. A. Chem. Sumner. 2002. Turbulent Modeling. C. Tomita.. J. Flaherty. Francisco. Paper H4. 809–823. L. Chepurnity. 2.. The model described here. J. J. 22–24. 108. T. A.. Hydraulic Eng. C. 24. (3) Shook. 73–76. R. T. Chem.. Eng. Khan. V. Shook. T. C. (14) Doron. Sci. Sato. Pugh. Int. A Numerical Method for the Determination of Slip Characteristics between the Layers of a Two-Layer Slurry Flow. 583–588. Sellgren. Rheol.. C. Int. 23. Frank. J. Savage. Int. Technol 1994. Energy Res. Technol. 29 (4). J. (31) Roco. 31. M. Tomita. Multiphase Flow 1993. Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory Descriptions. I. N.. (45) Schaan.. 45–69. R. 14. Operating Points for Pipelines Carrying Concentrated Heterogeneous Slurries. Multiphase Flow 2005. 48. 1995. 60. P. 551–558. J. Renz.. Part. M.. ReceiVed for reView October 6. 78. Can. 1953. Z. International Association of Hydraulic Research. Eng. Vasqyez. Shook. J. (6) Wilson. R. N. (11) Gillies. 2. 709–716... (19) Kaushal. Minnesota. Y. BHRA Fluid Engineering: Cranfield. 1-16. Eng. R. 494–503. 1980.. C. S. M. 239–258. K. 69. 1995. 47. (35) Gidaspow. Modeling Slurry Flow. C. Shook. 1986. Barnea. A Relation for the Void Fraction of Randomly Packed Particle Beds. Part 2: Two Mechanisms of Particle Suspension. G. 159– 176.. Can. Literature Cited (1) Durand. Can. Kaushal. R. H. D. Int. is complete in the sense that no experimentally determined flow measurements are required as input data. J. Solids Concentration Profiles and Pressure Drop in Pipeline Flow of Multi-Sized Particulate Slurries. C. S. Powder Technol 2007. S. Multiphase Flow 2004. Saasen. Kenny. R. J. Drag Model for Turbulent Dispersion in Eulerian Multiphase Flows.. S. Trans. Tomita. B. 322–335. J. G. Expt.. 3–13. Eng.. (21) Kaushal.. (43) Burns. 1976. C. R.. (16) Ramadan. (39) Lun. 19–24. (20) Kaushal. Multiphase Flow 1991. 2000. Shi. R. J. K. P. (38) Shook. A.. J. S. Fluid. S. 63. Finkers. 775–787.