Dredge Pumps and Slurry Transport

© All Rights Reserved

23 views

Dredge Pumps and Slurry Transport

© All Rights Reserved

- ch3.pdf
- Laminar and Turbulent Final
- 47141175
- ejercicios resueltos
- Lagrangian CFD Modeling of Impinging Diesel Sprays for DI HCCI
- 1970-Petukhov- Heat Transfer and Friction in Turbulent Pipe Flow With Variable Physical Properties
- Friction Factor
- coastal-hydraulics.pdf
- OLGA 2016.2.1 Release Notes
- 617798
- document
- 09_sp1 Boundary Layer
- SWSIM-Enhanced Turbulence Modeling Flow
- numerical_simulation_of_spark_ignition_engines
- CAE paper
- Thermal Fluid
- 12-Hole Cleaning-A-03-April-12 - Copy - Copy.ppt
- fluid_mech_hw_problems_ch4.pdf
- jamuna
- docshare.tips_sediment-particles-and-turbulent-flow-simulation.pdf

You are on page 1of 206

Dredging Engineering

DREDGE PUMPS

AND SLURRY TRANSPORT OE4625

ii

CONTENTS

Preface

Introduction

1.1 Liquid Flow

Case Study 1

1.2 Solid Particles in a Carrying Liquid

1.3 References

1.4 Recommended Literature

I.1 Terminal Settling Velocity of a Spherical Particle

I.2 Terminal Settling Velocity of a non-Spherical Particle

I.3 Hindered Settling Velocity of a Particle

I.4 Typical Values of Parameters Describing a Settling Process

I.5 References

I.6 Recommended Literature

Case Study I

2.1 Soil Properties

2.2 Liquid Properties

2.3 Mixture Properties

2.4 References

Case Study 2

3.1 Flow Regimes and Patterns

3.2 Mean Mixture Velocity and Its Important Values

3.3 Production

3.4 Frictional Head Loss

3.5 Specific Energy Consumption

3.6 References

iii

4. Modeling of Stratified Mixture Flows

4.1 Empirical Modeling

4.2 Physical Modeling

4.3 Summary: General Trends for Frictional Head Loss and Deposition-Limit

Velocity under Various Flow Conditions

4.4 References

4.5 Recommended Literature

Case Study 4

5.1 Newtonian Flow of Aqueous Mixture of Sand or Gravel

5.2 Non-Newtonian Flow of Aqueous Mixture of Silt or Clay

5.3 References

5.4 Recommended Literature

Case Study 5

II.1 Definitions

II.2 Rheograms

II.3 Rheological Models

II.4 References

6.1 Inclined Flows

6.2 Empirical Modeling of Inclined Flows

6.3 Physical Modeling of Inclined Flows

Case Study 6

6.4 Unsteady Solids Flows

6.5 References

Transporting Mixtures

7.1 The Bernoulli Equation

7.2 H-Q Curve of a Centrifugal Pump

7.3 H-Q Curve of a Pipeline

7.4 Working Point of a Pump-Pipeline System

7.5 Working Range of a Pump-Pipeline System

7.6 Operation Under the Condition of Continuously Fluctuating Density of Mixture

iv

7.7 Operation Under the Condition of Fluctuating Density of Mixture and Mean

Particle Size in a Pipeline

7.8 Effect of Impeller Parameters on Working Point of a System

7.9 References

7.10 Recommended Literature

Case Study 7.1

Case Study 7.2

8.1 Determination of Required Manometric Pressure in a Pump-Pipeline System

8.2 The Upper Limit for a System Operation

8.3 The Lower Limit for a System Operation

8.4 Effect of Pipe Diameter on Operation Limits

8.5 Effect of Pump Position on Operation Limits

8.6 Operation Limits on a H-Q Diagram of a Pipeline

8.7 Recommended Literature

Case Study 8.1

Case Study 8.2

9.1 Production Range for a Pump-Pipeline System

9.2 Production Limited by a Pipeline Length

9.3 Effect of Pump Position on Production

9.4 Recommended Literature

Case Study 9

Case Study from the VBKO Course

10.1 Characteristics of a System with Pumps in Series

10.2 Operational Rules for Pumps in Series

10.3 Control of a System with Pumps in Series

10.4 Location of Boosters Along a Long Dredging Pipeline

10.5 Recommended Literature

11.1 Survey of All Dredging Processes

11.2 Hydraulic Transport (Pumps and Pipelines)

11.3 Periodicals

v

vi

PREFACE

These lecture notes cover two parts of the course OE4625 “Dredge Pumps and Slurry

Transport”:

An aim of these lecture notes is not only to review the basic rules and models for

handling mixture transport in dredging installations but also to explain the physical

processes governing the mixture transport and their description in predictive models.

The lecture notes contain all information required to pass an examination on the studied

subjects. Principles of mixture flow through a dredging installation are described using

various models in these lecture notes. For the examination an application of one of the

models (preferably the best one to solve the specific problem) is sufficient.

vii

viii

INTRODUCTION

the board of a dredge

mostly horizontal pipeline from the board of a dredge to a deposit site

- the deposition of dredged solids, i.e. the unloading of a hopper or the storing of

solids in a deposit site at the end of a mostly horizontal pipeline.

In the lecture notes attention is focused to the transport of mixture in both an inclined (or

vertical) pipeline connecting the bottom of a waterway or a borrowing pit with the board

of a dredge and a horizontal pipeline between the board of a dredge and a deposit site.

ix

Principles of flow of soil-water mixture in pipelines

The characteristics describing a flow of mixture in a pipeline connected with a dredge are

of a major importance for a safety and an economy of a dredging operation. They indicate

whether the transportation is carried out in a regime that avoids a danger of a pipeline

blockage and they determine the amount of soil that can be transported together with the

energy dissipated in the flow to transport the required amount of soil through a pipeline.

Mechanisms governing the mixture flow in a pipeline and their prediction using models

are discussed in the first part of this these lecture notes. An aim is to describe the pipeline

flow characteristics for various chosen mixture velocities and soil concentrations and this

for soils of various particle sizes and pipelines of various diameters.

The energy is provided to a pipeline flow by pumps. A combination of the pipeline and

the pump characteristics determines a behavior of a dredging system and a production of

solids by the system. The production is limited by the values of the mixture flow velocity

and concentration that the system is capable to establish in a pipeline. A co-operation

between pumps and a pipeline of a dredging system is discussed in the second part of

these lecture notes.

x

xi

xii

1.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FLOW OF LIQUID

AND PARTICLES IN A PIPELINE

The principles of the flow of a substance in a pressurised pipeline are governed by the

basic physical laws of conservation of mass, momentum and energy. The conservation

laws are expressed mathematically by means of balance equations. In the most general

case, these are the differential equations, which describe the flow process in general

conditions in an infinitesimal control volume. Simpler equations may be obtained by

implementing the specific flow conditions characteristic of a chosen control volume.

Conservation of mass in a control volume (CV) is written in the form: the rate of mass

input = the rate of mass output + the rate of mass accumulation. Thus

d ( mass )

= ∑ (qoutlet − qinlet )

dt

in which q [kg/s] is the total mass flow rate through all boundaries of the CV.

differential equation evaluating mass balance (or continuity) is

∂ρ G G

+ ∇. ( ρV) = 0 (1.1)

∂t

G

in which t denotes time and V velocity vector.

For incompressible (ρ = const.) liquid and steady (∂ρ/∂t = 0) flow the equation is

given in its simplest form

∂v x ∂v y ∂v z

+ + =0 (1.2).

∂x ∂y ∂z

The physical explanation of the equation is that the mass flow rates qm = ρVA [kg/s]

for steady flow at the inlet and outlet of the control volume are equal. Expressed in

terms of the mean values of quantities at the inlet and outlet of the control volume,

given by a pipeline length section, the equation is

1.1

1.2 CHAPTER 1

Thus

ρ density of flowing liquid [kg/m3]

V mean velocity in a pipe cross section [m/s]

A area of a pipe cross section [m2].

In practice volumetric flow rate Q is often used in place of mass flow rate q. The

volumetric flow rate Q = q/ρ = VA. For a circular pipeline of two different diameters

D1 and D2 (see Fig.1.1) the mass balance claims V1D12 = V2 D 22 .

V1 V2

D1 D2

summation of all external forces on a control volume filled with a substance is equal

to the rate of change of momentum of the substance in the control volume. The sum

of the external forces acting on the control volume is counterbalanced by the inertial

force proportional to the momentum flux of the control volume

d (momentum)

= ∑ Fexternal .

dt

- body forces due to external fields (gravity, magnetism, electric potential) which act

upon the entire mass of the matter within the control volume,

- surface forces due to stresses on the surface of the control volume which are

transmitted across the control surface.

Gravity is the only body force relevant to the description of the flow of a substance in

a conduit. Surface forces are represented by the force from the pressure gradient and

by friction forces from stress gradients at the control volume boundary.

In an infinitesimal control volume filled with a substance of density ρ the force

balance between inertial force, on one side, and pressure force, body force, friction

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FLOW OF LIQUID AND PARTICLES IN A PIPELINE 1.3

force, on the other side, is given by a differential linear momentum equation in vector

form

∂ G G G G G G G G

∂t

( ) ( )

ρV + V.∇ ρV = −∇P − ρg∇h − ∇.T (1.5)

G G

where h denotes the elevation above a datum, V the velocity vector and T the stress

tensor.

infinitesimal control volume by a macroscopic one given by a straight piece of pipe of

the differential distance dx, measured in the downstream direction (Fig. 1.2). The

momentum equation written for this control volume is simpler because quantities in

the equation are averaged over the pipeline cross section. The momentum equation is

obtained by integrating the differential linear momentum equation over the pipe cross

section. For the one-dimensional liquid flow it has the form (Longwell, 1966 or

Shook & Roco, 1991)

∂V ∂V ∂h ∂P τo

ρ +V +g + +4 =0 (1.6).

∂t ∂x ∂x ∂x D

V mean velocity in a pipe cross section [m/s]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2]

h elevation above a datum [m]

P mean pressure in a pipe cross section [Pa]

τo shear stress at the pipe wall [Pa]

D pipe diameter [m]

The shear stress at the pipe wall, τo, is defined below by Eq. 1.15.

Figure 1.2. Control volume (CV) for analysis of force balance in flow

in a circular pipe.

straight pipe) make it possible to obtain a simple form of the linear momentum

equation for liquid flow. Under the chosen conditions, the momentum flux at the

control volume inlet is equal to that at the control volume outlet and the inertial force

1.4 CHAPTER 1

in the control volume is zero. In this case the integrated form of the linear momentum

equation relates the driving force generated by the pressure gradient over the pipe

distance dx and the cross section area A (and the perimeter O) to the resisting force

due to viscous friction at the flow boundary, which is a pipe wall. The balance is

dP (1.7),

− A = τoO

dx

dP τ

− =4 o (1.8).

dx D

This equation shows that the wall shear stress must be correlated with the flow

conditions to solve the pressure drop due to friction in pipeline flow.

The Eq. 1.8 is not only valid for a pipe flow boundary; it can also be generalized to

flow within each cylinder of radius r coaxial with a cylindrical pipe. It then provides

an equation for shear stress distribution in the pipe cross section (see Fig. 1.3) that is

valid for both laminar and turbulent liquid flow. This is

dP 2

− =τ (1.9).

dx r

dv

τ = µf − x (1.10),

dr

vx local liquid velocity in the pipe-axis direction [m]

µf dynamic viscosity of liquid [Pa.s]

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FLOW OF LIQUID AND PARTICLES IN A PIPELINE 1.5

where τ and vx are at the position given by the radius r in a pipe cross section.

In laminar flow, the equation for a shear stress distribution (Eq. 1.9) and Newton's law

of liquid viscosity (Eq. 1.10) determine a velocity profile vx(r) of liquid flow. Its

integration over a pipe cross section

1 8 D/2

Vf = ∫∫ v x dA = ∫ v x rdr (1.11)

AA D2 0

D2 dP

Vf = (1.12).

32µ f dx

8Vf

τo = µ f (1.13).

D

This procedure cannot be used for turbulent flow because the relation between shear

stress and strain rate in the turbulent flow is not fully described by the Newtonian

viscous law. In a turbulent stream, the local velocity of the liquid fluctuates in

magnitude and direction. This causes a momentum flux between liquid laminae in the

stream. The momentum exchange has the same effect as a shear stress applied to the

flowing liquid. These additional stresses set up by the turbulent mixing process are

called apparent shear stresses or Reynolds stresses. They predominate over the

Newtonian, purely viscous stresses in the turbulent core of the liquid flow. In a fully

developed turbulent flow the turbulent core usually occupies almost the entire pipe

cross section, excepting only the near-wall region. A turbulent flow regime is typical

for pipelines of an industrial scale.

Thus shear stress τ0 for turbulent flow cannot be determined directly from Newton's

law of viscosity and the force balance equation (Eq. 1.9). Instead, it is formulated by

using dimensional analysis. A function

ρf density of liquid [kg/m3]

Vf mean velocity in a pipe cross section [m/s]

µf dynamic viscosity of liquid [Pa.s]

D pipe diameter [m]

k absolute roughness of the pipeline wall [m]

1.6 CHAPTER 1

τo k

= fn Re, (1.15).

1 D

ρ f Vf2

2

The dimensionless group Re, Reynolds number of the pipeline flow, relates the

inertial and viscous forces in the pipeline flow

Vf Dρ f Vf D

Re = = (1.16).

µf νf

νf kinematic viscosity of liquid µf/ρf [m2/s]

The dimensionless parameter on the left side of the equation 1.15 is called the friction

factor. It is the ratio between the wall shear stress and kinetic energy of the liquid in a

control volume in a pipeline

τo

ff = (1.17).

1

ρ V2

2 f f

coefficient (called sometimes Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient)

8τ o

λf = (1.18).

ρ f Vf2

The equation for the Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient, combined with the

integrated linear momentum equation for pipeline flow (Eq. 1.8), gives the equation

first published by Weisbach in 1850

2

dP λ f ρ f Vf

− = (1.19)

dx D 2

dP ∆P P1 − P2

that is for − written as = (see Fig. 1.4)

dx L L

λ f ρf Vf2

P1 = P2 + L (1.20).

D 2

P2 absolute pressure at end of pipe section [Pa]

λf Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient [-]

L length of pipe section [m]

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FLOW OF LIQUID AND PARTICLES IN A PIPELINE 1.7

This equation is known as the Darcy-Weisbach equation for the determination of the

frictional head loss If in liquid flow in a pipeline.

P1 P2

t0

V D

t0

L

For laminar flow, an equation for friction coefficient λf (or ff) is calculated

theoretically from the equation for pressure drop (Eq. 1.12) giving

64

λf = (1.21).

Re

In turbulent flow there is no simple expression linking the velocity distribution with

the shear stress (and so with the pressure gradient) in the pipe cross section. Over the

years an empirical approach has provided a number of correlations λf = fn(Re, k/D)

for different pipe flow regimes. The regimes are: hydraulically smooth, transitional

and hydraulically rough (Fig. 1.5). The λf = fn(Re, k/D) correlations have been

derived from empirical expressions for a velocity profile in the turbulent flow in a

pipeline. The λf = fn(Re, k/D) values can be determined also from the Moody

diagram (Fig. 1.6) or its computational version (Churchill, 1977)

1

8 12 12

λ f = 8 + ( X + Y) −15

. (1.22)

Re

where

16

7 0.9 0.27 k

X = − 2.457 ln + (1.23)

Re D

and

37530 16

Y= (1.24)

Re

Re Reynold number for liquid flow [-]

1.8 CHAPTER 1

D pipe diameter [m].

water-flow friction losses in industrial pipelines (Fig. 1.6).

Figure 1.5. Regimes of flow over a pipeline wall. Regimes for λf determination.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FLOW OF LIQUID AND PARTICLES IN A PIPELINE 1.9

friction coefficient ff (λf).

1.10 CHAPTER 1

friction coefficient λf, zoom to most used region.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FLOW OF LIQUID AND PARTICLES IN A PIPELINE 1.11

CASE STUDY 1

Determine the pressure drop due to friction for flow of water at room temperature (for

calculations take water density ρf = 1000 kg/m3 and kinematic viscosity νf = 10-6

m2/s) in a 1000 m long pipeline of the diameter D = 900 mm. The absolute roughness

of a pipeline wall k = 10-5 m. Mean velocity of water in a pipeline cross section V =

4.5 m/s.

Solution:

a. Friction coefficient, λf

the water flow. For the above given values of parameters Re = (4.5 x 0.9)/10-6 = 4.05

x 106. The ratio k/D = 1.1 x 10-5.

The numerical approximation of the Moody diagram by Churchill (Eqs. 1.22 – 1.24)

gives for these values of Re and k/D the friction coefficient value λf = 0.0099 = 0.010.

The same value of λf should be obtained directly from the Moody diagram (for D/k =

91000 in Fig. 1.6).

The frictional head loss for water flow in a pipeline is determined using the

Darcy-Weisbach equation (Eq. 1.20). This gives a parabolic relationship between the

hydraulic gradient If and mean mixture velocity Vm. For our inputs

If = = = 0.01147 .

0.900 19.62 0.900 19.62

Thus the friction loss If = 0.01147 meter water column over 1 meter pipeline length,

i.e. 11.47 meter water column over 1 kilometer pipeline length. This represents the

pressure drop due to friction ∆P = 0.01147 x 1000 x 9.81 = 112.5 Pa/m' or 112.5 kPa

over the one kilometer long pipeline.

friction coefficient : λf = 0.010 [-]

frictional head loss per unit meter of a pipeline length : If = 0.01147 [-]

pressure drop due to friction over 1 000-meter long straight pipeline :

∆P = 112.5 [kPa / 1000 m]

1.12 CHAPTER 1

Forces acting on solid particles submerged in a liquid have their origin either in a

particle-liquid interaction or in a particle-particle interaction. Particles moving in a

conduit may also interact with a conduit boundary. The forces acting on a single

particle in a dilute suspension are the body forces. The particle-liquid body forces are

the buoyancy force, drag force and lift force. When a solid particle is transported in

the turbulent flow of a carrying liquid the turbulent diffusive force from carrier eddies

is an additional particle-liquid force. Forces acting on solid particles due to

particle-particle interaction are transmitted as the interparticle stress via the particle

contacts. Coulombic stresses occur in a granular body occupied by particles in

continuous contact. When a granular body is sheared and interparticle contacts are

only sporadic, Bagnold stresses are transmitted through the granular body.

The body force due to gravitational acceleration is determined from the solid particle

volume and density. The gravitational force on a spherical solid particle of diameter d

is

πd 3 (1.25).

FGp = ρs g

6

effect, which reduces its weight in the carrying medium. The submerged weight of the

solid particle is a result of gravitational and buoyancy effects on the solid particle

immersed in the liquid. For a spherical particle the submerged weight is determined

by the expression

πd 3

( )

Fwp = ρs − ρ f g (1.26).

6

FWp submerged weight of a spherical particle [N]

ρs density of solid particle [kg/m3]

ρf density of liquid [kg/m3]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2]

d diameter of a particle [m]

When the surrounding liquid moves relative to a solid particle, an additional force is

exerted from the liquid onto the submerged particle. The drag force, FD, acts in the

direction of the relative velocity vr = vf - vs between the liquid and the solid particle.

The magnitude of the drag force is expressed in terms of the drag coefficient CD. This

comes from dimensional analysis of the function

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FLOW OF LIQUID AND PARTICLES IN A PIPELINE 1.13

drag coefficient

8FD

CD = (1.28)

πd 2 v r v r ρ f

ρf v r d

Re p = (1.29)

µf

giving CD = fn(Rep).

A balance of the gravitational, buoyancy and drag forces on the submerged solid

body determines a settling velocity of the body.

terminal settling velocity of a spherical particle, vts, in a quiescent liquid. Measured

vts is the relative velocity vr.

1.14 CHAPTER 1

The lift force, FL, on a single solid particle is a product of simultaneous slip (given by

relative velocity vr = vf - vs) and particle rotation. The force (sometimes called the

Magnus force) acts in a direction normal to both the relative velocity vr and the

particle rotation vector. A particle rotation combined with a slip results in a lower

hydrodynamic pressure in flow above the particle than in that below the particle. Lift

force is due to this pressure gradient.

(a) (b)

Figure 1.9. Lift force on a rotating solid body. (a) lift force on a rotating cylinder,

(b) the Saffman force, i.e. lift force due to shear and slip.

The lift force is most active near a pipeline wall where the velocity gradient is high.

However, the lift forces due to particle spin play a minor role in the majority of

mixture flow regimes compared to the Bagnold and Coulombic forces.

Solid particles are also subject to additional liquid-solids interactions when they are

transported in a turbulent stream of the carrying liquid. An intensive exchange of

momentum and random velocity fluctuations in all directions are characteristic of the

turbulent flow of the carrying liquid in a pipeline. Scales of turbulence are attributed

to properties of the turbulent eddies developed within the turbulent stream. According

to Prandtl's picture of turbulence, the length of the turbulent eddy is given as the

distance over which the lump of liquid transports its momentum without losing its

identity, i.e. before the lump is mixed with liquid in a new location. This distance is

called the mixing length and since it is supposed to represent a mean free path of a

pulse of liquid within a structure of turbulent flow it is considered a length scale of

turbulence. A turbulent eddy is responsible for the transfer of momentum and mass in

a liquid flow. The instantaneous velocity of liquid at any point in the flowing liquid

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FLOW OF LIQUID AND PARTICLES IN A PIPELINE 1.15

time-averaged velocity and v' is the instantaneous fluctuation velocity. The turbulent

fluctuating component v' of the liquid velocity v is associated with a turbulent eddy.

It is well known that turbulent eddies are responsible for solid particle suspension.

The intensity of liquid turbulence is a measure of the ability of a carrying liquid to

suspend the particles. The size of the turbulent eddy and the size of the solid particle

are also important to the effectiveness of a suspension mechanism. The characteristic

size of turbulent eddies is assumed to depend on the pipeline diameter.

model of Schmidt and Rouse. The model was constructed as a flux balance per unit area

perpendicular to the vertical direction in a flow balancing the volumetric settling rate

(characterized by settling velocity vt) in a quiescent liquid and the diffusion flux

(characterized by the liquid velocity fluctuation in a vertical direction v'y, associated

with the length of a turbulent eddy, ML) (see Fig. 1.10). A characteristic value of the

turbulent pulsative velocity ~ v' y = v' 2y , i.e. the root mean square of velocity

fluctuations in the y-direction.

v’y + vt

cv-(ML/2).dcv/dy

ML

cv+(ML/2).dcv/dy

v’y - vt

The balance of

1

2 (

ML dc v ~

cv + v' − v

2 dy y t ) and

1

the downward flux per unit area = c v −

2

(

ML dc v ~

v' + v

2 dy y t )

gives an equation

dc v

− εs = vt .cv (1.30)

dy

ML ~

when solids dispersion coefficient ε s = v' y .

2

profile cv(y) as

1.16 CHAPTER 1

vt

c v ( y) = C vb .exp −

εs

( y − y b ) (1.31)

characterized by a position yb and a concentration cvb.

cvb known local concentration at the position yb [-]

vt terminal settling velocity of a particle [m/s]

εs solids dispersion coefficient [m2/s]

y vertical distance from pipe wall defining

a position in a pipe cross section [m]

yb vertical distance from pipe wall to boundary [m]

ML mixing length [m]

~

v' y turbulent pulsative velocity in the y-direction [m/s]

rewriting the Eq. 1.30 as a force balance between the turbulent diffusive force and the

submerged weight of the particles in a unit volume of slurry in a horizontal pipe. The

submerged weight is ρfg(Ss-1)cv so the turbulent dispersive force

ε s dc v

Ft = −ρ f g(S s − 1) (1.32).

v t dy

How to determine the solids dispersion coefficient, εs, is a major problem connected

with the application of the turbulent diffusive model. The effect of distance from a

boundary and of the presence of solid particles in a turbulent stream on a local value

of εs cannot be neglected. Further, the neighboring particles also affect the particle

settling velocity handled in the model.

granular bed sliding along a pipeline wall at the bottom of a pipeline. A mutual

contact between particles within a bed gives arise to intergranular forces transmitted

throughout a bed and via a bed contact with a pipeline wall also to the wall

continuous contact is a product of the weight of grains occupying the body. The

intergranular pressure (or stress) from the weight of grains is transmitted within the

granular body via interparticle contacts. The stress has two components: an

intergranular normal stress and an intergranular shear stress. According to Coulomb's

law these two stresses are related by the coefficient of friction. Du Boys (1879)

applied Coulomb's law to sheared riverbeds. He related the intergranular normal

stress, σs, and intergranular shear stress, τs, at the bottom of a flowing bed by a

coefficient

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FLOW OF LIQUID AND PARTICLES IN A PIPELINE 1.17

τs τs

tan φ = =

σ s ρ f g(S s − 1)C vb H s (1.33)

σs intergranular normal stress [Pa]

τs intergranular shear stress [Pa]

Ss specific gravity of solids, Ss= ρs/ρf [-]

Ysh thickness of the sheared bed [m]

Cvb maximum solids volume fraction of solids

in the granular bed, it is considered to be

valid for the sheared bed [-]

ρf density of liquid [kg/m3]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2]

The angle of repose, φ, is considered to be the angle at the internal failure of a static

granular body (Fig. 1.11). The value of this internal-friction coefficient is basically

dependent on the nature of the surface over which the grains start to move, i.e.

primarily on a grain size. When the granular bed motion takes place over a pipe wall,

the value of the bed-wall friction coefficient can be determined by a tilting tube test.

Sheared-bed particles flowing in the region of high shear rate maintain sporadic,

rather than continuous contact with each other, provided that solids concentration in

the sheared bed is considerably lower than the loose-poured bed concentration Cvb.

1.18 CHAPTER 1

intergranular stress components. It is appropriate to relate the particulate shear and

normal stresses in a granular body experiencing the rapid shearing by using a

coefficient of dynamic friction tanφ' instead of its static equivalent tanφ. Bagnold

(1954. 1956) measured and described the normal and tangential stresses in mixture

flows at high shear rates.

interactions) in a sheared layer rich in particles. The direction of the force is normal to

the layer boundary on which it is acting. The force increases with increasing solids

concentration and shear rate in the sheared layer.

1.3 REFERENCES

in a Newtonian liquid under shear, Proceedings Roy. Soc. (London), Ser. A, 225, 49-

63.

Bagnold, R.A. (1956). The flow of cohesionless grains in liquids, Proceedings Roy.

Soc. (London), Ser. A, 249, 235-97.

Churchill S.W. (1977). Friction-factor equation spans all fluid-flow regimes.

Chemical Engineering, 84(24), 91-2.

Du Boys, P. (1879). Étude du règime du Rhône et de l'action exercée par les eaux sur

un lit à fond de graviers indéfiniment affouillable. Annales des Ponts et Chausées,

18(49 pt 2), pp. 141-95.

Longwell, P.A. (1966). Mechanics of Fluid Flow. McGraw-Hill.

Shook, C.A. & Roco, M.C. (1991). Slurry Flow. Principles and Practice.

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Streeter, V.L. & Wylie, E.B. (1983). Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill.

2.

SOIL-WATER MIXTURE AND ITS PHASES

Different sorts of soil are subject to dredging. At different locations dredged solids

may differ strongly in density, size, shape and consistency. It is a very different

3

experience to dredge the iron ore of density round 4700 kg/m or the sand of density

3

2650 kg/m . If clay (a typical particle size is in an order of microns) is dredged it is

necessary to know whether it is cohesive or non-cohesive. The non-cohesive clay will

be transported as a pseudo-homogeneous mixture in a pipeline while the cohesive

clay, cuttered in slices from the bottom of a waterway, will form clay balls in a

pipeline. The balls might be of hundreds of millimetres in a diameter. Such balls will

definitely not be suspended in a carrying liquid. They will roll and slide at the bottom

of a dredging pipeline, giving a totally different flow pattern in a pipeline than

cohensionless clay. As a result the flow resistance will be very different. However, a

majority of dredged materials are just different sorts of sand or gravel that are

non-cohesive and of almost identical density.

flow conditions in dredging pipelines. A determination of properties of a transported

soil requires:

- in situ

- in a pipeline

b. analysis of samples using suitable methods.

Particle size distribution, soil density and in situ concentration of soil are the most

important soil properties influencing behaviour of solid particles in a mixture

transported in a dredging installation. If clay is transported the cohesion (described by

liquid limit and plastic limit) is a further important parameter. In the following text,

only the particle size distribution and solids density will be discussed. A

determination of other properties is described e.g. in van den Berg (1998).

Several systems are defined for identification and a classification of solids according

to their particle size (e.g. American norm ASTM Standard D288). For the dredging

purposes the following system is used (Table 2.1)

2.2 CHAPTER 2

Identification size in [mm]

Boulders Granular - > 200

Non-cohesive

Cobbles - 200 – 60

Coarse 60 – 20

Gravel Medium 20 – 6

Fine 6–2

Coarse 2 – 0.6

Sand Medium 0.6 – 0.2

Fine 0.2 – 0.06

Coarse 0.06 – 0.02

Silt Cohesive Medium 0.02 – 0.006

Fine 0.006 – 0.002

Clay - < 0.002

Dredged soil is seldom uniformly graded. Two techniques are used to determine

particle size distribution (PSD) in samples of dredged sand or gravel – the sieving and

the sedimentation tests, finer solids as silt and clay are tested using the hydrometric

method.

A choice of the PSD method is dependent on the range of particle sizes in the tested

sample of soil. Samples containing particles of sand- or gravel size are usually tested

using the screen method (the sieving) or the sedimentation method (the sedimentation

in the water column). For finer particles (d < 0.074 mm) the distribution is determined

by a sedimentation process in a hydrometer.

A. Sieving

A weighted sample of dry solids is sieved through a series of sieves with standard

sieve meshes. The sample fraction remaining in each sieve is weighted. The fractions

by mass are recalculated to obtain a percentage of the mass of the entire sample, pi.

The fraction pi is considered to contain particles of characteristic diameter di

represented by the size of opening of the sieve at which the fraction pi remained.

SOIL-WATER MIXTURE AND ITS PHASE 2.3

Table 2.2. PSD for the narrow-graded medium sand (determined by a sieving analysis

of a one-kilogram dry sample).

1 2 3 4 5

sieve weight percentage of cumulative characteristic

opening fraction total weight, % particle size,

[mm] [g] pi [%] mass di [mm]

0.85 0 0 100 0.85

0.6 6.7 0.67 99.33 0.6

0.5 37.7 3.77 95.56 0.5

0.42 447.8 44.78 50.78 0.42

0.355 366.4 36.64 14.14 0.355

0.3 74.2 7.42 6.72 0.3

0.21 55.1 5.51 1.21 0.21

0.15 10.6 1.06 0.15 0.15

0.00 1.5 0.15 0 0.00

Σ 1000 Σ 100

Legend:

column 1: sieve opening of the sieves used to test the sample

column 2: weight of soil fraction remaining at the sieve of the opening in col. 1

column 3: weight in col. 2 as a percentage of the weight of the total sample (1 kg)

column 4: cumulative percentage, Σpi

column 5: particle diameter representing the soil fraction remaining at the sieve

Table 2.3. PSD for the broad-graded medium sand (determined by a sieving analysis

of a one-kilogram dry sample).

1 2 3 4 5

sieve weight percentage of cumulative Characteristic

opening fraction total weight, % Particle size,

[mm] [g] pi [%] mass di [mm]

0.85 5 0.5 99.50 0.85

0.6 162.4 16.24 83.26 0.6

0.5 162.4 16.24 67.02 0.5

0.42 162.4 16.24 50.78 0.42

0.355 125.7 12.57 38.21 0.355

0.3 125.7 12.57 25.64 0.3

0.21 125.7 12.57 13.07 0.21

0.15 125.7 12.57 0.5 0.15

0.00 5 0.5 0 0.00

Σ 1000 Σ 100

The columns 4 and 5 of the Tables 2.2 and 2.3 are plotted to the cumulative Particle

Size Distribution curve.

2.4 CHAPTER 2

Samples of relatively narrow graded fine sand (Sand a) and medium sand (Sand c) are

processed together with a broad graded sand (Sand b) in Table 2.4 and plotted to the

cumulative PSD curve on Fig. 2.1.

(%) za nd a za nd b za nd c

(µm ) (µm ) (µm )

10 250 1300 850

20 180 500 620

30 150 270 500

40 140 170 400

50 120 120 350

60 90 75 290

70 75 55 240

80 60 40 180

90 40 25 130

dmf 123 284 396

FIJN GROF FIJN GROF FIJN

g ew ic htsp erc enta g e o p d e zeef d roo g

10

20

a b c

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

korreld ia m eter in m m

Figure 2.1. Cumulative curves of particle size distribution for three sorts of sand

according to Table 2.4.

b. Sedimentation column

The method of sedimentation a long sedimentation column is used as alternative to

the sieving method for solid particles of sand (and gravel) size. This method has the

advantage of direct provision of the settling velocity of the particles, which is the

parameter characterising the solids impact on the slurry flow behaviour rather than the

SOIL-WATER MIXTURE AND ITS PHASE 2.5

particle size. The particle size distribution can be obtained from the settling velocity

distribution using appropriate settling velocity equation.

A weighted sample of solids is collected in a cup at the top of a sedimentation column

filled with water. The water level in the sedimentation column touches the bottom of

the cup. The cup is opened and the time is measured which solid particles of the

sample need to reach a plate at the bottom of the sedimentation column. The distance

between the cup and plate is known. The measuring principle is the sensing of the

progression of the deflection in time of a thin metal membrane connected with both

the cup and the plate. The membrane senses an impulse determining the time at which

the cup is opened and the time-dependent increase in the weight of the plate as the

particles settle on its surface. This signal is converted and plotted as a summation

curve of % solids mass passed versus particle settling velocity.

The effect of the concentration of solids in a settling cloud on the particle settling

velocity in a sedimentation column is negligible because of small solids samples and

thus the low concentration of solids in the settling cloud. The disadvantage of this

method is that the length of the sedimentation column is too short to test very coarse

particles, which need only a few seconds to reach the plate at the bottom of the

sedimentation column.

c. Hydrometer tests

This method determines a particle size distribution for soils too fine to be sieved, i.e.

finer than 0.074 mm. A hydrometer is a small glass bottle with a calibrated volume. In

a hydrometer a small sample of soil is suspended in distilled water. At certain position

density of suspension is measured. Due to slow sedimentation of particles in

quiescent water in a hydrometer the suspension density at the position gradually

decreases. The change of density with time is sensed. This can be interpreted as a

development of settling velocity of particles in a soil sample and thus according to

Stokes law of settling as a particle size distribution. As the sieving analysis the

hydrometer analysis provides the cumulative PSD curve.

The mass-median diameter d50 is the diameter for which 50% (by mass) of the

particles in a soil sample are finer. In other words one half of all particles in a sample

is larger and one half of all particles is smaller than is the size d50. The d85 size gives

the diameter for which 85% (by mass) of the particles in a soil sample are finer.

A comparison of PSD for these two sand samples demonstrates clearly that the

mass-median diameter d50 of particles does not represent fully the particle size in a

soil sample. The d50 value is identical for both samples (d50 = 0.42 mm) but the

deviation from the median size is much larger in a broadly graded sample. A

deviation from the median size has to be incorporated in the parameter(s) representing

the solids size in mixture flow models. Usually such a parameter is sufficiently

represented by mean diameter or decisive particle diameter defined below, but for

specific cases as is that simulated in Table 2.3 is this not enough. Therefore the flow

models employing at least two characteristic particle diameters (e.g. d50 and d85) are

more suitable.

2.6 CHAPTER 2

The mean diameter of particles in a type of solid with a certain degree of grading is

determined as

∑ d i pi

ds = i (2.1)

∑ pi

i

where ∑ p i = 1.00.

i

often used. This so-called decisive particle diameter (in Dutch "maatgevende

korreldiameter") is defined as

d + d 20 + .............. + d80 + d 90

d mf = 10 (2.2).

9

Table 2.5. Comparison of characteristic particle sizes for medium sand samples in

Table 2.2 and Table 2.3.

Narrow-graded Broadly

sand graded sand

(Table 2.1) (Table 2.2)

d50 0.42 0.42

d85 0.47 0.62

d15 0.36 0.22

ds 0.38 0.38

dmf 0.42 0.42

The form (shape) of the particle influences the settling process of a particle in a

carrying liquid, but also the wear of components in contact with flowing mixture and

packing of solids in granular beds. The shape factor is determined experimentally by

measuring the settling velocity of non-spherical particles. The shape-factor for

v

non-spherical particles is ξ = t (as already discussed in Intermezzo I) and its value

v ts

drops from one for spherical particles to the lowest values for the particles that have

one dimension much smaller than the other two.

SOIL-WATER MIXTURE AND ITS PHASE 2.7

surrounding matter or other parameters that might vary during the solids

transportation in a mixture.

calibrated volume gauge. This is used to determine a volume of dry solids sample of

known weight. The dry sample is dropped to the pycnometer containing a known

volume of water. The change in a volume is read out as the change in the position of

the water level at the pycnometer gauge. This gives a total volume of particles of a

sample. The ratio of the weight of a sample and its volume gives density of solid

grains, ρs, in a sample.

For dredging purposes, however, an another parameter associated with the mass and

the volume of transported soil is important. The amount of cubic meters of

transported material decisive for dredging work payments is not based on the density

of solid particles, ρs, but rather on the in situ density of the soil body, ρsi. If a known

volume of a soil (i.e. a granular body) submerged in water is weighted, the ratio of the

weight and body volume gives the in situ density of a soil, ρsi. This is lower than the

density of solids occupying a granular body since it includes the volume of water

(lighter than solids) present in the pores between particles in the granular body.

A measure of the difference between the density of solid particles and density of soil

occupied by the solid particles is given by the porosity of a soil, n, that is obtained as

ρ − ρsi

n= s (2.3).

ρs − ρ f

ρs density of solid grains [kg/m3]

ρsi density of soil in situ [kg/m3]

ρf density of liquid [kg/m3]

The typical value of the in situ density is 2000 kg/m3 for a submerged sand bed. This

indicates that 60 % of the sand-bed volume is occupied by sand particles having

density 2650 kg/m3 and the interstitial water of density 1000 kg/m occupies 40 % of

the total volume3. The porosity n = 0.40.

2.8 CHAPTER 2

solids in situ (wet)

ρs [kg/m3] ρsi [kg/m3] n [%]

silt 2650 1100 - 1400 80 - 90

loose clay 2650 1400 - 1600 60 - 80

packed clay 2650 1800 - 2000 35 - 50

sand with clay 2650 1800 - 2000 40 - 50

sand 2650 1900 - 2000 35 - 45

coarse sand 2650 2050 - 2200 28-36

with gravel

clay boulders 2650 2320 20

The ratio ρs/ρw gives the relative density (also "specific gravity" of solid particle),

Ss. The parameter ρw is the density of water with the typical value 1000 kg/m3. More

precise values are discussed in the following paragraph.

Density and viscosity are the most important properties of a carrying liquid from the

point of view of the mixture flow in a dredging pipeline. Both parameters are

sensitive to temperature. Sensitivity to pressure can be neglected over the range of

conditions encountered in the hydraulic transport, the liquids are considered

incompressible.

Viscosity that relates the shear stress and the shear rate according to Newton's law of

viscosity (see Chapter 1) is called dynamic viscosity, µ, and it has a unit Pa.s. The

ratio of the dynamic viscosity of liquid and density of liquid is known as kinematic

viscosity, ν = µ/ρ, having a unit m2/s.

viscosity, viscosity, pressure,

T [oC] 3

ρw [kg/m ] µw [Pa.s] νw [m2/s] pv [Pa]

0 999.8 1.781 x 10-3 1.785 x 10-6 0.61 x 103

5 1000.0 1.518 x 10-3 1.519 x 10-6 0.87 x 103

10 999.7 1.307 x 10-3 1.306 x 10-6 1.23 x 103

15 999.1 1.139 x 10-3 1.139 x 10-6 1.70 x 103

20 998.2 1.002 x 10-3 1.003 x 10-6 2.34 x 103

25 997.0 0.890 x 10-3 0.893 x 10-6 3.17 x 103

30 995.7 0.798 x 10-3 0.800 x 10-6 4.24 x 103

SOIL-WATER MIXTURE AND ITS PHASE 2.9

< 100 0C using

0.10

µw = (2.5),

2.1482([T − 8.435] + 8078.4 + [T − 8.435]2 ) − 120

Density of seawater is slightly higher than that of river water due to the contents of

dissolved salt. The typical value is ρf = 1025 kg/m3, i.e. relative density Sf = ρf/ρw =

1.03.

Mixture is composed of two phases: solids and liquid. The density of the mixture, ρm,

is influenced by the fraction of solids present in a carrying liquid. The fraction is

determined by the parameter called concentration. The volumetric concentration, Cv,

determines the fraction of the mixture volume that is occupied by solids. The Cv =

0.60 means that 60 % of the total volume of mixture is occupied by solid particles.

The fraction of solids in mixture can be also expressed in weight giving the weight

concentration of solids, Cw. The Cw = 0.60 means that 60 % of the total weight of

mixture is exerted by solid particles present in the mixture.

A relationship between the mixture density and the volumetric concentration of solids

in a mixture proportion is derived from the general formula

ρ − ρ f S m − Sf

Cv = m = (2.9).

ρs − ρ f Ss − Sf

The corresponding weight concentration

2.10 CHAPTER 2

ms ρ U ρ

Cw = = s s = s Cv (2.10).

mm ρm U m ρm

Cw weight concentration of solid grains [-]

ρs density of solid grains [kg/m3]

ρm density of mixture [kg/m3]

ρf density of liquid [kg/m3]

Ss relative density of solid grains [-]

Sm relative density of mixture [-]

Sf relative density of liquid [-]

ms mass of solid grains [kg]

mm mass of mixture [kg]

Us volume of solid grains [m3]

Um volume of mixture [m3]

a dredging practice. This is because the payment of dredging works is based on the

amount of cubic meters of material either dredged from the bottom of a waterway or

dumped at the deposit site. The prize is determined for 1 m3 of the in situ soil

dredged.

ρ − ρf

C vsi = m (2.11).

ρsi − ρ f

The volume of in situ soil body, Usi, dredged is composed of the volume of grains,

Us, and the volume of water, Uf, captured in voids (pores) between grains in a

submerged granular body, i.e. Usi = Us + Uf. The volume of water in the in situ

granular body is expressed by the parameter called porosity n = Uf/Usi. Then Usi(1-n)

= Us and the volumetric concentration of in situ solids is

U si Us C

C vsi = = = v (2.12).

U m (1 − n )U m 1 − n

The typical value of porosity for loose-poured bed of sand grains is n = 0.4. For this

bed the concentration Cv = 0.60. Remember that Cv = 0.60 means that 60 % of the

total volume of mixture is occupied by solid particles and 40 % by water. If the

porosity n = 0.4 (i.e. 40 %) the Cvsi = 1.00. This says that for a dredging operation a

creation of the loose-poured bed in a deposit site is a reference level considered as

unity.

modeling, the volumetric concentration of in situ soil, Cvsi, is an important parameter

in calculating production and thus economical costs of a dredging operation.

SOIL-WATER MIXTURE AND ITS PHASE 2.11

For the FLOWING MIXTURES the physical meaning of the solids concentration

must be further specified. A different fraction of solids is determined in a mixture

flowing in a pipeline when it is measured at two different places:

- in a horizontal length section of a pipeline (e.g. by weighting of the pipe section)

and

- at the outlet of a pipeline (e.g. by collecting the discharged mixture to the tank).

The volume fraction of solids resident in an isolated length section of a horizontal

pipe somewhere within the pipeline determines the spatial (resident) volumetric

concentration of solids, Cvi, in a pipe. The volume fraction of solids in the mixture

discharged to the collecting tank, i.e. delivered from a pipeline, determines the

delivered volumetric concentration of solids, Cvd.

The spatial volumetric concentration gives the fraction of solids actually resident in a

slurry pipeline and it is calculated as the ratio between solids and slurry volumes in a

pipeline section

Us

C vi = (2.13).

Um

slurry pipeline (Fig. 2.2) and it is calculated as the ratio between solids and slurry

flow rates

Qs ∆U s ∆t

C vd = = (2.14)

Qm ∆t ∆U m

Cvd delivered volumetric concentration of solids [-]

Us volume fraction of solids in mixture [m3]

Um total volume of mixture, Um=Us+Uf [m3]

Qs volumetric flow rate of solids [m3/s]

Qm volumetric flow rate of mixture, Qm=Qs+Qf [m3/s]

∆Us volume of solids delivered by a pipe during

time period ∆t [m3]

∆Um volume of mixture delivered by a pipe during

time period ∆t [m3].

Qm

Qs

Um

Us

2.12 CHAPTER 2

(typical values of Cvdsi according van den Berg, 1998)

in situ mixture solid grains

[-] ρm [kg/m3] [-]

CSD without SP 0.25 1250 0.15

CSD with SP 0.30 1300 0.18

Bucket wheel dredge 0.50 1500 0.30

with SP

Plain suction dredge 0.40-0.60 1400-1600 0.24 - 0.36

Modern THSD during 1300-1600 0.18 - 0.36

hopper loading 0.30-0.40

(suction process)

Modern THSD during

hopper unloading 0.70-0.80 1700-1800 0.42 - 0.48

(pumping to shore)

Legend:

CSD cutter suction dredge

SP submerged pump

THSD trailing hopper suction dredge

The difference between the spatial concentration and the delivered concentration can

be illustrated on a hypothetical case in a dredging pipeline delivering the sand-water

mixture. Imagine that the carrying liquid velocity in a dredging pipeline drops

suddenly to the value that is not sufficient to carry the sand particles. All sand

particles will settle down to the bottom of a pipeline and form a stationary bed. The

carrying water will flow above this stationary bed. Measurements of concentration in

a horizontal pipe section will indicate a fraction of solids in a pipe section but

measurements at the pipeline outlet will not register any solids in discharging carrier

(Fig. 2.3). The spatial concentration will reach a reasonably high value but the

delivered concentration will be just zero.

Qm

Q s= 0

Um

U s= 0

SOIL-WATER MIXTURE AND ITS PHASE 2.13

This extreme case is unlikely to occur during a dredging operation but an operation

during which a certain portion of transported sand forms a slowly sliding bed or even

a stationary bed is not quite unusual. During such operation the different values of

Cvi and Cvd also occur in a pipeline.

The difference between the spatial and the delivered concentration indicates slip

(hold-up) within the mixture flow caused by the different velocities of the carrying

liquid and that of the solid phase within a mixture stream. Govier & Aziz (1972)

described this phenomenon as follows:

"When the phases of two-phase flow differ in density and/or viscosity, one of

them - usually the less dense phase - tends to flow at a higher in situ average velocity

than does the other. This gives rise to an all-important characteristic of two-phase

flow, the existence of "slip" of one phase past the other, or "holdup" of one phase

relative to the other."

Govier and Aziz also summarised the factors influencing slip:

- the existence of a velocity profile across the pipeline cross section

- the existence of a concentration profile across the pipeline cross section

- the local relative velocity between phases (vs-vf) caused by gravitational effects.

The slip between two phases in a cross section of slurry pipeline can be quantified by

the mean slip velocity in a pipeline cross section, Vs-Vf, or by the ratio of the mean

velocities of solids and mixture in a pipeline cross section, Vs/Vm. This latter

parameter, called the slip ratio (or “transport factor” in a dredging practice), is

exceptionally suitable for the evaluation of slip in a pipeline. This ratio is also equal

to the ratio of mean concentrations in pipeline cross sections Cvd/Cvi since

Qs VA VC A

C vd = = s s = s vi (2.15),

Q m Vm A Vm A

in which As is the part of the cross sectional area of the pipeline occupied by solids,

thus

Vs C

= vd (2.16).

Vm C vi

Cvi spatial volumetric concentration of solids [-]

Vs mean velocity of solids in pipeline cross section [m/s]

Vm mean velocity of mixture in pipeline cross section [m/s]

The slip phenomenon may influence the accuracy of the determination of the solids

flow rate from the measurements on a dredging pipeline. Solids flow rate through a

slurry pipeline connected with a dredge is often determined from measurements of the

mean solids concentration and the mean slurry velocity in a horizontal pipeline

section. The radiometric measurement of the concentration in a horizontal pipeline

gives the value of the spatial concentration (not the delivered concentration that might

be lower) so that Qs calculated as CviVmA overestimates the real solids flow rate

2.14 CHAPTER 2

unless the slip in a pipeline is negligible. Generally, it is desirable to take the slip into

account during slurry flow calculations.

Table 2.9. Transport factor Cvd/Cvi for various solids and solids concentrations in a

mixture flow of velocity range Vdl < Vm < 2Vdl (typical Cvd/Cvi values

according to Matousek, 1997).

At low At high

Cvd Cvd

Silt and finer solids 1.00 1.00

Fine to medium sand 0.80-1.00 0.90-1.00

Medium to coarse sand 0.70-0.90 0.85-1.00

Coarse sand 0.65-0.85 0.75-0.95

Fine gravel 0.65-0.85 0.75-0.90

Boulders 0.40-0.65 0.40-0.65

2.4 REFERENCES

van den Berg, C.H. (1998). Pipelines as Transportation Systems. European Mining

Course Proceedings, MTI.

Govier, G.W. & Aziz, K. (1972). The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes. Van

Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Matousek, V. (1997). Flow Mechanism of Sand-Water Mixtures in Pipelines. Delft

University Press.

SOIL-WATER MIXTURE AND ITS PHASE 2.15

CASE STUDY 2

Consider that sand particles occupy 27 per cent of the total volume of a dredging

pipeline. The rest is occupied by carrying water. The sand-water mixture is

discharged from a dredging pipeline at a deposit site. The porosity of sand in a

deposition n = 0.4.

Determine the density ρm of sand-water mixture in the pipeline and the weight

concentration Cw of solids in the mixture. Further, determine the in situ density ρsi

and the spatial volumetric concentration of in situ sand, Cvsi, in a deposition and in a

pipeline.

Inputs:

The density of sand particles: ρs = 2650 kg/m3

The density of carrying water: ρf = 1000 kg/m3

Porosity of sand body in a deposition: n = 0.4.

Solution:

ρs 2650

Cw = Cv = 0.27 = 0.495, i.e. 49.5 %.

ρm 1445.5

deposition

ρ − ρsi

According to Eq. 2.3 the porosity n = s and thus

ρs − ρ f

In a deposition the density of the sand-water mixture is equal to ρsi and thus Cvsi =1

(see Eq. 2.11).

2.16 CHAPTER 2

Cv 0.27

C vsi = = = 0.45, i.e. 45 %.

1 − n 1 − 0.4

3.

FLOW OF MIXTURE IN A PIPELINE

regime in a pipeline. A laminar flow is composed of thin layers (lamina) that move

over each other at different velocities forming a typical parabolic velocity profile in a

pipeline cross section. There is no exchange of mass and momentum between

neighboring layers. Thus each liquid particle has zero velocity components in

directions other than is that of the flow and this is given by an axis of a conduit. A

stability of a laminar flow is given by Reynolds number of the flow and its value 2300

is experimentally determined as a threshold for the maintaining of a laminar flow

regime in a conduit. From this it is clear that a laminar regime can hardly occur in a

dredging pipeline when the flowing carrying liquid is water. This has the value of

kinematic viscosity of about 10-6 m2/s and considering the diameter of a dredging

pipeline of a typical value 1 meter, the velocity of a carrier should be maximally 2.3

mm/s to maintain a laminar regime of flow. However, a laminar flow is maintained to

higher velocities when viscosity of the carrier is higher than that of water. This is the

case when non-settling or very-slowly-settling solid particles are transported at high

concentration with water in a pipeline. Water and very fine particles form together a

carrier of high density and viscosity. As a result the laminar flow might occur in a

dredging pipeline if highly dense non-settling mixtures are transported. In practice,

however, the operational velocity is often higher than the threshold velocity for a

laminar flow even for these high concentrated non-settling mixtures. A turbulent flow

is a result of disturbances occurring at the interface between neighboring layers if the

difference in their velocities becomes higher than is acceptable for maintenance of the

laminar regime. Turbulent eddies are developed as a result of the disturbances. The

turbulent eddies are responsible for an intensive random transfer of mass and

momentum in all directions within a liquid stream. This is sensed as a continuous

fluctuation of velocity of fluid particles in time and space within a stream. The

turbulent flow regime is typical for dredging pipelines. The flow eddies due to

turbulence produce energy dissipation additional to that due to friction in a laminar

flow. Turbulent flows dissipate much more mechanical energy than laminar flows.

flowing carrier to suspend solid particles are the most important indicators of a pattern

of a flow of solid-liquid mixture in a pipeline. The settling tendency of a solid particle

to settle is given by the particle settling velocity and the tendency of a carrying stream

to suspend the solid particles is given an intensity of turbulence, i.e. basically by mean

3.1

3.2 CHAPTER 3

STRATIFIED if intensity of turbulence of a carrier flow is not sufficient to suspend

any solid particle in a pipeline. Then all solid particles occupy a granular bed that is

either stationary or slides over the bottom of a pipeline. The opposite extreme to the

fully-stratified flow is a FULLY-SUSPENDED flow in which all solid particles are

suspended within a stream of a carrying liquid. No granular bed occurs in a pipeline.

The fully-suspended flow may be considered pseudo-homogeneous if a distribution of

solid particles across a cross section of a stream is almost uniform. This is usually the

case if solid particles of silt or clay size are transported in a pipeline. Fully-suspended

flow exhibiting a certain concentration gradient across a stream is typical for fine to

medium sand mixtures flowing at high velocities. An intermediate flow pattern – the

PARTIALLY-STRATIFIED flow – is most usual during dredging operations. A

mixture flow exhibits a considerable concentration gradient across a pipeline cross

section indicating an accumulation of a portion of solids near the bottom of a pipeline

and a non-uniform distribution of the rest of solids across the rest of a pipeline

cross-sectional area. This pattern is also known as a heterogeneous flow.

– flow of clay and silt mixtures at high concentrations

Pseudo-homogeneous flow of Newtonian mixtures

- coarse silt or fine sand mixtures (in case of fine sand the velocities must be

considerably higher than is the deposition-limit velocity)

Slightly-stratified heterogeneous flow (partially-stratified flow without a stationary

deposit)

- medium or medium to coarse sand mixture in which a majority of solid particles is

suspended and only a small portion of particles travels within a granular bed

Very-stratified heterogeneous flow

- medium to coarse sand, coarse sand or fine gravel mixture in which a majority of

solid particles travels within a granular bed and only a small portion of particles is

suspended (in case of fine gravel the velocities must be considerably higher than

is the deposition-limit velocity)

Fully-stratified flow with an eroded top of the bed

- fine to medium or medium gravel mixture in which a great majority of solid

particles travels within a granular bed and only a small portion of particles is

either sheared or moves by jumping and rolling (the process called “saltation”)

over the top of the sliding granular bed

Fully-stratified flow

- medium to coarse or coarse gravel mixture or mixture containing cobbles and

boulders, in this flow all solid particles travel within a granular bed

The particle settling velocity and the mean mixture velocity (indicating a measure of

an intensity of turbulence in a mixture stream) are the most important parameters to

determine the flow pattern in a dredging pipeline. A pipeline size is an additional

parameter influencing the pattern. This might play an important role if flows are

scaled from laboratory pipes (typically of a diameter between 50 mm and 150 mm) to

dredging pipelines (a diameter between 500 mm and 1200 mm).

FLOW OF MIXTURE IN A PIPELINE 3.3

If the velocity in a dredging pipeline is too low the carrier stream might be incapable

to keep all solid particles (of sand size and coarser) in motion. The bed composed of

solid particles settled at the bottom of a pipeline will not slide and the flow pattern

with a stationary bed develops. As discussed later, a pipeline operation with such

flow pattern is inefficient and potentially dangerous.

I. Pseudo-homogeneous flow

Figure 3.1. Various patterns of mixture flow with distributions of mixture velocity

(vm), spatial concentration (cvi) and delivered concentration (cvd).

Knowledge of a flow pattern in a dredging pipeline is important for the design and

prediction of operational parameters of a dredging pipeline. Important parameters for

the design and operation of a dredging pipeline are those which provide information

about the safety and economy of dredging pipeline operation. These are:

- the mean mixture velocity and its important values

- the production of solids

- the frictional head loss

- the specific energy consumption.

3.4 CHAPTER 3

VALUES

3.2.1 Definition

defined as the bulk velocity, V, of a matter (liquid, solids, mixture) obtained from the

volumetric flow rate, Q, of a matter passing a pipeline cross section of the area, A.

The equation V = Q/A is for a circular pipe of an inner diameter D written as

4Q

V= (3.1).

πD 2

a pipe cross section [m/s]

Q volumetric flow rate of a matter in a pipe [m3/s]

D pipe diameter [m]

The determination of an appropriate mean mixture velocity, Vm, is crucial to safe and

low-cost pipeline operation.

Solid particles of sand/gravel size and density tend to settle in a flowing carrier.

Usually, these solid particles are distributed non-uniformly in a pipeline flow. If the

carrier velocity is too low for the carrier lift forces to suspend all solid particles, a

portion of the particles forms a bed at a bottom of a slurry pipeline. With extremely

large particles and/or extremely low mean velocities in a pipeline all particles occupy

a bed. The threshold velocity at the initiation of turbulent suspension, Vtt, is the mean

velocity of the mixture in a pipeline cross section at which the first solid particles

leave the bed, being supported by the diffusive effect of carrier turbulent eddies. This

velocity is used in the evaluation of a measure of a flow stratification, but for practical

pipeline operation the threshold velocity at which solid particles occupying a bed at

the bottom of a pipeline stop their sliding and start to form a stationary deposit, i.e. a

stationary bed, is more important. Operation below this threshold velocity might be

inefficient and potentially dangerous. Under certain circumstances a stationary

deposit may be transformed into a solid plug which blocks the pipeline. The mean

slurry velocity at the limit of stationary deposition is called the deposition-limit

velocity, Vdl, or, less accurately, the critical velocity. Slurry flow at velocities above

the deposition-limit value is free of a stationary deposition.

The mean slurry velocity at which the least energy is dissipated in slurry flow is

called the minimum velocity, Vmin. The minimum slurry velocity determines the

velocity at which the slurry flow is most economical of energy. This is the optimal

transport velocity for slurry of a given slurry density. It is well known, however, that

FLOW OF MIXTURE IN A PIPELINE 3.5

practice the operation velocity, a result of an interaction between a pipeline and a

pump, is taken as Vm > Vmin. This avoids an unstable transport regime in a

conveying system experiencing a variation in Vm.

At the minimum velocity the hydraulic gradient (see below) is minimal (Fig. 3.3).

Therefore the derivative of the hydraulic-gradient correlation Im = fn(Vm, etc.) (see

Chapter 4) determines a relationship between the minimum velocity and additional

parameters of mixture flow: dIm/dVm = 0 at Vm = Vmin.

(Fig. 3.2). In majority of slurry pipeline conditions, however, the deposition-limit

velocity and the minimum velocity differ. To estimate Vdl as equal to Vmin might be

acceptable for low-concentration flows but fails for high concentrated flows. Actually,

the trends seem to be opposite in a development of Vdl and Vmin when solids

concentration grows in a pipeline. The deposition-limit velocity tends to drop while the

minimum velocity tends to grow (see a 0.20-0.50 mm sand in Fig. 3.5).

Some authors have tried to relate the minimum and the critical velocity by using

coefficient of proportionality ξ as

3.3 PRODUCTION

3.3.1 Definition

The flow rate of solids transported through a dredging pipeline is termed production

in the dredging practice. This is an important parameter from the economic point of

view. It gives the amount of dry solids (in volume or mass) delivered at the pipeline

outlet over a certain time period. It is defined as the flow rate (either volumetric, Qs,

in m3/s or mass in kg/s) of solids at the outlet of a slurry pipeline.

3.6 CHAPTER 3

In the dredging practice the volumetric flow rate is handled rather than the mass flow

rate and the production Qs = QmCvd is calculated as

π 2 m3

Qs = D Vm C vd 3600 (3.3).

4 hour

solids [m3/s]

D pipe diameter [m]

Vm mean mixture velocity [m/s]

Cvd volumetric delivered concentration of solids [-].

During a dredging operation the parameters Vm and Cvd are usually measured in a

pipeline of known D so that the production of solids given by a solids flow rate can be

determined.

For the payment of a dredging work, however, the production based on in-situ volume

of transported soil is decisive. As discussed in Chapter 2 the in-situ volume of soil is

composed of the volume of solid particles and of the volume of pores in an in-situ soil

C

body. The delivered concentration of the in situ soil C vdsi = vd so that the

1− n

production of in-situ soil can be calculated as

π 2 Q m3

Qsi = D Vm C vdsi 3600 = s (3.4).

4 1− n hour

Qs production of solids [m3/s]

n porosity for in-situ soil [-]

D pipe diameter [m]

Vm mean mixture velocity [m/s]

Cvdsi volumetric delivered concentration of in-situ soil [-].

Since the porosity gives a value lower than one (typically n=0.4 for a loose-poured

sand), the production of in situ soil is higher than the production of the solid particles.

FLOW OF MIXTURE IN A PIPELINE 3.7

3.4.1 Definition

flow when flowing through a pipeline. The mechanical energy balance along a

pipeline section - expressed by the Bernoulli equation - shows that energy dissipation

in a steady slurry flow is characterized by the pressure difference along a horizontal

pipeline section of constant diameter. The resistance is evaluated as

confined at the inlet by the pipeline cross section 1 and at the outlet by the

pipeline cross section 2) [Pa],

∆P

- the pressure gradient (pressure drop over a pipeline section divided by the

L

length L of a pipeline section between cross sections 1 and 2) [Pa/m] or

∆P

- the hydraulic gradient due to friction, also termed the frictional head loss

ρf gL

(Im) (head that is lost owing to friction is divided by the length of a pipeline

section, L), which is dimensionless and expresses the pressure gradient by the

ratio of meter liquid column and meter pipeline length.

∆P

Head, , is a measure of the mechanical energy of a flowing liquid per unit mass.

ρf g

It is expressed as the height of the fluid column exerting the pressure, which is

equivalent to the pressure differential over a pipeline section.

The sum of the hydraulic gradient due to friction in straight pipeline sections, the

hydraulic gradient due to minor losses in fittings (see Chapter 7) and the geodetic

gradient (the potential energy gain or loss in a mixture from different geodetic heights

at an inlet and an outlet of a pipeline, see Chapters 6 and 7) determine the amount of

energy which has to be fed by pumps to mixture flow in a pipeline.

A relation between the mechanical dissipation due to mixture flow through a pipeline

and the mean mixture velocity is expressed in a pipeline-resistance curve. This relates

∆P

the head (in meter water column) lost due to friction in a straight pipeline with

ρf g

the mean mixture velocity Vm (see Fig. 3.2).

3.8 CHAPTER 3

and mixture flow.

.12

=0

30

Head lost due to friction [m.w.c.]

d

Cv

2

0.1

37 r

e,

25 mm mi x tu

0.

v =

,C

low

0

v =

20

r f ous f

,C

e

low

W ogen

15

a te

m

Ho

10

(a 0.18 mm mixture)

5

Developed bed Low bed No bed

0

0 1 2 3

Mixture velocity [m/s]

6

4

Minimum velocity

2 for mixture 0.18 mm

0

0 1 2 3

Mixture flow rate [m3/s]

Figure 3.3. Typical courses of a resistance curve for various sand mixtures

(in a 800 mm pipeline).

FLOW OF MIXTURE IN A PIPELINE 3.9

A course of a resistance curve within a wide velocity range indicates different flow

patterns that occur in a pipeline. A resistance curve for water flow in a pipeline is a

parabolic curve. The pseudo-homogeneous flow of fine solids is represented by a

parabolic curve also, only the gradient of a curve is higher (see Fig. 3.3).

Heterogeneous flows are characterized by resistance curves that exhibit the minimum

at so called “minimum velocity” (see Figs. 3.3 & 3.4). A descending curve section at

velocities below the minimum velocity indicates a developed stationary or sliding

bed.

A threshold velocity between a stationary bed and a sliding bed is illustrated on Fig.

3.4 (the threshold velocity Vdl is sensitive on the concentration of solids in a

pipeline). If the velocity increases above the minimum velocity value the bed

gradually dissolves (particles gradually loose their mutual contacts and they become

suspended by a carrying liquid).

The Figure 3.5 shows resistance curves (representing here the hydraulic gradient due

to friction in a 1-meter horizontal pipe versus mean mixture velocity) for flows of

different soil sorts in a 150-mm pipeline of a test loop in Laboratory of Dredging

Technology of Delft University of Technology. Shapes of measured resistance curves

are very different for various sand and gravel sorts. Furthermore, shapes of measured

resistance curves are very sensitive to concentration of solids in tested mixture flows.

3.10 CHAPTER 3

Generally, flow friction increases with both the particle size and the concentration of

solids in a pipeline. A shape of a pipeline-resistance curve is very different for fine

solids and coarse solids:

stratified heterogeneous flow within a velocity range 1.5 – 4.0 m/s. At velocities

higher than 4.0 m/s the flow may be considered pseudo-homogeneous.

- The curves for a medium sand (0.20-0.50 mm sand) indicate a considerable flow

stratification near the deposition-limit velocity and a gradual bed dissolution

within a velocity range 3 – 5 m/s. The pseudo-homogeneous flow regime is

reached at velocities higher than 6 m/s.

- The resistance curves for coarse sand (0.50-1.00 mm sand) indicate that an

interaction between a developed granular bed and suspension flow above the bed

governs a flow behavior at velocities not far above the deposition-limit threshold.

The bed is sheared due to a fast current of suspension above the bed within a

range of mean velocity values near the deposition-limit velocity. Bed shearing

results to a relatively low friction loss. Bed shearing is gradually dumped if

velocity increases (3 – 4 m/s) and the compact bed is restored – friction increases

rapidly. The bed is disintegrated and a portion of solids resuspended if the

velocity grows further (4 – 7 m/s).

- The resistance curves for a gravel flow (3.0-5.0 mm gravel) show that the

frictional head loss drops when the steady sliding of a granular bed is reached by

increasing velocity above the velocity range in which an unstable sliding-stopping

bed was observed (2.2 – 3.5 m/s). A further increase in the mean velocity does not

provide a decrease of the difference between the frictional loss values for mixture

and for water. This is an indication that the sliding bed is not disintegrated even at

high mean mixture velocities. The flow remains stratified.

The Figure 3.5 shows also that the values of deposition-limit velocity, Vdl, vary with

the concentration and that the deposition-limit velocity differs from the minimum

velocity in flows of high concentrations of solids. The value of the deposition-limit

velocity coincides with the minimal velocity (Vdl = Vmin) only if the initial sliding of

the bed and the initial disintegration of the bed occur at the same velocity. Vdl <

Vmin if the bed is thick enough to slide en bloc before it starts to be initially

disintegrated.

FLOW OF MIXTURE IN A PIPELINE 3.11

velocities for mixture flows of various materials and various mixture densities.

(Data: Laboratory of Dredging Technology, Delft University of Technology)

3.12 CHAPTER 3

3.5.1 Definition

specific energy consumption (SEC). The SEC is an appropriate optimization

parameter because it contains both a measure of energy dissipation and of solids load

in a pipe flow. The SEC determines the energy required to move a given quantity of

solids over a given distance in a pipeline. It is defined as a ratio between the power

consumption per meter of pipe and the (dry) solids throughput in a pipe.

Power consumption per meter of a pipe is given by Im.ρf.g.Qm and

solids throughput (mass flow rate of solids) is ρs.Cvd.Qm.

Then

I g J

SEC = m in units (3.5)

SsC vd kg. m

I kWh

SEC = 2.7 m (3.6).

Ss .C vd tonne. km

Im frictional head loss [mH2O/m']

g gravitational acceleration m/s2]

Ss relative density of solids [-]

Cvd volumetric delivered concentration of solids [-].

A similar parameter - specific power consumption (SPC) - can be derived for flow in a

vertical pipe section of a length L that is connected with a pump outlet. The input

power to the pipe section is given by the output power of the pump ρf.g.Qm.H. The

output power of a pipe section is given by the work done to transport the solids (of

mass ms) over a pipe length L in a unit time period ∆t. The output power is actually

the power supplied to solids and it is expressed as ms.g.L/∆t, i.e. ρs.g.Qs.L or ρ

s.g.Cvd.Qm.L. The efficiency of the system represented by a pipe section is then

ρ .g.Q m .C vd .L Ss .C vd .L W

ηs = s = W , i.e. [-] (3.7).

ρf .g.Q m .H H

L length of a pipe [m]

H pump head [m]

Ss relative density of solids [-]

Cvd volumetric delivered concentration of solids[-].

FLOW OF MIXTURE IN A PIPELINE 3.13

The SPC is the inverse of the efficiency. For a horizontal pipe this derivation loses its

physical meaning because no potential energy is added to the solids during the flow in

a horizontal pipe, thus no work is done on solids. However, the economic significance

of the parameter remains valid. The ratio H/L is now the frictional head loss Im and

I

SPC = m [-] (3.8)

Ss C vd

A comparison of equations gives SEC = g.SPC.

Figure 3.6. Relationship between SEC and production for various sorts of sand and

various mixture densities in a 150 mm pipeline.

(Data: Laboratory of Dredging Technology, Delft University of Technology)

3.14 CHAPTER 3

The SEC is plotted against solids throughput (the production of solids) in Fig. 3.6 for

flows of various solids tested in a 150 mm pipeline of the test loop in the Laboratory

of Dredging Technology of Delft University of Technology. The lowest values of the

specific energy consumption were found for mixtures of the volumetric

concentrations of solids higher than 25%, flowing at mean velocities equal/similar to

the minimum velocity, Vmin.

According to Fig. 3.6 the specific energy consumed to transport medium sand is

approximately twice that needed to transport fine sand if transport velocity

approaches the minimum velocity in the 150 mm pipeline. The specific energy

consumed to transport coarse sand is approximately twice that needed to transport

medium sand.

3.6 REFERENCES

Jufin, A.P. & Lopatin, N.A., (1966). O projekte TUiN na gidrotransport zernistych

materialov po stalnym truboprovodam. Gidrotechniceskoe Strojitelstvo, 9, 49-52.

4.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE

FLOWS

(Heterogeneous flows)

Almost 50 years ago, substantial progress in the exploitation of the hydraulic transport

of solids in pipelines initiated systematic investigations in this field. With the design

of new industrial pipelines, some of which were of considerable length, the demand

for the reliable models capable of predicting slurry flow behaviour grew. Over the

years, as experimental, theoretical and computational techniques have progressed, the

predictive models have been gradually improved.

The first predictive tools were developed in the 1950's and 1960's using methods of

empirical modeling. The tools were empirical correlations constructed to predict the

basic slurry pipeline characteristics - the frictional head loss and the deposition-limit

velocity - for various slurry flow conditions in a pipeline. The correlations were based

on the experimental measurements of integral parameters of slurry flow in pipelines.

Usually these parameters were mean slurry velocity, volumetric delivered

concentration and pressure in flows of slurry containing particles of certain diameter.

Some of the models have become popular and are still used in practice (e.g. Durand &

Condolios, 1952; Führböter, 1961; Jufin & Lopatin, 1966). They are simple to use and

easy to modify to the user's own data. Recently, a semi-empirical model for a

heterogeneous flow in slurry pipelines which is calibrated by using the

integral-parameter data has been introduced by Wilson et al. (1992-6).

Since the mid 1980's attempts have been made to construct a general model for

solid-liquid flow in pipelines by using a microscopic approach. A microscopic model

defines the laws governing a slurry flow for an infinitesimal control volume of slurry.

A slurry flow mechanism is described by using a set of differential equations for

conservation of mass, momentum and energy in the solid-liquid flow. A microscopic

model provides a numerical solution to the equations in local positions of a pipeline

cross section. As a result, the model predicts the concentration and velocity profiles in

a pipeline cross section, together with the pressure drop over a pipeline length section.

Despite progress in the development of sophisticated experimental techniques which

enable reasonably accurate measurements of the internal structure of the flow

(concentration and velocity profiles) in a slurry pipeline, there is still not enough

information on the slurry flow mechanism at microscopic level.

approach using the principles of macroscopic modeling (called also physical

modeling). This approach applies the balance (conservation) equations to a larger

control volume of slurry given, for instance, by a pipeline cross sectional area of

approximately uniform concentration of solids in a unit length of a pipeline. In a

4.1

4.2 CHAPTER 4

chosen control volume, the balance equations are formulated by using mean

quantities, i.e. quantities averaged in the control volume.

Newitt et al. (1955) were the first to apply the balance formulations to a macroscopic

control volume to obtain the friction loss equations for different slurry flow regimes

in a slurry pipeline. Wilson (1970) introduced the concept of a mechanistic force-

balance model to predict the velocity at the limit of stationary deposition in a fully-

stratified flow. Wilson (1976) developed the model further to provide a unified

predictive tool, called a two-layer model, to predict both the limiting deposition

velocity and the frictional head losses in fully-stratified and partially-stratified flows

in a horizontal slurry pipeline.

by using several widely used models:

- the model of Laboratoire Dauphinois d'Hydraulique (called the Durand model)

- the Führböter model

- the Jufin - Lopatin model

- the Wilson - GIW model.

(Durand model)

The empirical model to predict the pressure drop due to friction in the pipeline flow of

slurry was constructed by using techniques for dimensional analysis. Durand and his

co-workers sought an empirical relationship among the dimensionless groups of

quantities anticipated to be of major importance for a description of slurry flow in a

pipeline.

A. Experimental observations:

Experimental data were collected for a reasonably wide range of slurry flow

conditions including several pipeline sizes and sorts of sand and gravel. Based on the

experimental results (for low concentration slurries with delivered concentration Cvd

up to 22%), the following issues were proposed for the pressure loss, represented by

the hydraulic gradient Im, in the heterogeneous slurry flow characterised by constant

particle size d and pipeline size D:

- the solids effect Im-If decreases gradually with increasing mean slurry velocity Vm

in flow of constant delivered volumetric concentration of solids Cvd

- the solids effect Im-If increases approximately linearly with increasing Cvd at

constant Vm.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.3

influence of the properties specific to one experiment (such as the pipe roughness and

the slurry temperature) the ratio of the solids effect and the hydraulic gradient for

liquid flow, If, was introduced in place of the solids effect alone. Then the condition

was described by the dimensionless group, marked Φ,

I −I

Φ = m f = const. (4.1).

I f C vd

If hydraulic gradient for liquid flow [-]

Cvd delivered volumetric solids concentration [-]

The flow coefficient Φ is not constant for slurry flows of different pipeline size D,

solids size d, or slurry flow rate VmA.

V2

number for mixture flow Fr 2 = m and the Froude number for a solid particle

gD

2 v 2t

Frvt = . The Froude number is a criterion of dynamic similarity for flows with a

gd

dominant effect of inertia and gravity in different flow conditions.

The new dimensionless group was marked Ψ:

2

−1 = Vm gd

Ψ = Fr 2 Frvt (4.2).

gD v t

Frvt-1 particle Froude number [-]

Vm mean mixture velocity in a pipe cross section [m/s]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2]

D pipe diameter [m]

d particle diameter [m]

vt terminal settling velocity of a particle [m/s]

heterogeneous slurry flow as

Φ = KΨn (4.3)

using the hyperbolic curve in the Φ - Ψ plot (Fig. 4.1) proposed by Durand &

Condolios or using the curve approximation giving K = 180 and n = -1.5. A plot Φ

4.4 CHAPTER 4

versus Ψ was proposed as a unified pattern for the evaluation of experimental data for

solids of d = 0.18 - 22.5 mm and pipelines of D = 40 - 580 mm.

−1.5

I m − If V 2 gd

= 180 m (4.4)

I f C vd gD v t

(Φ on the vertical axis and Ψ on the horizontal axis).

4,0

H2 Ca teg o riën va n

3,0

za nd - en g rind so orten d n (mm ) C 'x

H2 0,20 3,42

L3 0,27 1,96

L4 0,37 1,34

L3 L5 0,58 1,06

2,0 L6 0,89 0,88

L7 1,33 0,80

L8 2,05 0,72

A9 2,80 0,67

1,5 L4 A10 4,20 0,62

L5

1,0

L6

0,9

L7

0,8

C 'x

L8

A9

0,7

A10

0,6

d ia meter va n d e korrel d n in mm

0,5

0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 1 1,5 2 3 4 5 6

d n (mm )

Figure 4.2. Modified particle Froude number Frvt −1 = gd , here marked C'x ,

vt

determined experimentally for various sorts of sand and gravel

by Durand et al.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.5

gd

The plot on Fig. 4.2 can be used to estimate the value for sand or gravel

vt

particles.

According to van den Berg (1998) the relationship between Frvt-1 and d can be

obtained also from the "best fit curve" correlation

Frvt (4.5).

vt d1.5

average value of the particle Froude number from values of Froude number for soil

fractions pi of different sizes di

−1 gd i

∑ Frvt,i .pi ∑ .p i

−1 gd i i v t ,i

Frvt = = = (4.6).

vt 100 100

Over the years the Durand type of correlation has been tested by using different

experimental data bases and a considerable number of values has been proposed for K

and n by various investigators (see survey in Kazanskij, 1978).

covers a wide range of slurry flow conditions and correlates all basic parameters

influencing the behaviour of slurry flow in a pipeline.

values of the coefficient Ψ (see Fig. 4.1). The Φ - Ψ curve is very steep at low Ψ. A

small difference in Ψ may create a big difference in Φ (so predicted Im may differ by

from ten per cent to several hundred per cent). At high Ψ values the coefficient Φ

decreases very slowly with increasing Ψ. The regions of the extreme Ψ values

represent a transition from heterogeneous flow to the extreme slurry flow patterns:

fully-stratified for the lowest values of Ψ and fully-suspended (pseudo-homogeneous)

for the highest values of Ψ. The insensitivity of the correlation at its extremes reveals

the fact that the model does not reflect different slurry flow patterns.

Doubts about the applicability of the correlation to a wide range of slurry flow

conditions have been confirmed by a number of tests during the years. A large

discrepancy between Durand’s prediction and experimental data has been experienced

specifically for a coarse slurry flow exhibiting considerable stratification. The

correlation might, however, provide a satisfactory prediction for medium and medium

to coarse sand mixtures at flows falling within the approximate range 4 < Ψ < 15.

4.6 CHAPTER 4

observations of the initial formation of a stationary bed in pipelines for different mixture

flow conditions.

V2

Durand experiments showed that the Froude number Fr 2 = e remained constant for

gR h

pipeline flow when a stationary bed was formed and gradually became thicker under

decreasing Vm. The Froude number for flow above the stationary bed was based on the

velocity above a stationary bed, Ve, and on the hydraulic radius, Rh, of discharging area

above the stationary bed. The constant value for Fr2 was experienced in flows of

constant solids density, particle diameter and delivered concentration. For flow

conditions at the beginning of the stationary bed (Ve = Vm = Vdl and D = 4Rh) this

condition was written as

2

Vdl

2

Fr = = const. (4.7)

gD

velocity according to the Durand et al. model.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.7

An effect of various particle diameters and delivered concentrations Cvd on the value of

the Vdl was expressed in the empirical relationship FL = f(d, Cvd) presented as a graph

(Fig. 4.3).

(critical velocity) [m/s]

FL empirical coefficient; graph FL = f(d, Cvd) [-]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2]

Ss relative density of solids [-]

D pipe diameter [m].

A. Experimental observations:

Experimental data were collected for slurry flow conditions in a 300 mm laboratory

pipeline for sand and gravel of particle size range between 0.15 mm and 1.8 mm.

Based on the experimental results, the following issues were proposed for the

hydraulic gradient Im in the heterogeneous slurry flow characterised by constant

particle size d and pipeline size D.

C vi

I m − I f = Sk (4.9)

Vm

Practical calculations are done for Cvd instead of Cvi, thus the slip effect was

incorporated to obtain Cvd in the above equation. The constant value of the slip ratio

Cvd/Cvi = 0.65 was considered to hold for all mixture flow conditions. The transport

factor Skt was obtained by Skt = Sk.Cvi/Cvd.

Skt from graph on Fig. 4.4 for 1.1 < dm < 3.0 mm

Skt is approximately 3.3 for dm > 3.0 mm.

4.8 CHAPTER 4

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

Skt (m / s)

1,0

0,5

0

0,2 0,6 1,0 1,4 1,8 2,2 2,6 3,0

0 0,4 0,8 1,2 1,6 2,0 2,4 2,8

d mf

C vd

I m − I f = S kt (4.10)

Vm

If hydraulic gradient for liquid flow [-]

Skt transport factor [m/s]

Cvd delivered volumetric solids concentration [-]

Vm mean mixture velocity in a pipeline [m/s]

Advantage:

The model is very easy to use and to calibrate by own data (only one coefficient has to be

determined).

Disadvantage:

The transport factor Skt must cover all effects of particle settling process (the settling

velocity is not handled by the model) and effects of various soil and liquid densities

(these are not explicitly handled by the model) on energy dissipation in a mixture flow.

Thus the Skt factor value, determined experimentally for certain flow conditions, can

hardly be considered applicable to any different conditions.

Furthermore, the assumption of a constant slip ratio value is unacceptable for mixture

flows of different particle sizes, mean mixture velocities and solids concentrations.

The model offers no possibility to introduce an effect of a broad PSD on flow resistance.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.9

This model was constructed as a proposal for the Soviet technical norm in 1966. The

authors did not submit a new model but selected the best combination of correlations for

the frictional head loss and the critical velocity from four models submitted by different

Soviet research institutes.

A. Experimental observations:

number of researchers. The database contained data from both laboratory and field

measurements (including data from dredging installations). The data covered a wide

range of pipeline sizes (103 – 800 mm) and particle sizes (sand and gravel, 0.25 - 11

mm).

The correlation was based on the empirical experience suggesting that the hydraulic

gradient Im at the minimum velocity Vmin was independent of the mixture flow

properties and it was three times higher than the hydraulic gradient of water flow at the

same velocity in a pipeline. Thus Im = 3If at Vmin. This was experienced also in the

American dredging industry (see Turner, 1996).

The frictional-head-loss correlation by Jufin & Lopatin (in the revised version by

Kobernik, 1968) is

Vmin

3

I m = I f 1 + 2 (4.11).

Vm

1

∗

Vmin = 5.3 C vd .ψ .D 6 (4.12)

in which the parameter ψ* = f(d) is determined either using a table by Jufin & Lopatin

(see Tab. 4.1) or calculated as modified Froude number of a solid particle, ψ* = Frvt1.5.

If hydraulic gradient for liquid flow [-]

Vm mean mixture velocity in a pipeline [m/s]

Vmin minimum velocity [m/s]

Cvd delivered volumetric solids concentration [-]

ψ* particle settling parameter [-]

D pipeline diameter [m]

4.10 CHAPTER 4

particle settling

particle settling

size fraction of solids, parameter, ψ*

parameter, ψ*

d [mm] Jufin & Lopatin

Jufin (1971)

(1966)

0.05 - 0.10 0.0204 0.02

0.10 - 0.25 0.093 0.2

0.25 - 0.50 0.404 0.4

0.50 - 1.00 0.755 0.8

1.0 - 2.0 1.155 1.2

2.0 - 3.0 1.50 1.5

3.0 - 5.0 1.77 1.8

5 - 10 1.94 1.9

10 - 20 1.97 2.0

20 - 40 1.80 2.0

40 - 60 1.68 2.0

> 60 1.68 2.0

average value of the modified particle Froude number from values of modified Froude

number for soil fraction pi of different size di

1.5 *

∑ Frvt,i .pi ∑ ψ (d i ).pi

ψ* = Frvt

1.5 = i = i (4.13).

100 100

Advantage:

The model was based on experiments carried out on large pipelines and thus it is

considered suitable for pipeline-flow predictions in dredging.

Jufin and Lopatin proposed the following correlation for the deposition-limit velocity

1 1

Vdl = 8.3D 3 C vd .ψ∗ 6 (4.14).

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.11

The semi-empirical Wilson - Georgia Iron Works model for heterogeneous flow in

slurry pipelines is based on considering the heterogeneous flow as a transition

between two extreme flows governed by different mechanisms for support of a solid

particle in the stream of the carrying liquid: the fully-stratified flow (all particles are

transported as a contact load) and the fully-suspended flow (all particles are

transported as a suspended load).

A. Experimental observations:

Circuit tests in the experimental laboratory of the GIW Inc. provided a data base for a

verification of the friction-loss correlation. The circuits are of the pipeline size 200

mm, 440 mm respectively. Data for medium to coarse sands in mixtures of delivered

concentrations up to 0.16 were used.

The model for partially-stratified (heterogeneous) flow operates with a parameter V50

expressing the mean slurry velocity at which one half of the transported solid particles

contribute to a suspended load and one half to a contact load. An equation for this

velocity expresses the influence of suspension mechanisms from the carrier turbulent

diffusion and the hydrodynamic lift acting on particles larger than the sub-layer

thickness in the near-wall region.

The energy dissipation due to the presence of solid particles in a carrier flow is

predominantly due to mechanical friction between contact-load particles and a

pipeline wall. Basically, a resisting force of the contact bed against the carrier flow is

related to the submerged weight of the bed via the coefficient of mechanical friction.

Thus at velocity Vm = V50 the pressure loss due to presence of solids (∆Pm - ∆Pf) is

due to the submerged weight of the moving bed containing one half of the total solid

fraction [0.5Cvd(ρs - ρf)g] times the friction coefficient (µs). Rewritten for head

losses this basic balance is

Im - If = 0.5µsCvd(Ss-1) (4.15)

Experimental data, plotted in log-log coordinates, showed a linear relationship

I m − If

between the ratio (called the relative solids effect) and the mean mixture

C vd (Ss − 1)

velocity Vm. The relationship was found the same for flows of different

concentrations in pipes of different sizes (Fig. 4.5). A slope of the line in the plot was

considered sensitive only on the particle size distribution of transported solids.

4.12 CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.5. Relationship between relative solids effect and mean slurry velocity for

masonry sand mixture (d50 = 0.42 mm), after Clift et al. (1982).

−M −M

I m − If V V

= 0.5µs m = 0.22 m (4.16)

C vd (Ss − 1) V50 V50

If hydraulic gradient for liquid flow [-]

Cvd delivered volumetric solids concentration [-]

Ss relative density of solids [-]

Vm mean mixture velocity in a pipeline [m/s]

V50 value of Vm at which one half of solids is

suspended in a carrier flow [m/s]

µs coefficient of mechanical friction between

solids and the pipeline wall (µs = 0.44) [-]

M empirical exponent sensitive on PSD [-]

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.13

0.45

S − 1

V50 ≈ 3.93(d 50 ) 0.35 s (4.17).

1.65

in which the particle diameter d50 is in mm and the resulting V50 in m/s. The

exponent M is given by the approximation

−1

d

M ≈ ln 85 (4.18).

d 50

M should not exceed 1.7, the value for narrow-graded solids, nor fall below 0.25.

The Wilson - GIW model gives a scale-up relationship for friction loss in slurry

pipelines of different sizes transporting solids of different sizes at different

concentrations. It is based on the assumption that there is a power-law relationship

between the relative solids effect and the mean slurry velocity that is valid in all slurry

flow conditions. The exponent M of this relationship is assumed to be dependent on

the particle size distribution only.

4.14 CHAPTER 4

In MTI Holland the correlation has been developed (see e.g. van den Berg, 1998) for

the threshold velocity between the "fully suspended heterogeneous flow" regime and

the regime of "flow with the first particles settling to the bottom" of a pipeline. This

velocity was considered as the lowest acceptable velocity for a economic and safe

operation of a dredging pipeline and was therefore also called the critical velocity

1

Vcrit = 1.7 5 −

1 D C vd 6 Ss − 1 (4.19)

d mf C + 0.1 1.65

vd

In Eq. 4.19 the particle diameter dmf is in millimetres and the pipe diameter D in

meters.

The correlation has an advantage of being based on data including those from various

dredging pipelines. MTI recommends the correlation for grains of sand and gravel

size and pipelines larger than 200 mm.

Figure 4.6. Critical velocity according to the MTI model (Eq. 4.19). The nomograph

does not include the effect of deliverde concentration Cvd.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.15

NOMOGRAPHS and/or approximations based on outputs of a

physical two-layer model

The frictional head loss in the fully-stratified flow is can be predicted successfully

by using a two-layer model. It can be computed in its original shape (a set of mass and

force balance equations) by iteration. To avoid these computations the nomograph

was constructed as an interpolation of typical outputs from the original two - layer

model.

A nomograph on Fig. 4.7 provides the values of Im in the fully stratified flow for

various combinations of input d, D, Ss, Cvd and Vm. The nomograph is composed of

a locus curve, determining the boundary of the stationary deposit zone, and of a set of

fit-function curves relating

I −I I m − If

- the relative excess pressure gradient m f = with

I pg 2µs (Ss − Sf )C vb

Vm

- the relative velocity Vr = for different

Vsm

C vd

- relative concentrations C r = .

C vb

If hydraulic gradient for liquid flow [-]

Ipg hydraulic gradient for plug flow [-]

µs coefficient of mechanical friction between

solids and the pipeline wall [-]

Ss relative density of solids [-]

Sf relative density of carrying liquid [-]

Cvd delivered volumetric solids concentration [-]

Cvb loose-poured bed concentration,

typically Cvb = 0.60 [-]

Vm mean mixture velocity in a pipeline [m/s]

Vsm maximum value of Vdl for various solids

concentrations in flowing mixture [m/s]

4.16 CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.7. Curves of relative excess pressure gradient, from Wilson et al. (1992).

− 0.25

I m − If Vm

= (4.20)

C vd (Ss − 1) 0.55Vsm

in which Vsm is the maximum value of deposition-limit velocity for different solids

concentrations in slurry flow of certain Ss, d and D. The Vsm is determined from the

"demi-McDonald" nomographic chart (see further below) or by its approximation

0.55

µ (S − Sf )

8.8 s s D 0.7d150

.75

0.66

Vsm = (4.21)

d 50 + 0.11D 0.7

2

d50 mass-median particle diameter [mm]

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.17

DEPOSITION-LIMIT VELOCITY

The computation of the force balance at incipient motion of the bed in fully-stratified

flow gives a locus curve - the curve relating the deposition-limit velocity, Vdl, with

the position of an interface between the layers in the pipeline cross section. The locus

curve has a maximum (see Fig. 4.7) which determines the maximum velocity at the

limit of stationary deposition Vsm.

Wilson (1979) processed Vsm values obtained as the model outputs for a variety of

values of input parameters (d50, D, Ss) to the nomographic chart (Fig. 4.8),

sometimes called the demi-McDonald.

The demi-McDonald curve has a turbulent branch (for small particles of diameter less

than approximately 0.5 mm) and a fully-stratified branch (for particles larger than

approximately 0.5 mm). The threshold particle size delimits two branches at the peak

of the nomographic curve.

The fully-stratified branch of the demi-McDonald curve was constructed from outputs

of the model for fully-stratified flow. According to this part of the demi-McDonald

curve, Vsm decreases with increasing particle size in a pipeline of a certain D. Thus a

lower Vm is required to initiate motion in a coarser bed. An explanation of this

phenomenon requires knowledge of physical principles mixture motion in a stratified

flow expressed using a force balance in a two-layer model. This will be discussed

later in paragraph 4.2.2. Basically, the faster flowing of the coarser bed, when

compared to the finer beds, is caused by a fact that the top of the coarser bed is

rougher (the roughness is related to the size of particles occupying the bed top). Via

the rougher interface the higher driving force is transmitted to the bed from the faster

flowing carrier above the bed.

Vsm in turbulent branch is affected by a variable thickness of bed at an incipient

motion under different flow conditions. The bed thickness diminishes owing to a

turbulent suspension process that picks up the particles from the bed surface and

suspend them in flow above the bed. Thus the mixtures containing fine particles

create thinner bed than mixture of coarse particles. Lower mean flow velocity is

required to put the thinner bed into a motion. Therefore the maximum deposition-limit

velocity drops with a size of particles transported in a pipeline.

The entire demi-McDonald nomograph can be approximated by the fit function ( Eq.

4.21)

0.55

µ (S − Sf )

8.8 s s D 0.7d150

.75

0 .66

Vsm = .

d 50 + 0.11D 0.7

2

4.18 CHAPTER 4

0,10 10 1,0

8,0

7,0

0,11 6,0

5,0 1,1 1,1

0,12

4,0

0,13 1,2 1,2

3,5

1,3

0,14

3,0 1,4 1,3

v (m/ s) voor korrels met ρk=2650 kg/ m 3

0,15 1,5

0,5

0,4

1,0

1,7 rela tieve

0,17 1,8 d ic htheid 1,5

2

0,18

3 0,2 2,0 ρk

0,19 4 2,2 voor korrels 1,6

0,20 5 2,0 2,4 1,7

5

65

10

k =2,

0,15 1,8 2 ,0

3 1,9

1,7

et )

20

b uis d ia m eter D (m )

0,25

ls m m

2,0

4,0

rre ( m

30 1,6

5,0

ko r d

0,3 1,5

6,0

or te

2,5

1,4 7,0

vo a m e

8,0

0,4

1,3 3,0

di

0,5 3,5

1,2

20 4,0

1,1 5,0

6,0

1,0 7,0

8,0

1,5 1,0 10

Figure 4.8. Nomographic chart for maximum velocity at limit of stationary deposition

Vsm after Wilson (1979).

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.19

The incorporation of a shear layer to the pattern of a two-layer model has recently led

to a modification of the demi-McDonald nomograph (Wilson, 1992). If the sharp

interface between a bed and the carrier flow above the bed is replaced by the shear

layer the driving force transmitted from the upper-layer flow to the bed is no longer

dependent on the roughness of the top of a bed. Therefore the particle size does not

directly influence the maximum deposition-velocity Vsm. Wilson (1992) proposed

that the Vsm for fully-stratified flow with the shear layer (marked Vsm, max) should

be determined by an approximation

0.018

= (4.22).

2gD(Ss − 1) λ f

with the shear layer [m/s]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2]

Ss relative density of solids [-]

D pipeline diameter [m]

λf Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient for

liquid flow (from Moody diagram) [-].

The Vsm,max by the approximation is considered the Vsm value if it is lower than the

Vsm value from the nomograph (i.e. also from the Eq. 4.21).

Deposition-limit velocity Vdl - the effect of solids concentration the Vsm value:

Vsm gives the maximum value on the locus curve delimiting the stationary deposit

zone (see Fig. 4.7). The position on the curve is given by a solids concentration. A

locus curve is a product of a two-layer model, thus a physical explanation of the curve

is given by the principles of force balance in a two-layer flow pattern. A shape of a

locus curve is dependent on the several parameters from which the size of a particle

and a pipeline are the most important ones.

Nomographs were developed to determine the critical velocity Vdl from Vsm without

a necessity to compute an original two-layer model. The nomograph curves were also

approximated by fit functions. A process of Vdl determination goes in following

steps:

1. Vsm using demi-McDonald nomograph (Fig. 4.8) or its approximating fit function

(Eq. 4.21)

2. Crm, the concentration at which Vsm occurs, using the nomograph Fig. 4.9 or its

approximating fit function (Eq. 4.23)

3. Vdl/Vsm, the relative deposit velocity, using the nomograph Fig. 4.10 or its

approximating fit functions (Eqs. 4.24 & 4.25).

4.20 CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.9. Computer output for relative solids concentration Crm at maximum

deposit velocity, from Wilson (1986).

Fit function:

− 0.17

S − Sf

C rm = 0.16D 0.40d − 0.84 s (4.23)

1.65

Vdl

ad 3. The relative deposit velocity

Vsm

Figure 4.10. Plot of relative deposit velocity Vdl/Vsm versus Cr = Cvd/Cvb for

various values of Crm, from Wilson (1986).

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.21

Fit functions:

for Crm ≤ 0.33

2

ln (0.333) ln (0.333)

Vdl ln C rm ln C rm

= 6.75C r 1 − C r (4.24)

Vsm

and for Crm > 0.33

ln (0.666) ln (0.666)

2

Vdl ln (1− C rm ) ln (1− C rm )

= 6.75(1 − C r ) 1 − (1 − C r ) (4.25).

Vsm

formulation

When solids such as sand or gravel are transported in a slurry pipeline some degree of

slurry flow stratification usually occurs. This is the effect of the tendency of solid

particles in the carrying liquid to settle. Stratified slurry flow forms a particle-rich

zone and a particle-lean zone in the pipeline cross section. According to the shape of

its concentration profile, the slurry flow may be considered fully-stratified or

partially-stratified.

after Wilson et al. (1992).

The two-layer model takes into account the slurry flow stratification and transforms a

real concentration profile in a pipeline cross section into a simplified two-layer

pattern. When the slurry flow is fully stratified solid particles transported in the

carrying liquid are all accumulated in a granular bed sliding at the bottom of the

4.22 CHAPTER 4

pipeline (Fig. 4.11). All particles in this lower layer are in mutual contact. The

volumetric concentration of solids in the lower layer of the fully-stratified flow

approaches the concentration value of a loose-poured bed. The stream of the carrying

liquid above the granular bed is particle-free. The position of an interface between

two layers is determined by the angle β.

mass is suspended in the carrier stream. Suspended particles are assumed not to be

in contact with other particles and the flow boundaries. Velocity distribution - as

well as the concentration distribution - is idealised as being uniform within both the

upper and the lower layers (Fig. 4.12). The distribution of the suspended particles

within an idealised two-layer pattern has been subjected to investigation. Early

versions of the model anticipated a suspension only in the upper layer. For an

idealised flow pattern the recent modification of the model assumes a uniform

distribution of suspended particles along the entire pipeline cross section.

V1 C1=0 A1 C1 V1

V2 C2 A2 C2 V2

The model is based on the assumption that there are two physical mechanisms for

solid particle support in a pipeline - interparticle contact and particle suspension

in a carrying liquid. Thus solids are transported as both suspended and contact loads.

According to Bagnold (1956), the suspended particles transfer their submerged weight

directly to the carrier, while the submerged weight of the non-suspended particles is

transferred via interparticle contacts to the pipeline wall.

According to the model the behaviour of the flow is governed by the principle of

force balance between driving and resisting forces in the flow in two layers. The

driving force in the flow in a pressurised horizontal pipeline is produced by the

pressure gradient over a pipeline length section. The resisting force is represented by

shear stress exerted by flowing matter at a flow boundary. The same formulation of

the force balance between the driving and resisting forces, combined with a friction

coefficient equation, gives the Darcy-Weisbach equation (Eq. 1.20) for friction losses

in a water pipeline. The Darcy-Weisbach equation is obtained from a two-layer model

for the limiting case in which the particle-free upper layer occupies the whole pipeline

cross section.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.23

The model is composed of a set of equations expressing the conservation of mass and

momentum in a mixture flow in both layers in the pipe section. A set of conservation

equations is computed by iteration. The layer occupying a pipe length L is considered

to be a control volume. Flow in the control volume is steady and uniform. The

quantities describing the properties of the layer are given by values averaged in the

control volume. This can be seen in Fig. 4.12 where V1 and V2 denote the mean

velocity of mixture in the upper (lower respectively) layer. The same is valid for mean

volumetric concentrations C1 and C2 in the layers. Slip between solid phase and

liquid phase is considered negligible within both the suspension flow and the flow of

contact particles. The model-equation parameters defining the geometry of the

schematic cross section for a two-layer model are described in Fig. 4.13.

O1

A1

O12

A2

β β

O2

The following equations (Eq. 4.26, 4.29, 4.30, 4.31, 4.32, 4.34, 4.38, 4.39, 4.40, 4.42,

4.43, 4.44, 4.45) form the two-layer model:

The application of the mass conservation law to a two-layer pattern gives the balances

VmA = V1A1 + V2A2 (4.26),

AsVs = CviAVs = C1A1V1 + C2A2V2 (4.27)

Qf = Qf1 + Qf2

AfVf = (1-Cvi))AVf = (1-C1)A1V1 + (1-C2)A2V2 (4.28).

4.24 CHAPTER 4

CviA = C1A1 + C2A2 (4.29).

Since Cvd = Qs / Qm the Eq. 4.27 for solids flow rate can be written as

CvdAVm = C1A1V1 + C2A2V2 (4.30).

and resisting forces acting on the flow boundaries of each layer in a horizontal

pipeline of the length L:

∆PA1 = τ1O1L + τ12 O12 L (4.31)

∆PA 2 + τ12O12 L = (τ 2f + τ 2s )O 2 L (4.32).

A summation of these two equations gives a force balance in the whole pipeline

section

Resistance forces against flow are due to viscous or mechanical friction at flow

boundaries.

Solid particles in contact with each other and with the pipeline wall transmit their

submerged weight to the pipeline wall. This is the source of the resisting force exerted

by the contact load solids against the flow driving forces. The force is due to the

solids stress acting at the pipeline wall. In a horizontal pipeline the stress σs between

the solids grains and the pipeline wall acts in a radial direction in the pipeline cross

section, so that it is normal to the pipeline wall. The normal stress σs produces the

(Coulombic) intergranular shear stress at the pipeline wall τs = µsσs. In this

relationship µs is the coefficient of mechanical friction between solid particles and the

pipeline-wall material. The total resistance force exerted by the sliding granular bed is

µsFN = τ2sO2.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.25

The total normal force, FN, exerted by the normal intergranular stress against the

pipeline wall is obtained by integrating the normal stress over the pipeline perimeter

O2. The result of integrating is

D2

FN = g(ρs − ρf )C vb (sin β − β cos β) (4.34).

2

The force FN differs from Fw, which is the submerged weight of the granular bed.

The force Fw, which represents the gravitational effect on a granular body, is

integrated from the intergranular stress component σw. Only this component can act

to support the bed weight. At each local pipeline-wall position, given by angle α, the

stress σw = σscosα. By integrating over the perimeter O2 of the interface between a

bed and a pipeline wall

D2

Fw = g(ρs − ρ f )C vb (β − sin β cos β) (4.35)

4

D2

where (β − sin β cos β) = A2 and therefore

4

FW = g(ρs − ρ f )C vb A 2 (4.36).

For a dense-phase flow (called also the plug flow) FN = 2FW. Force balance at an

initial motion of a plug flow is written as

∆P ∆P

A = µs 2 FW that is A = 2µs g(ρs − ρ f )C vb A .

L L

∆P 1

I pg = = 2µ s (Ss − 1)C vb (4.37).

L ρf g

The shear stress, τ2s, due to mechanical friction between granular bed forming a

contact layer and pipeline wall is velocity-independent. It is determined from σs, the

normal intergranular stress at the pipeline wall. A resisting force due to mechanical

friction between a contact layer and a pipeline wall is perpendicular to the normal

intergranular force FN exerted against the pipeline wall and it is related with FN by

µsFN.

Viscous friction between the flowing carrying liquid and the flow boundary is a

velocity-dependent process described by the boundary shear stress (τ1, τ12, τ2f).

Shear stress is related to the velocity gradient between the flowing carrier and the

flow boundary by a friction coefficient expressing flow conditions at the boundary

(see Chapter 2). The conditions are given by the flow regime and the boundary

roughness. The Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient (Eq. 1.18) is related to the

Reynolds number of the flow, Re, and/or the boundary roughness, k. The friction

4.26 CHAPTER 4

coefficient for water flow in a pipeline is obtained from the Moody diagram or its

computational version (Churchill, 1977). The Reynolds number characterising the

flow in the layer is calculated from the hydraulic diameter, Dh, of the layer (Dh1 =

VD hρf

4A1/O1, Dh2 = 4A2/O2) by Re = .

µf

Friction coefficients λ1, for flow in the upper layer over the pipeline wall of

perimeter, O1, is

V D ρ

λ1 = fn 1 h1 f , k (4.38)

µf

(λ1 determined using the Moody diagram) and λ2, for flow in the lower layer over the

pipeline wall of perimeter, O2,

V D ρ

λ 2 = fn 2 h 2 f , k (4.39)

µf

(λ2 determined using the Moody diagram).

The coefficient λ12 for flow in the upper layer over the interface between two layers

(the perimeter O12) differs according to the conditions at the interface. When the

interface is represented by a clearly identifiable flat surface of a contact bed it can be

considered to have a roughness proportional to the diameter of the particles occupying

the bed surface. The interfacial friction law is given by a formula for turbulent liquid

flow over a fully-rough boundary, e.g.

D

4 log + 3.36

8 d12

= (4.40)

λ12 0 .5 + X

d

in which X = 5 + 1.86 log 12 for d12/D > 0.002 and X = 0 otherwise. In the

D

equation, d12 is the diameter of particle at the interface. This is determined by

assuming that all particles larger than the particle of the d12 size are below the

interface.

The condition of a flat and sharp interface is fulfilled more likely in pipeline flow

containing very coarse particles. In flow containing finer particles the top of a contact

bed is usually sheared off and a sharp interface is replaced by a transition zone, called

shear layer, with concentration and velocity gradient. Thus an interface becomes

virtual rather than real. For the virtual interface the particle-size roughness is no

longer a parameter determining interfacial friction. The Wilson analysis of a flow at

high shear stress above a stationary granular bed revealed that the thickness of the

shear layer is a crucial parameter determining the interfacial friction. This is related to

the hydraulic gradient in the total flow so that the interfacial friction coefficient can

be determined as

0.78

I

λ12 = 0.87 m (4.41).

Ss − 1

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.27

for the pipe wall in the upper layer

λ

τ1 = 1 ρ f V12 (4.42),

8

λ

τ 2f = 2 ρ f V22 (4.43),

8

and for the interface between the upper layer and the lower layer

λ

τ12 = 12 ρf (V1 − V2 )2 (4.44).

8

The two-layer model for fully-stratified flow has the following coefficients:

- the coefficient of mechanical friction, µs, between a granular bed and a pipe wall,

- the viscous friction coefficient, λ12, for liquid flow at the interface between two

layers,

- the viscous friction coefficient, λ1, for liquid flow at the boundary between a liquid

flow in an upper layer and a pipe wall,

- the viscous friction coefficient, λ2, for liquid flow at the boundary between a

granular bed and a pipe wall,

- the volumetric spatial concentration, Cvb, in the contact layer.

These have to be either prepared as inputs to the model (µs, Cvb) or determined in the

model (λ1, λ2, λ12).

4.2.2.5 Model computation: inputs and outputs

To determine the frictional head loss for a certain value of the mean mixture velocity,

Vm, in a pipeline the following input parameters are required.

Solids: d, Ss, µs

Slurry flow: Vm, Cvd, Cvb

Pipe: L, k, D

The model provides the following output parameters, characterising the friction, slip

and simplified concentration and velocity distribution in a fully-stratified flow.

Y12/D

Cvi

V1, V2.

4.28 CHAPTER 4

the model and the force balance is sought for Vm value at which V2 = 0.

The two-layer model can be used as a predictive tool for the partially-stratified

(heterogeneous) flow also. The only condition is that the mixture flow is sufficiently

stratified, i.e. it contains a granular bed that is of any significance to the mixture flow

behavior. It seems that this condition is fulfilled for flows of medium sand (if

travelled at velocities near the deposition-limit value) and coarser. In such flows only

one part of solids occupies a granular bed and the rest is suspended in the carrying

liquid. The particle suspension is predominantly due to the dispersive effect of liquid

turbulent eddies, at certain flow conditions, however, the transported particles might

be also suspended due to the shearing of a top of a granular bed. In the sheared layer

the particles have sporadic rather than permanent contact so that at each moment a

portion of solid particles within the sheared layer might be considered suspended. The

shear layer is a transition region between the granular bed where all particles are in

permanent mutual contact and the upperst layer in which particles are either not

present or they are present but have no mutual contact with each other and with a pipe

wall – they are suspended in a carrier stream.

to investigation. It requires experimental experience based on the measurements of the

concentration (and velocity) profiles in mixture flow under various conditions. To

date only few such experiments have been carried out. Most recently the experiments

were carried out in the Laboratory of Dredging Technology and Bulk Transport of

Delft University of Technology. This gives us an opportunity to discuss this subject

on a basis of certain experimental experience lacking when earlier model assumptions

had been made.

An analysis of the interaction between settling particles and turbulent carrier flow

gives a condition for the initiation of particle suspension: the length scale of liquid

turbulence (represented by the mixing length, discussed in Chapter 2) has to be larger

than the particle size. Only particles smaller than a certain portion of the mixing

length could be supported by the eddies, otherwise the turbulent dispersive

mechanism is not effective in suspending transported particles. The turbulent length

scale is considered to be dependent on the local position within a pipeline flow and

thus the average mixing length depended on the pipeline diameter. This gives to rise

to rather complex relationships between the mean mixture velocity at the beginning of

turbulent suspension and particle/pipeline size. However, a rough estimation of a

threshold between the fully-stratified flow and the partially-stratified flow can be

satisfied by a simple d/D ratio value. The flow would be fully stratified for d/D >

0.018 according to Wilson, our data from a 150 mm pipeline suggest rather higher

value of the d/D ratio, 0.03 approximately.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.29

For fully-stratified flow, the two-layer model considers the upper layer as particle-free

and the lower layer as occupied by particles, all of which are in continuous contact. In

a partially-stratified flow the solids are transported in a carrying liquid both as a

contact load and as a suspended load. The amount of solids occupying a slurry

pipeline is given by the volumetric spatial concentration Cvi that is the sum of a solids

fraction in suspension, Cs, and a solids fraction in contact, Cc. A suitable method

must be used to predict the amounts of suspended solids Cs or of solids in contact Cc.

Assuming a two-layer pattern according to Fig. 4.14, the Cc determines the

concentration of solids in contact within the lower layer, C2c, by recalculating of Cc

from the cross-sectional area of the entire pipeline, A, to the cross-sectional area of

the lower layer, A2, using C2c = Cc.A/A2.

Figure 4.14. Two-layer pattern for the model for partially-stratified flow.

partially-stratified flow. This coefficient is called the stratification ratio Cc/Cvi.

Although subject to further investigation the stratification-ratio correlation for overall

mixture flow conditions can be written as

Cc V

= exp − X m (4.45).

C vi vt

A value of the empirical coefficient X was found equal to 0.018 according to Gillies

et al. (1990) data and 0.024 from tests in our laboratory.

Modification of the two-layer flow pattern for the partially-stratified flow (see Fig.

4.14) required modification of the method used to determine the normal intergranular

force against the pipeline wall FN. The buoyancy effect associated with the presence

of suspended coarse particles (d > 0.074 mm) and fine particles (d < 0.074 mm) in the

lower layer is included to the equation for the normal solids stress at the pipeline wall,

σs. In the lower layer the suspended coarse particles, the fine particles smaller than

0.074 mm and the liquid form a mixture of density ρ2f determined as

4.30 CHAPTER 4

ρ

ρ 2f = fines

(1 − C 2 ) + ρsC1 (4.46).

1 − C 2 + C1

in which ρfines is density of a mixture composed of the liquid and fine particles

smaller than 0.074 mm and C2 = C1 + C2c. The normal force FN is integrated from

Eq. 4.46 as

D2

FN = g(ρs − ρf )C vb (sin β − β cos β) (4.47).

2

LOSS AND DEPOSITION-LIMIT VELOCITY UNDER

VARIOUS FLOW CONDITIONS

The total frictional pressure drop in mixture flow is composed of the frictional

pressure drop in a carrying liquid and an additional frictional pressure drop, called the

solids effect, due to a presence of solid particles in a mixture. The solids effect

extends the frictional loss of a carrier alone if mixture flows at velocity round the

deposition-limit value. However, at higher velocities the water friction creates a major

part of a total frictional loss in a mixture flow. This is particularly valid for low

concentrated flows.

Frictional loss in flow of carrying water (If) is particularly sensitive to flow velocity

and pipeline diameter. Higher throughputs (flow rates) in a pipeline of a certain

diameter are always paid in higher pressure losses due to friction. Less energy is

dissipated due to friction in flow through a larger pipeline than through a smaller

pipeline at the same velocity. Additionally, the roughness of a pipeline wall affects

the losses. The rougher wall the higher frictional losses.

The solids effect (Im-If) on the total frictional losses is predominantly due to

mechanical friction between transported particles and a pipeline wall. Thus a

thickness of a granular bed is a major indicator of the solids effect for flow under

certain conditions.

The solids effect is sensitive to flow velocity, particularly for flows with a

considerable change in a degree of flow stratification within a operational range of

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.31

velocity and so diminishes the solids effect.

A coarse material tends to form a thicker bed than a fine material in a flow of certain

velocity. Thus the solids effect (Im-If) increases with the size of particles in mixture

flow. For very coarse particles, however, all solids are transported as a bed load and a

settling tendency of particles is not of importance for flow friction. The solids effect

of fully-stratified flow is virtually independent of a particle size. The solid effect is

further sensitive to the particle size distribution. A broad graded material might cause

lower friction losses than a narrow graded material of the same mass-median size

(d50) and the same concentration in mixture flow. This is so if a broad graded

material contains a considerable portion of fine particles that can be easily suspended

in carrying liquid. A granular bed is thinner when compared to flow with a narrow

graded material and thus the solids effect is smaller.

The solids effect (Im-If) grows with the concentration of solids in a pipeline. The

relationship can be estimated as linear, at least according to various experiments for

flows of Cvd between 0.05 and 0.25 approximately.

sizes (diameters) is a source of uncertainty. A lack of data of appropriate range and

quality from large pipelines prevents to evaluate the pipeline-size effect on flow

mechanisms. There is no agreement among the predictive models with regard to the

influence of a pipeline size on the solids effect (Im-If). The Wilson model and the

Führböter model do not predict any difference in the solids effect if flow of certain

parameters is scaled to pipelines of different diameters. The Durand model predicts an

increase in the solids effect with the pipeline diameter. Jufin and Lopatin predict the

opposite trend - the solids effect should be smaller in a larger pipeline.

basis for an explanation of the trends in the velocity of initial sliding of a granular bed

in a stratified mixture flow.

Deposition-limit velocity tends to increase with a particle size for flow of fine and

fine to medium sands. This can be explained by a fact that larger particles form a

thicker bed and higher velocity is required to put the thicker bed to motion. For

coarser materials (coarser than approximately 0.4-0.5 mm), however, the critical

velocity does not grow further. This is because a bed at its initial sliding has

approximately the same thickness for different particle sizes in a flow. Coarser

particles are not suspended and tend to increase a thickness of a bed but at the same

time a top of a bed is sheared off so that the effective thickness of a stationary bed

does not change. For very coarse particles the deposition-limit velocity even drops for

still coarser particles since the bed composed of these particles is subjected to

increasing driving force from the flow above the bed. This force acts at the top of a

bed as a viscous shear stress related to the roughness of the bed surface. The

4.32 CHAPTER 4

roughness is given by a size of particles occupying a bed surface. The coarser particle,

the rougher bed surface and the higher shear stress acting to the bed.

The value of deposition-limit velocity is higher in a larger pipe than in a smaller one

for flow under identical other conditions. In a smaller pipe a higher pressure drop is

built up over a pipe section than in a larger pipe (see the relationship between the

hydraulic gradient and the pipeline diameter in the Darcy-Weisbach equation). The

pressure drop is a source of a major driving force acting to put a granular bed to

motion in a pipe.

For concentrations usually handled in dredging pipelines (Cvd > 0.10) the value of

the deposition-limit velocity tends to drop in more concentrated flows. This is

basically because more concentrated suspension flowing above the bed exerts higher

driving force to the bed than the flow of low concentrated suspension or particle-free

carrying liquid. This has been detected in both the laboratory pipe and a field

dredging pipeline (Matousek, 1997). In a dredging practice the effect of Vdl reduction

in concentrated mixtures is not taken into account for a flow prediction. The

concentration of solids is difficult to control during a dredging operation and it may

vary within a rather wide range.

4.4 REFERENCES

Bagnold, R.A. (1956). The flow of cohesionless grains in liquids, Proceedings Roy.

Soc. (London), Ser. A, 249, 235-97.

van den Berg, C.H. (1998). Pipelines as Transportation Systems. European Mining

Course Proceedings, MTI.

Churchill S.W. (1977). Friction-factor equation spans all fluid-flow regimes.

Chemical Engineering, 84(24), 91-2.

Clift, R., Wilson, K.C., Addie G.R. & Carstens, M.R. (1982). A

mechanistically-based method for scaling pipeline tests for settling slurries. Proc.

Hydrotransport 8, BHRA, Cranfield, UK, pp. 91-101.

Durand, R. & Condolios, E. (1952). Transport hydraulique et decantation des

materiaux solides. Deuxiemes Journees de l'Hydraulique, 27-55.

Durand, R. (1953). Basic relationships of the transportation of solids in

pipes - experimental research. Proc. Minnesota International Hydraulics Convention,

Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp. 89-103.

Führböter, A. (1961). Über die Förderung von Sand-Wasser-Gemischen in

Rohrleitungen. Mitteilungen des Franzius-Instituts, H. 19.

Gillies, R. G., Shook, C. A. & Wilson, K. C. (1991). An improved two layer model

for horizontal slurry pipeline flow. Can. J. of Chem. Engng., 69, 173-178.

Jufin, A.P. & Lopatin, N.A., (1966). O projekte TUiN na gidrotransport zernistych

materialov po stalnym truboprovodam. Gidrotechniceskoe Strojitelstvo, 9, 49-52.

Kazanskij, I. (1978). Scale-up effects in hydraulic transport theory and practice.

Proc. Hydrotransport 5, BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield, UK, pp. B3-47-B3-74.

Matousek, V. (1997). Flow Mechanism of Sand-Water Mixtures in Pipelines. Delft

University Press.

Newitt, D.M., Richardson, J.F., Abbott, M. & Turtle, R.B. (1955). Hydraulic

conveying of solids in horizontal pipes. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 33, 93-113.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.33

Wilson, K.C. (1976). A unified physically-based analysis of solid-liquid pipeline

flow, Proceedings Hydrotransport 4, BHRA, Cranfield, UK, pp. 1-16.

Wilson, K.C. (1979). Deposition-limit nomograms for particles of various densities in

pipeline flow, Proceedings Hydrotransport 6, BHRA, Cranfield, UK, pp. 1-12.

Wilson, K.C. (1986). Effect of solids concentration on deposit velocity, Journal of

Pipelines, 5, 251-7.

Wilson, K.C. (1992). Influence of particle properties on solids effect, Proc.10. Int.

Kol. Massenguttransport durch Rohrleitungen, Univ. GH Paderborn, Meschede,

Germany, A.

Wilson, K.C. (1996). Heterogeneous slurries. Chapter 4.0 of the Proceedings

Hydrotransport Seminar. Back to Basics - With the Experts. BHRG, Cranfield, UK.

Wilson, K.C., Addie G.R., Sellgren, A. & Clift, R. (1997). Slurry Transport Using

Centrifugal Pumps. Blackie Academic & Professional.

Annales des Ponts et Chausees, 130(3), 307-74, 130(4), 437-94 (Dutch translation:

Het persen van mengsels door leidingen. TU Delft).

Kazanskij, I. (1978). Scale-up effects in hydraulic transport theory and practice.

Proc. Hydrotransport 5, BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield, UK, pp. B3-47-B3-74.

Matousek, V. (1997). Flow Mechanism of Sand-Water Mixtures in Pipelines. Delft

University Press.

Shook, C.A. & Roco, M.C. (1991). Slurry Flow. Principles and Practice.

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Wilson, K.C., Addie G.R., Sellgren, A. & Clift, R. (1997). Slurry Transport Using

Centrifugal Pumps. Blackie Academic & Professional.

4.34 CHAPTER 4

CASE STUDY 4

An aqueous mixture of fine sand or medium gravel (see previous Case studies) is

transported from a dredge to a deposit site through a dredging pipeline that is 1.5

kilometer long and has an internal diameter of 900 millimeter.

Propose a suitable transport velocity for mixture in a pipeline and determine the

energy lost due to friction, the specific energy consumption and the production for

mixture transport at the chosen velocity. The absolute roughness of a pipeline wall is

20 microns.

(deposition-limit velocity) a suitable transport velocity of mixture in the pipeline. For

a simplification consider a narrow graded soil characterised by the median diameter

only.

Inputs:

ρs = 2650 kg/m3

ρf = 1000 kg/m3

νf = 0.000001 m2/s

Cvd = 0.27

L = 1500 m

D = 900 mm

k = 0.00002 m

Solution:

FL = 1.05 (see a nomograph in Fig. 4.3)

Vdl = 1.05 2x 9.81(2.65 − 1)0.9 = 5.67 m/s.

Crm = 0.66 (see a nomograph in Fig. 4.9)

Cr = Cvd/Cvb = 0.27/0.60 = 0.45

Vdl = 0.86* Vsm = 1.48 m/s.

MTI: Vdl = 3.23 m/s (see a nomograph in Fig. 4.6 or Eq. 4.19).

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.35

FL = 1.35 (see a nomograph in Fig. 4.3)

Vdl = 1.35 2x 9.81(2.65 − 1)0.9 = 7.29 m/s.

Wilson: Vsm = 5.21 m/s (zie a nomograph in Fig. 4.8 or Eq. 4.21 for µs = 0.4)

(Vsm,max = 5.83 m/s according to Eq. 4.22)

Crm = 0.05 (see a nomograph in Fig. 4.9)

Cr = Cvd/Cvb = 0.27/0.60 = 0.45

Vdl = 0.33* Vsm = 1.72 m/s.

MTI: Vdl = 7.03 m/s (see a nomograph in Fig. 4.6 or Eq. 4.19).

The suitable transport velocity for sand-water mixture: Vm = 1.1Vdl = 3.60 m/s.

The suitable transport velocity for gravel-water mixture: Vm = 1.1Vdl = 7.70 m/s.

Water flow:

Re = 3.6*0.9/0.000001 = 3.24 x 106

k/D = 0.00002/0.9 = 2.2 x 10-5 (D/k = 45000)

λf = 0.0107 (see Moody diagram, Fig. 1.6)

Friction head loss from the Darcy-Weisbach equation (Eq. 1.20)

λ V 2 0.0107 3.62

If = f m = = 0.00785 [-].

D 2g 0.900 19.62

Mixture flow:

Durand model: (Eq. 4.4, for the vt value see Case study I)

−1.5 −1.5

I m − If V 2 gd 3.62 9.81x 0.00012

= 180 m = 180 = 14.68

I f C vd gD v t 9.81x 0.9 0.00947

Im = 0.00785 + 14.68 x 0.27 x 0.00785 = 0.0390 [-].

Wilson model for heterogeneous flow: (Eqs. 4.16 and Eq. 4.17)

0.45

0.35 Ss − 1

V50 ≈ 3.93(d 50 ) = 3.93(0.12) 0.351 = 1.87 m/s.

1.65

−M −1.7

I m − If V 3.60

= 0.22 m = 0.22 = 0.07225

C vd (Ss − 1) V50 1.87

Im = 0.00785 + 0.07225 x 0.27 x 1.65 = 0.0400 [-].

4.36 CHAPTER 4

Energy head, H [meter water column, mwc], lost over a pipeline length L = 1500

metre:

H = Im x L = 0.0400 x 1500 = 60.0 mwc.

Water flow:

Re = 7.7*0.9/0.000001 = 6.93 x 106

k/D = 0.00002/0.9 = 2.2 x 10-5 (D/k = 45000)

λf = 0.010 (see Moody diagram, Fig. 1.6)

0.010 7.7 2

If = = 0.03358 [-] (see Eq. 1.20, i.e. Darcy-Weisbach eq.)

0.900 19.62

Mixture flow:

Durand model: (Eq. 4.4, for the vt value see Case study I)

−1.5 −1.5

I m − If V 2 gd 7.7 2 9.81x 0.006

= 180 m = 180 = 12.40

I f C vd gD v t 9.81x 0.9 0.27374

Im = 0.03358 + 12.40 x 0.27 x 0.03358 = 0.1460 [-].

Vsm = 5.21 m/s (zie a nomograph in Fig. 4.8 or Eq. 4.21 for µs = 0.4).

− 0.25 − 0.25

I m − If Vm 7.70

= = = 0.7810

C vd (Ss − 1) 0.55Vsm 0.55x 5.21

Im = 0.03358 + 0.7810 x 0.27 x 1.65 = 0.3815 [-].

The ratio d/D = 6/900 = 0.0067 < 0.018, i.e. the flow is not considered fully

stratified.

Wilson model for heterogeneous flow: (Eq. 4.16 and Eq. 4.17).

0.45

S − 1

V50 ≈ 3.93(d 50 ) 0.35 s = 3.93(6.0) 0.351 = 7.36 m/s

1.65

−M −1.7

I m − If Vm 7.70

= 0.22 = 0.22 = 0.20374

C vd (Ss − 1) V50 7.36

Im = 0.03358 + 0.20374 x 0.27 x 1.65 = 0.1243 [-].

Energy head, H [meter water column, mwc], lost over a pipeline length L = 1500

metre:

H = Im x L = 0.1243 x 1500 = 186.5 mwc.

MODELING OF STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 4.37

I 0.0400

SEC = 2.7 m = 2.7 = 0.151 [kWh/(tonne.km)].

Ss .C vd 2.65x 0.27

I 0.1243

SEC = 2.7 m = 2.7 = 0.469 [kWh/(tonne.km)] .

Ss .C vd 2.65x 0.27

d. Production

π π

Qs = D 2 Vm C vd 3600 = 0.9 23.6x 0.27x 3600 = 2226.1 [m3/hour].

4 4

π Q

Qsi = D 2 Vm C vdsi 3600 = s = 3710.2 [m3/hour].

4 1− n

π π

Qs = D 2 Vm C vd 3600 = 0.9 27.7x 0.27x 3600 = 4761.4 [m3/hour].

4 4

π Q

Qsi = D 2 Vm C vdsi 3600 = s = 7935.6 [m3/hour].

4 1− n

suitable transport velocity: Vm = 3.60 m/s

frictional head loss: Im = 0.0400 [-]

head lost over the pipeline 1500 m long: H = 60.0 mwc

specific energy consumption: SEC = 0.151 kWh/(tonne.km)

production of in situ soil: Qsi = 3710.2 m3/hour

Medium gravel (d = 6.00 mm):

suitable transport velocity: Vm = 7.70 m/s

frictional head loss: Im = 0.1243 [-]

head lost over the pipeline 1500 m long: H = 186.5 mwc

specific energy consumption: SEC = 0.469 kWh/(tonne.km)

production of in situ soil: Qsi = 7935.6 m3/hour

4.38 CHAPTER 4

5.

MODELING OF NON-STRATIFIED

MIXTURE FLOWS

(Pseudo-homogeneous flows)

Uniform (or almost uniform) distribution of transported solids across a pipeline cross

section is characteristic of pseudo-homogeneous mixture flow. This flow occurs if the

settling tendency of particles transported in a flowing liquid is weak in comparison

with the tendency of a carrying liquid to keep particles suspended. Very fine particles

are practically non-settling and the pseudo-homogeneous character of the mixture

flow is maintained at all operational velocities in a pipeline. Coarser particles (as fine

and medium sand) may form a fully-suspended mixture if the intensity of turbulence

in a flow of a carrying liquid does not allow solid particles to settle. This is the case at

high operational velocities in a pipeline.

than the pseudo-homogeneous flow composed of sand-size particles. This is due to

rather different mechanisms of internal friction in these flows. The fluid-like (not

mechanic) friction in the flowing matter is described the law of viscosity.

Pseudo-homogeneous mixtures that obey Newton’s law of viscosity (see Chapter 1)

are called Newtonian mixtures. Pseudo-homogeneous mixtures obeying a more

complex relationship between shear stress and strain rate than is that given by

Newton’s law of viscosity are called non-Newtonian mixtures.

accumulation of solid particles near the bottom of a pipeline, thus the deposition-limit

velocity is an irrelevant parameter to predict. A slip between phases plays also no

role. Thus the attention is focused to predicting frictional head losses in pipelines.

GRAVEL

is predicted by Clift et al. (1982) as

I m − If I −I

= m f = A ′I f (5.1)

C vd (Ss − 1) S m − 1

5.2 CHAPTER 5

mixture flow [-]

If hydraulic gradient for liquid (water) flow [-]

Cvd delivered volumetric solids concentration [-]

Ss relative density of solids [-]

Sm relative density of mixture [-]

A’ empirical coefficient [-].

An increase in the frictional head loss due to the presence of solid particles in a

carrying liquid forming a Newtonian fully-suspended mixture is attributed to

increased carrier friction at the pipeline wall. A measure of the slurry density effect on

friction process is given by an empirical coefficient A'.

single-phase liquid having the density of the slurry. The "equivalent liquid" has the

density of the mixture but other properties (as viscosity) remain the same as in the

liquid (water) alone. This model suggests that all suspended particles contribute to an

increase in the mixture density. The increase in a mixture density is responsible for a

proportional increase in the shear stress resisting the flow at the pipeline wall. The

above equation is obtained in the same way as the Darcy-Weisbach equation (see

Chapter 1) with the only one exception: the density of mixture is considered instead of

dP τo 8τo dP λ f ρm Vm2

the liquid density. Thus − =4 and λ f = provide − = .

dx D ρm Vm2 dx D 2

dP ρm λ f Vm2

Rearrangements give I m = − = = Sm If .

dxρf g ρf D 2g

This model may be successful to predict flows of relatively fine particles (fine sand,

coarse silt), particularly if solids concentration is relatively low so that the viscosity is

not affected.

If A' = 0 in the Eq. 5.1, it is assumed that solids present in a flowing liquid do not

affect a flow friction at all,

reported by Carstens & Addie (1981). This behavior can be explained by an

assumption that relatively coarse particles suspended in fast-flowing mixture are

MODELING OF NON-STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 5.3

repelled from the pipeline wall due to large velocity gradient near the pipeline wall (a

possible effect of lift forces discussed in Chapter 1). Since solid particles are not

present in the region nearest the pipeline wall they also do not affect the wall shear

stress that is decisive for the friction process.

Pipeline tests in the Laboratory of Dredging Technology have revealed that the liquid

model is not applicable to fast-flowing fully-suspended mixtures. The

equivalent-liquid model tends to overestimate slightly the frictional losses. The

parameter A’ of the general model seems to be dependent on flow conditions.

SILT OR CLAY

Very fine particles (of silt size and finer, d < 40 µm approximately) are practically

non-settling in a flow of carrying liquid. They interfere with the carrying liquid to

increase its density and viscosity. In a mixture flow containing these fine particles the

viscosity of the pseudo-homogeneous mixture grows with the increasing fraction of

solids in the mixture.

The suspension does not obey Newton’s law of viscosity and its constitutive

rheological equation (the equation relating the shear stress, τ, with the shear rate,

dvx/dy) has to be determined experimentally to give a basis for friction-loss predictive

models.

Newtonian mixtures in pipelines. A constitutive rheological equation of a

non-Newtonian mixture is rather sensitive to too many factors. Actually, each

particular mixture obeys its own law of viscosity. Therefore it is necessary to know a

rheogram [a relationship between shear stress, τ, and strain rate, dvx/dy] for each

particular mixture handled in a pipeline. A tube viscometer is a preferable instrument

to determine a rheogram of a mixture. Conditions within the tube viscometer are

geometrically similar to those in prototype pipes, assuring the similarity in the stress

distributions. Data from a tube viscometer can be successfully used to scale up the

frictional head loss to larger pipes or to determine a mixture rheological model.

flow of a non-Newtonian mixture is composed of the following steps:

2. the mixture flow regime (laminar or turbulent)

3. the losses using a scale-up method or an appropriate friction model.

5.4 CHAPTER 5

measurements in either a tube viscometer or a rotational viscometer. The rheological

constants are determined from measured values of parameters Vm, ∆P/L, D etc.

according to a method discussed in Intermezzo II.

determines a method for the friction-loss prediction. A laminar regime in

non-Newtonian mixtures holds to higher velocities than for Newtonian mixtures in a

pipeline of the same diameter. The laminar regime may occur in a dredging pipeline if

highly viscous mixtures are transported.

the laminar and the turbulent regime is to find experimentally (in a laboratory pipe) an

intercept between Im-Vm curves for laminar and turbulent regimes of the mixture

flow. Then the transition can be scaled up with the resistance curves to pipes of larger

sizes.

Theoretical models for a regime transition are also available. These are often the

by-products of the flow models for laminar and turbulent flows of non-Newtonians.

Thomas (1963) proposed for Bingham plastic flow the following equation that is often

used in practice

2100ηB τyD

VT = 1 + (5.5).

ρm D 6ηBVT

The simpler equation for the transition velocity in a Bingham plastic flow is obtained

if the Bingham Reynolds number

ρ m Vm D

Re B = (5.6)

τyD

ηB 1 +

6ηBVm

turbulent regime of non-Newtonian mixture flow [m/s]

Vm mean mixture velocity in a pipe [m/s]

D pipe diameter [m]

ρm density of mixture [kg/m3]

ηB tangential viscosity of Bingham plastic mixture [Pa.s]

τy yield stress of Bingham plastic mixture [Pa]

ReB Reynolds number of flow of Bingham plastic mixture [-]

MODELING OF NON-STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 5.5

is taken as equal to 2100. This threshold value of Reynolds number is identical with

τyD

that for a Newtonian flow. Since >> 1 the equation ReB = 2100 gives for

6ηB Vm

flow of Bingham plastic mixture

τy

VT ≈ 19 (5.7)

ρm

Friction-loss predictions based on the flow modeling are generally less accurate than

those based on the scaling up of tube viscometer data.

The Im-Vm results from tube viscometers can be scaled up to prototype pipes without

an intermediary of rheological model. The principle of the scaling-up technique is that

in non-Newtonian flows the wall shear stress is unchanged in pipes of different sizes

D. The wall shear stress fully determines the stress distribution within the pipe.

Scale-up techniques are different in laminar and turbulent flow. Scaling up between

two different pipeline sizes [e.g. between a tube viscometer (index 1) and a prototype

pipeline (index 2)] is carried out as follows.

Laminar flow:

the Rabinowitsch-Mooney transformation applies:

D.∆P 8Vm

τ0 = = idem , = idem ;

4L D

8Vm

this says that if a τo versus relationship for a laminar flow of a certain mixture

D

is determined (experimentally) in one pipe it is valid also for pipes of all different

sizes.

Thus

D1

I m2 = I m1 (5.8)

D2

D2

Vm2 = Vm1 (5.9).

D1

5.6 CHAPTER 5

Turbulent flow:

D.∆P 8Vm

τ0 = = idem but ≠ idem

4L D

because the near-wall velocity gradient is not described by 8Vm/D (see Chapter 1, p.

1.5); instead the friction-law is sought relating friction coefficient λf with mean

velocity Vm.

Thus the turbulent-flow data Im, Vm from pipeline (1) can be scaled to pipeline (2)

using

D

I m2 = I m1 1 (5.10)

D2

λ D

Vm2 = Vm1 1 + 2.5 f ln 2 (5.11)

8 D1

mixture flow [-]

Vm mean mixture velocity in a pipe [m/s]

D pipe diameter [m]

λf Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient for fluid flow [-].

In Eq. 5.11 the final term within the brackets determines an effect of the equivalent

turbulent-flow viscosity on wall shear stress. This term is usually not greatly different

from zero.

MODELING OF NON-STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 5.7

sometimes the tube test data are not available because a test instrument or a mixture

sample are not available. Test data for turbulent flow regime might be unavailable

even if tube viscometer tests are carried out. This might be, for instance, due to a

small diameter of a viscometer tube that causes that the turbulent flow regime is not

reached even at the highest velocities in the tube. If data, and thus a rheogram, are not

available the rheological parameters employed in theoretical rheological models

(constitutive equations) have to be used to derive a I-V relationship for mixture flow.

Laminar flow:

For a laminar flow a chosen constitutive equation is integrated over a pipe cross

section and hence velocity distribution obtained. This gives a relation between

pressure gradient and mean velocity (the same procedure as described in Chapter 1 for

Newtonian liquid flow) in a homogeneous flow of mixture.

Integrating of the yield pseudo-plastic rheological model

n

dv

τ = τ y + K x

dy

πD 2

over a pipe cross section A = gives

4

8Vm

=

4

( )

τo − τ y n

( ) +

( )

1+ n τ o − τ y 2 2 τ y τ o − τ y

+

τ 2y

(5.12)

D 1 1 + 3n 1 + 2n 1+ n

K n τ 3o

D.∆P

where the wall shear stress τ o = .

4L

4τ 4

8Vm τ y τy

= o 1 − + (5.13).

D ηB 3τ o 3τ 4

o

Eqs. 5.12 and 5.13 give a relationship between a frictional head loss and mean

mixture velocity in a pipeline as a function of rheological parameters of a mixture.

This relationship can be rewritten to the standard friction-loss equation

∆P 2

λ nN Vm

Im = = (5.14)

Lρ f g D 2g

64

λ nN = (5.15)

Re nN

5.8 CHAPTER 5

if the equation for Reynolds number RenN for a non-Newtonian flow gets a modified

form given by a rheological type of a flowing mixture. For the Bingham plastic

mixture (n = 1, K = ηB) combining of Eq. 5.13 and Eq. 5.14 provides

−1

4

64ηB 4τ y τ y 64

λB = 1− + = (5.16)

DVmρ m 3τ o 3τ 4 Re B

o

and thus the modified Reynolds number, by neglecting the fourth-power term in the

above equation

ρ m Vm D

Re B = (5.6).

τyD

ηB 1 +

6 η B Vm

Vm mean mixture velocity in a pipe [m/s]

D pipe diameter [m]

λnN Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient for

non-Newtonian flow [-]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2]

ReB Reynolds number of flow of Bingham plastic mixture [-]

ρm density of mixture [kg/m3]

ηB tangential viscosity of Bingham plastic mixture [Pa.s]

τy yield stress of Bingham plastic mixture [Pa]

A solution of the integral equation for a Bingham plastic flow (Eq. 5.13) can be

accomplished using the Hedström nomograph. The nomograph (Fig. 5.2) gives the

friction coefficient λB as a function of two dimensionless groups:

τ y D 2ρ m

He = (5.17)

η2B

ρ V D

Re b = m m (5.18).

ηB

Steep lines for different He values give the friction coefficient for a laminar flow

regime. The less steep line valid for all He values gives the friction coefficient in a

MODELING OF NON-STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 5.9

turbulent regime of mixture flow. It is suggested that there is no effect of the yield

stress on pipeline friction if the flow is turbulent.

and Reb number (Eq. 5.18).

Turbulent flow:

In a turbulent flow the rheological models are again the basis for friction models.

However, an integration of a rheological model, and thus a direct determination of

velocity profile, is not possible in turbulent flow (see Chapter 1). A friction law is

required that relates the friction coefficient, λnN, with the flow Reynolds number, Re,

and the pipe-wall roughness factor.

The Slatter model (Slatter, 1995) was tested by data from a number of non-Newtonian

mixtures (kaolin etc.) in various viscometric tubes. It suggests the following equations to

describe a friction law for a yield pseudo-plastic mixture in different turbulent flow

regions delimited by a value of the roughness Reynolds number

8ρ m V 2

Re r = * (5.19),

n

8V

τ y + K *

d85

5.10 CHAPTER 5

8 D

= 2.5 ln + 2.5 ln Re r + 1.75 (5.20)

λ nN 2d 85

8 D

= 2.5 ln + 4.75 (5.21)

λ nN 2d 85

V* shear velocity, V* = Vm(λnN/8)0.5 [m/s]

d85 characteristic particle size [m]

∆P λ V2

Im = = nN m .

Lρ f g D 2g

dredging pipeline

The figures 5.3-5.5 show measured rheological characteristics of the aqueous mixture of

silt dredged from Caland Kanaal in the Europort entrance (taken from v.d. Berg, 1998).

The mixture behaves like Bingham plastic liquid.

Figure 5.3. Rheogram of the “Caland”silt mixture measured for different mixture

densities (measurements: rotoviscometer).

MODELING OF NON-STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 5.11

Figure 5.4. Relationship between viscosity and density of the silt mixture.

Figure 5.5. Relationship between yield stress and density of the silt mixture.

Figure 5.6. Prediction of pipeline resistance of the silt mixture using a friction model

(lines for various mixture densities in a 700 mm pipeline)

(from v.d. Berg, 1998).

5.12 CHAPTER 5

Fig. 5.6 shows the resistance curves for the Caland silt mixture flow in a 700 mm

dredging pipeline predicted by the Hedström method. The intercepts between laminar

curves and turbulent curves for a certain chosen mixture density determines the transition

velocity VT. A laminar regime holds to the mean mixture velocity 1.7 m/s if silt-water

mixture has density of 1300 kg/m3.

5.3 REFERENCES

van den Berg, C.H. (1998). Pipelines as Transportation Systems. European Mining

Course Proceedings, MTI.

Carstens, M.R. & Addie, G.R. (1981). A sand-water slurry experiment, Journal of

the Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 107(HY4), 501-7.

Clift, R., Wilson, K.C., Addie G.R. & Carstens, M.R. (1982). A

mechanistically-based method for scaling pipeline tests for settling slurries. Proc.

Hydrotransport 8, BHRA, Cranfield, UK, pp. 91-101.

Slatter, P. (1995). The turbulent flow of non-Newtonian slurries in pipes, Proc. 8th

Int. Conf. on Transport and Sedimentation of Solid Particles, CTU Prague.

Thomas, D.G. (1963). Ind. Eng. Chem., 55, p. 27.

Govier, G.W. & Aziz, K. (1972). The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes. Van

Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Wilson, K.C., Addie G.R., Sellgren, A. & Clift, R. (1997). Slurry Transport Using

Centrifugal Pumps. Blackie Academic & Professional.

MODELING OF NON-STRATIFIED MIXTURE FLOW 5.13

CASE STUDY 5

pipeline

hydraulically at the mixture density 1250 kg/m3 through a 500-metre long horizontal

pipeline of the diameter 700 mm. The rheometrical test of the mixture sample in a

viscometer has shown that the silt mixture behaves as a Bingham liquid with the yield

stress 33 Pa and the plastic viscosity 36 mPa.s.

Determine the pressure drop due to friction over the entire pipeline length for two

mixture flow rates: 1.0 m3/s and 2.0 m3/s.

Inputs:

ρm = 1250 kg/m3

τy = 33 Pa

ηB = 0.036 Pa.s

L = 500 m

D = 700 mm

Qm = 1.0 and 2.0 m3/s

Solution:

Vm = 4Qm/(πD2), i.e. 2.60 m/s for Qm=1.0 m3/s and 5.20 m/s for Qm=2.0 m3/s.

VT = 3.09 m/s (Eq. 5.7).

Thus the flow is laminar for Qm=1.0 m3/s and turbulent for Qm=2.0 m3/s.

λB = 64/ ReB = 0.043

Im = 0.021 (Eq. 5.14), thus ∆P = 0.021 x 500 x 9810 = 103 814 Pa.

The total pressure drop due to friction is 104 kPa (approximately 1 bar) at the flow

rate 1.0 m3/s of the silt mixture through a 700-mm pipeline that is 500 meter long.

Reb = 126 389 ≈ 1.3 x 105 (Eq. 5.18) for Vm = 5.20 m/s

λB ≈ 0.021 (Fig. 5.2) for Reb ≈ 1.3 x 105 (He number value is not important)

Im = 0.041 (Eq. 5.14), thus ∆P = 0.041 x 500 x 9810 = 202 800 Pa.

The total pressure drop due to friction is 203 kPa (approximately 2 bar) at the flow

rate 2.0 m3/s of the silt mixture through a 700-mm pipeline that is 500 meter long.

5.14 CHAPTER 5

6.

SPECIAL FLOW CONDITIONS IN

DREDGING PIPELINES

hydraulically to the board of a dredge by using an inclined pipeline. A pipeline slope

varies from rather flat to almost vertical according to the depth from which the

material is dredged. The largest modern THSD's are capable of dredging from water

deeper than 100 meter. This gives an imagination of how long inclined pipelines

might be. Mixture flows, particularly that exerting a certain degree of stratification,

are very sensitive to changes in a pipeline inclination. In this chapter the effects are

discussed of the pipeline inclination on the hydraulic gradient and the deposition-limit

velocity in mixture flow. Further the effects of inclination on a flow pattern are

demonstrated and a physical description is given of these inclination effects.

total pressure drop in mixture flow over the pipeline section is equal to the pressure

drop due to internal friction in flowing mixture if there are no additional minor losses

from the local sources of energy dissipation as are pipe joints, bends etc. The

frictional head loss in the mixture flow is due to both the frictional losses in a carrying

liquid and the additional losses due to a presence of solids in a carrying liquid as

described in details in Chapters 4 and 5.

If the pipeline section is inclined the total pressure drop over the section changes

considerably. The differential pressure transmitter measuring the pressure difference

over the pipeline section senses a considerable increase (in case of the ascending

pipeline section) or a considerable decrease (in case of the descending pipeline

section) of the total pressure differential. This is due to a hydrostatic pressure

differential emerging as a result of a change of a geodetic position of the end of the

pipeline section regarding to its begin. A change of a pipeline elevation gives to arise

to the static pressure differential caused by a pressure exerted by a mixture column of

a height given a vertical distance between the begin and the end of a pipeline section.

The hydrostatic column increases pressure at the beginning of a pipeline section in the

case of an ascending pipeline or at the end of a pipeline section in the case of a

descending pipeline. Considering a pipeline section of a length L inclined to an angle

ω from a horizontal position, the height of a vertical column is Hpipe = L.sinω.

6.1

6.2 CHAPTER 6

Thus the total pressure gradient (P1-P2)/L = ∆P/L over a pipeline section of the

length L (see Fig. 6.1) is composed of

- the static pressure gradient (ρgHpipe)/L, giving the potentially reversible effect of

elevation change on the total pressure gradient in a mixture flow of the density ρ

gaining the height Hpipe and

- the pressure gradient due to friction (P1-P2)/L - (ρgHpipe)/L that is the

irrecoverable energy loss due to friction in inclined mixture flow over the pipe

length L.

P1 −ω

concentration

profile L H pipe

two layer

pattern

ρf g H pipe

P = P1 - P2

total pressure differential

P2

manometer

hose filled with fluid (water)

P + Hpipeρf g

manometric pressure differential

The pressure differential between two pipeline cross sections 1 and 2 separated from

each other by the pipeline length L is measured usually as a manometric pressure

differential P1 + Hpipe.ρf.g - P2, i.e. ∆P + Hpipe.ρf.g (Fig. 6.1). The total pressure

differential ∆P is obtained by eliminating the static pressure differential due to the

water column in the hoses of the differential pressure transmitter (manometer). The

pressure differential due to friction is obtained from the total pressure differential ∆P

by subtracting (or adding) the static pressure differential Hpipe.ρ.g due to a mixture

column in the measuring pipe section from a pipe elevation.

height Hpipe in the pipeline section L. The density of the column, ρ, is determined

from the concentration of solid particles in the section L which contribute to the

weight of the slurry column. Empirical models for the prediction of friction losses in

PIPELINE FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL FOR DREDGING 6.3

inclined pipelines assume that the slurry of the column has the density ρm = ρf +

Cvd(ρs - ρf).

Deposition-limit velocity tends to increase with a pipe slope and reaches its maximum

at an angle of about 25 - 35 deg in an ascending pipeline. A further increase in an

angle of an ascending pipe inclination causes a gradual decrease of the Vdl value until

zero at the limit inclination angle 90 deg. At angles higher than approximately 45 deg

a bed is gradually disintegrated owing to a continuously diminishing cross-pipe

component of solid particle weight - the force component usually responsible for the

formation of a bed. In a descending pipeline the deposition-limit velocity gradually

decreases when the pipeline is inclined gradually from 0 deg to -90 deg.

Typical models for inclined flows are extensions of models for flows at limit

inclinations: in horizontal and vertical pipes.

mixture flow in a vertical pipeline. The homogeneous character of mixture makes

prediction of vertical flows easier than prediction of horizontal and inclined flows.

Coulson et al. (1996) summarized the simplest conclusions for the prediction of

frictional head loss in a vertical mixture pipeline as follows:

- for non-settling suspensions the standard equation for a single phase fluid is used

with the physical properties of the suspension in place of those of the liquid (i.e.

transported particles do not affect the friction process in coarse-particle mixture flow

in a vertical pipeline)

- for a suspension of coarse particles the value calculated for the carrying fluid alone,

flowing at the mixture velocity, is used.

It should be stressed, however, that the above-formulated rules are considered only for

Newtonian mixtures. The non-Newtonian mixtures exert in vertical pipelines frictional

head losses equal to that in horizontal pipelines.

6.4 CHAPTER 6

Worster & Denny (1955) suggested a simple equation for the energy loss in settling

slurries flowing in inclined pipelines

Im hydraulic gradient in the same mixture flow in horizontal pipe [-]

If hydraulic gradient in liquid flow [-]

ω pipe inclination angle [deg]

Cvd delivered volumetric solids concentration [-]

Ss relative density of solids [-]

The angle ω is considered to have positive values in an ascending pipeline and the

negative values in a descending pipeline.

The head loss due to the potential energy change registered by a differential pressure

transmitter is represented by the last term in Eq. 6.1. This is the hydrostatic effect on

the pressure differential measured over a section of an inclined mixture pipe.

Im = If + (Im − If )

Figure 6.2. Pressure drops in inclined pipelines, after Worster & Denny (1955).

PIPELINE FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL FOR DREDGING 6.5

The ratio between solids effect on the frictional head loss in the inclined pipeline and

solids effect on the frictional head loss in the horizontal pipeline for the same mixture

flow parameters is then given as

I mω − I f

= cos ω (6.2).

I m − If

Imω hydraulic gradient due to friction in mixture flow in inclined pipe [-]

Imω - If solids effect in inclined pipe [-]

Im - If solids effect in horizontal pipe [-]

Gibert (1960) adapted the Durand & Condolios correlation (Eq. 4.4) to inclined

pipelines by using a simple assumption that only the gravitational acceleration

component perpendicular to an inclined-pipeline axis (g.cosω) influences the solids

effect on the frictional head loss

−1.5

I mω − I f V2 gd

= K m (6.3).

I f C vd gD v t cos ω

This gives

I mω − I f

= (cos ω)1.5 (6.4).

I m − If

Wilson et al. (1997) proposed the following modification of the Worster & Denny

formula

thus

= (cos ω)(1+ Mγ )

I mω − I f

(6.6).

I m − If

The power γ has a lower limit of 0.333 for very fine particles and, hypothetically, an

upper limit of unity for very coarse particles. The power M is PSD-dependent and it

gains a value 1.7 for a uniform PSD. Lower values of M are obtained for a well-

graded PSD according to Eq. 4.18.

6.6 CHAPTER 6

DEPOSITION-LIMIT VELOCITY

be extended to inclined pipelines by using the dimensionless deposition parameter ∆D

sensitive to an angle of a pipeline inclination. The deposition-limit velocity in an

inclined pipeline Vsmω is given as

Vsm maximum deposition-limit velocity in horizontal pipe [m/s]

∆D deposition parameter, ∆D = fn(ω) from a graph on Fig. 6.3 [-]

ω pipeline inclination angle [deg]

D pipeline diameter [m]

Ss relative density of solids [-]

after Wilson & Tse (1984).

According to models of Worster & Denny, Gibert or Wilson, the solids effect is

always lower in inclined pipelines (for both the negative and positive slopes) than in

horizontal pipelines. Furthermore, the friction loss is the same in pipe sections of the

negative and the positive slope when the pipe inclination angle and flow parameters

Vm, Cvd, d are identical.

PIPELINE FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL FOR DREDGING 6.7

The above prediction is based on an assumption that the frictional head loss due to a

presence of solids is caused predominantly by solids settling tendency in a direction

perpendicular to an inclined pipeline wall. A measure of a settling tendency

represented by a particle settling velocity decreases with an increasing pipeline

inclination angle because the component of the particle settling velocity in a direction

perpendicular to a pipeline wall decreases and so decreases the possibility that the

particles form a granular bed.

A physical consideration of a friction process in a stratified flow learns that the above

assumption is not generally acceptable. A simplification of the flow process assumed

in models described above might be acceptable for slightly stratified flows in which

only a small portion of solids tends to form a bed.

The above-discussed models assume that all particles occupying the pipeline section

attribute to the mixture column that produces a static head. Static pressure difference

caused by pipe elevation is considered to be produced by a mixture column of

concentration Cvd. Accepting the fact that all solids present in inclined pipe

contribute to mixture column weight, the actual spatial concentration Cvi should

determine the solids concentration in the mixture column. Correct determination of Im

ω from measured manometric pressure differential demands understanding of the

difference between Cvd and Cvi in a measuring pipe section.

Modeling of inclined flows might be successfully carried out using the empirical

models if flow is only slightly stratified. Flows exerting significant flow stratification

obey physical rules that are not considered in the empirical models. A two-layer

model for inclined flows considering the two-layer flow pattern shown on Fig. 6.1

should handle such flows. For this model the force balance equations are formulated

as follows (Matousek, 1997):

in the upper layer

6.8 CHAPTER 6

The model of this configuration for the inclined flows takes the inclination effects of

different solids-support mechanisms into account. Basically, this model distinguishes

between the frictional pressure differential and the static pressure differential on a

basis of the physical picture of a friction process in inclined flows.

Technology in 1995-1996 (Matousek, 1997) provided the following conclusion:

The mixture flow behaves differently in an ascending pipe and in a descending pipe if

flow tends to be stratified, i.e. if there is a bed at the bottom of the pipe. The

difference was detected in measured frictional head loss, flow stratification, slip

between phases in the flow and velocity of the bed. The difference diminishes at

pipe-inclination angles above approximately 45 deg where the bed starts to be

disintegrated.

Figure 6.4. Concentration profiles in a 150 mm pipe cross section for flow of an

aqueous mixture of a 1.4 – 2.0 mm sand at velocity 3.5 m/s.

(Data from Laboratory of Dredging Technology, Delft University of Technology).

a. Flow stratification

Different degrees of flow stratification have been observed in the ascending pipe and

the descending pipe for the same slurry flow conditions (Vm, Cvd). The difference is

PIPELINE FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL FOR DREDGING 6.9

large for the coarse slurry flow and small for the relatively fine slurry flow. Thus the

effect occurs in slurry flow where the turbulent suspension mechanism plays a minor

role (or it is not effective at all) and the majority of particles occupy a granular bed.

A sharp flow stratification in the descending pipe and a gradual concentration

change across the pipe cross section in the ascending pipe for coarse slurries (see Fig.

6.4) suggest that the small concentration gradient in the ascending pipe is the product

of dispersive forces acting within the shear layer rather than of the turbulent mixing

process in the liquid flow. In the ascending pipe the bed-submerged-weight

component exerted against the flow direction has a resisting effect on the sliding bed

and, owing to the steep velocity gradient between the sliding bed and the flow above

it, a thick shear layer is developed. In the descending pipe, owing to the propelling

effect of the submerged weight component in the flow direction, the velocity of the

moving bed is sufficient to prevent the formation of a shear layer. Liquid turbulence

alone is not able to suspend the coarse particles. Finer slurry flow at the same pipe

inclinations (+ω, -ω) demonstrates a considerably smaller difference between the

shapes of concentration profiles, suggesting that here the carrier turbulence is the

prevailing suspension mechanism and the shear layer is not well developed. It should

be remembered that these effects are of importance primarily in flows inclined to

angles not far above 35 deg. At these angles the cross-pipe component of the

submerged bed weight is still important and the pipe slope is not the main cause of

bed disintegration.

The variation in the slip ratio is primarily due to a variation in the shift between

layers in a stratified flow. Slip ratio is found to be strongly dependent on the shape of

the concentration profile (see Fig. 6.4). The slip ratio value tends to approach unity

when the flow becomes less stratified. If FWsinω exceeds µsFNcosω in a descending

pipe the slip ratio reaches a value higher than unity. This is caused by a fact that a bed

moves faster than the suspension layer above the bed under the above given condition

in a descending pipeline. In an ascending pipeline the slip ratio is always lower than

unity, i.e. the bed moves always slower than the suspension layer above the bed.

c. Static head

According to Bagnold's concept for the solids support in a mixture flow, the

contact-load particles transfer their submerged weight to the pipe wall via the

interparticle contacts. The particles are supported by the interparticle contacts. Solid

particles with no interparticle contacts (suspended particles) transfer their weight to

the carrying liquid and increase the density of the suspension. Thus only the solid

particles whose submerged weight is not transmitted to the pipeline wall contribute to

the slurry column which exerts the static pressure differential over an inclined

pipeline section.

The density of the slurry column is the density of the mixture of the carrying liquid

and suspended particles in an inclined pipeline section. The spatial concentration Cvi

in a pipeline section can be used to calculate slurry column density only when all

particles are suspended. The delivered concentration Cvd determines the slurry

column density only when all particles are suspended and, furthermore, the slip

between phases in a pipeline section is negligible.

6.10 CHAPTER 6

modeling

pipeline inclined to -35 degrees. In such a flow the total pressure differential is

experimentally detected as almost equal to that of carrying liquid alone. According to

an empirical model this is because the frictional pressure drop produced by a presence

of solids in a carrying liquid flow is reduced by a pressure gain due to the static

pressure from a mixture column (containing all solid particles) in a pipeline section.

According to the two-layer model, however, no pressure gradient is required to push a

bed because the bed moves gravitationally (it might even move faster than the

carrying liquid in the descending pipeline). Thus no extra frictional pressure

differential is developed due to the presence of solids in a pipeline. In the same time,

no static pressure differential occurs due to presence of solids because all solid

particles occupy the bed and thus do not contribute to the column exerting a static

pressure differential. Thus solid particles do not affect the total pressure differential

over a descending pipeline section. The predicted sum of the frictional and the static

pressure differential is similar from both the empirical and physical models.

PIPELINE FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL FOR DREDGING 6.11

CASE STUDY 6

An aqueous mixture of fine sand or medium gravel (see previous Case studies) is

pumped from a borrowing pit to a hopper on board of a trailing suction hopper

dredge. The dredging depth is 50 meter. A suction pipeline of an internal diameter

900 millimeter is inclined under the angle 45 deg.

Propose a suitable transport velocity for mixture in a pipeline and determine the

required manometric head of the pump, the energy lost due to friction in a suction

pipeline, the specific energy consumption and the production for mixture transport at

the chosen transport velocity. The absolute roughness of a pipeline wall is 20 microns.

mixture in the inclined pipeline. For a simplification consider a narrow graded soil

characterized by the median diameter only.

Inputs:

ρs = 2650 kg/m3

ρf = 1000 kg/m3

νf = 0.000001 m2/s

Cvd = 0.27

∆hdepth = 50 m

ω = 45 deg

D = 900 mm

k = 0.00002 m

Solution:

In Case study 4 the deposition-limit velocity was determined for a horizontal flow by

the MTI correlation: Vdl = 3.23 m/s (Eq. 4.19).

The deposition-velocity correction for inclined flow is carried out using the Wilson

method. The deposition parameter ∆D is found for ω = 45 deg from the nomograph on

Fig. 6.3: ∆D = 0.33.

The Eq. 6.10 gives

Vdlω = Vdl + ∆ D 2gD(Ss − 1) = 3.23 + 0.33 2x 9.81x 0.9x1.65 = 5.01 m/s.

In Case study 4 the deposition-limit velocity was determined for a horizontal flow by

the MTI correlation: Vdl = 7.03 m/s (Eq. 4.19).

6.12 CHAPTER 6

The deposition-velocity correction for inclined flow is carried out using the Wilson

method. The deposition parameter ∆D is found for ω = 45 deg from the nomograph on

Fig. 6.3: ∆D = 0.33.

The Eq. 6.10 gives

Vdlω = Vdl + ∆ D 2gD(Ss − 1) = 7.03 + 0.33 2x 9.81x 0.9x1.65 = 8.81 m/s.

The suitable transport velocity for sand-water mixture: Vm = 1.1Vdlω = 5.50 m/s.

The suitable transport velocity for gravel-water mixture: Vm = 1.1Vdlω = 9.70 m/s.

b. Energy loss due to friction & required manometric head of the pump

Water flow:

Re = 5.5*0.9/0.000001 = 4.95 x 106

k/D = 0.00002/0.9 = 2.2 x 10-5 (D/k = 45000)

λf = 0.0103 (see Moody diagram, Fig. 1.6)

Friction head loss from the Darcy-Weisbach equation (Eq. 1.20)

λ V 2 0.0103 5.52

If = f m = = 0.0176 [-].

D 2g 0.900 19.62

Mixture flow: Wilson model for heterogeneous flow

Horizontal pipeline (Eq. 4.16 and Eq. 4.17)

0.45

S − 1

V50 ≈ 3.93(d 50 ) 0.35 s = 3.93(0.12) 0.351 = 1.87 m/s.

1.65

−M −1.7

I m − If V 5.50

= 0.22 m = 0.22 = 0.03515

C vd (Ss − 1) V

50 1 . 87

Im = 0.0176 + 0.0352 x 0.27 x 1.65 = 0.0333 [-].

Inclined pipeline

Frictional head loss (Eq. 6.6) for M = 1.7 and γ = 0.4 (estimated):

= (cos ω)(1+ Mγ ) = (cos 45)(1+1.7x 0.4 ) = 0.5586

I mω − I f

I m − If

Imω = 0.0176 + 0.5586(0.0333 - 0.0176) = 0.0264 [-].

Imhω = 0.0264 + 0.27 x 1.65 x sin(45) = 0.3414 [-].

The head that must be delivered by a dredge pump to lift the mixture from a

borrowing pit to a hopper is the head required to overcome the friction and the

difference in a geodetic position of the pit and the hopper. If the position of the pump

and the hopper inlet is considered equal to the water-level position and the local

losses in a suction pipeline are neglected, the required head, Hman [meter water

column, mwc], is:

PIPELINE FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL FOR DREDGING 6.13

Water flow:

Re = 9.7*0.9/0.000001 = 8.73 x 106

k/D = 0.00002/0.9 = 2.2 x 10-5 (D/k = 45000)

λf = 0.010 (see Moody diagram, Fig. 1.6)

Friction head loss from the Darcy-Weisbach equation (Eq. 1.20)

λ V 2 0.010 9.7 2

If = f m = = 0.0533 [-].

D 2g 0.900 19.62

Mixture flow: Wilson model for heterogeneous flow

Horizontal pipeline (Eq. 4.16 and Eq. 4.17)

0.45

0.35 Ss − 1

V50 ≈ 3.93(d 50 ) = 3.93(6.0) 0.351 = 7.36 m/s

1.65

−M −1.7

I m − If Vm 9.70

= 0.22 = 0.22 = 0.1376

C vd (Ss − 1) V50 7.36

Im = 0.0533 + 0.1376 x 0.27 x 1.65 = 0.1146 [-].

Inclined pipeline

Frictional head loss (Eq. 6.6) for M = 1.7 and γ = 0.9 (estimated):

= (cos ω)(1+ Mγ ) = (cos 45)(1+1.7x 0.9 ) = 0.4161

I mω − I f

I m − If

Imω = 0.0533 + 0.4161(0.1146 - 0.0533) = 0.0788 [-].

Imhω = 0.0788 + 0.27 x 1.65 x sin(45) = 0.3938 [-].

The head that must be delivered by a dredge pump to lift the mixture from a

borrowing pit to a hopper is the head required to overcome the friction and the

difference in a geodetic position of the pit and the hopper. If the position of the pump

and the hopper inlet is considered equal to the water-level position and the local

losses in a suction pipeline are neglected, the required head, Hman [meter water

column, mwc], is:

I 0.3414

SEC = 2.7 mωh = 2.7 = 1.288 [kWh/(tonne.km)].

Ss .C vd 2.65x 0.27

I 0.3938

SEC = 2.7 mhω = 2.7 = 1.486 [kWh/(tonne.km)].

Ss .C vd 2.65x 0.27

6.14 CHAPTER 6

d. Production

π π

Qs = D 2 Vm C vd 3600 = 0.9 25.5x 0.27x 3600 = 3401.0 [m3/hour].

4 4

π Q

Qsi = D 2 Vm C vdsi 3600 = s = 5668.3 [m3/hour].

4 1− n

π π

Qs = D 2 Vm C vd 3600 = 0.9 29.7x 0.27x 3600 = 5998.1 [m3/hour].

4 4

π Q

Qsi = D 2 Vm C vdsi 3600 = s = 9996.8 [m3/hour].

4 1− n

suitable transport velocity: Vm = 5.50 m/s

frictional head loss: Imω = 0.0264 [-]

required manometric head: Hman = 24.1 mwc

specific energy consumption: SEC = 1.288 kWh/(tonne.km)

production of in situ soil: Qsi = 5668.3 m3/hour

suitable transport velocity: Vm = 9.70 m/s

frictional head loss: Imω = 0.0788 [-]

required manometric head: Hman = 27.9 mwc

specific energy consumption: SEC = 1.486 kWh/(tonne.km)

production of in situ soil: Qsi = 9996.8 m3/hour

PIPELINE FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL FOR DREDGING 6.15

During dredging operations slurry density varies in time and space along the entire

long pipeline of a conveying system. The solids flow is unsteady (Qs ≠ const) even if

controlled global operational parameters of the system (slurry flow rate, Qm, through

the conveying system and pump speed) are assumed to be maintained at an

approximately constant level during the entire operational period of the system.

6.16 CHAPTER 6

A fluctuating density, generated at the inlet of the system, moves through a pipeline.

Field measurements (see Fig. 6.5) on a dredging installation with a pipeline that is

approximately 10 km long and which has three booster stations in series, show that

density fluctuations in the flow of slurry containing rather broad-graded medium sand

are not flattened. Whilst passing along the pipeline with pumps in series, they are

transformed into long density waves with a high amplitude. The transformation of

density fluctuations indicates a solids aggregation process. The influence of a pump

performance on density waves transformation is negligible. An aggregation

mechanism is active in the pipeline.

hydrodynamic equations, including transport and turbulent dispersion effects, the

fluctuating slurry density entering the system is assumed to be gradually flattened and

become almost constant in time and space along the long pipeline. This mechanism is

effective in a short time and length scale and causes a flattening of short-time density

fluctuations behind a dredge pump (compare Gr and Ja density signals of Fig. 6.5).

Over a longer time and length scale (more suitable for a description of the process in a

pipeline which is more than 10 km long, in which each particle needs almost one hour

to reach its destination from the bottom of a lake) a different mechanism may be

prevailing.

With respect to the specific flow conditions in a long slurry pipeline connected with a

dredge, it is believed that a process of material aggregation is caused by the

hydrodynamic interaction between the bed layer and the suspension layer in a

partially-stratified flow of mixture. This interaction leads to the mass exchange

between the bed layer and the suspension layer (the non-equilibrium between the

settling flux and erosion flux across the interface between layers), to the variation in

the bed velocity and produces variable slip in an unsteady solids flow along the long

pipeline.

The top of the granular bed is subjected to the highest shear stress if the densest

suspension passes the bed. At this situation the the bed velocity and the erosion flux

are the highest. When the measured signal for local solids velocity at the bottom of

the pipeline cross section is compared with the measured signal for mean slurry

density just passing the pipeline cross section, the reaction of bed velocity to the

fluctuating slurry density is clearly seen (Fig. 6.6a, b). An exact description of the

aggregation process requires an analysis of the hindered settling and hindered erosion

in high concentrated mixture.

The aggregation of solids to high density waves occurs at low average velocities

round and below the deposition-limit value. The interaction between layers becomes

weak if mean mixture velocity grows far above the deposition-limit threshold.

PIPELINE FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL FOR DREDGING 6.17

Figure 6.6a. Local velocity of solids at the bottom of a pipeline for flow of medium

to coarse sand mixture under fluctuating density.

Figure 6.6b. Local velocity of solids at the bottom of a pipeline for flow of medium

to coarse sand mixture under fluctuating density.

6.18 CHAPTER 6

An aggregation process may have an influence on the efficiency and safety of the

operation of the system. Consideration of the effects of the aggregation process on

mechanical energy dissipation and granular deposit formation in a slurry pipeline may

lead to a more effective control of a conveying system.

The solids aggregation phenomenon observed in a long slurry pipeline connected with

a dredge is not dangerous for pipeline operation. The formation of high density waves

does not produce moving dunes or a stationary deposit at the bottom of a pipeline, nor

does it increase the friction loss in the slurry flow in the pipeline.

Frictional head loss in unsteady solids flow does not increase significantly with the

mean slurry density in the pipeline cross section if the transported solids are relatively

broadly graded (see Fig. 6.7). As a result the specific energy consumption (SEC) in

the dredging pipeline decreases rapidly when the density of transported mixture

increases.

Figure 6.7. Pressure drop due to friction over a long pipeline section compared with

changing mixture density in the pipeline section.

Measured hydraulic gradient compared with the Durand model.

PIPELINE FLOW CONDITIONS TYPICAL FOR DREDGING 6.19

Different phenomena may occur when coarse solids are pumped. In this case there is

no impelling effect caused by the denser suspended layer, since the majority of

particles occupy the bed in the flow of a mean slurry velocity not far above the

deposition-limit value. The unsteady state of the solids flow causes that the thickness

of the bed varies significantly along the pipeline. Further instabilities may occur

owing to shear stress variation at the top of a bed of variable thickness. Instabilities

may lead to the gradual development of dunes, their mutual separation and their

transformation into plugs along the pipeline if the mixture flows at velocity near the

deposition-limit threshold. Such plugs may block the pipeline.

the operation of slurry pumps and drives incorporated into a conveying system.

Density waves passing through the slurry pumps cause the working point of a

pump-pipeline system to vary in time during the operation of the system (see Chapter

7). The situation is more complex in a system composed of a pipeline and a set of

pumps. Analysis of the pump-pipeline interactions and of the impact of slurry density

fluctuation on the efficiency of a conveying system is an interesting subject for further

research.

Slip occurs between solid and liquid phases in slurry pipelines as a result of a flow

stratification. The slip must be taken into account when the solids throughput in a

dredging pipeline is being determined. In horizontal pipelines occupied by the slurry

exhibiting a considerable slip the solids concentration Cvi (a fraction of solids

actually present in the a pipeline section) is higher than the delivered concentration

Cvd. During a dredging operation the solids throughput is usually determined on-line

and displayed on the dredgemaster's control board. The solids throughput Qs is

calculated as Qs = CvVπD2/4 from on-line signals of the measured mean liquid

velocity (Vf, by a magnetic flow meter) and mean spatial concentration (Cvi, by a

radiometric density meter) in a pipeline cross section. The measuring instruments are

often installed in a horizontal pipeline section at some distance behind a dredge pump.

If flow stratification resulting in slip occurs in this pipeline section, the values of Qs

obtained when using CviVfπD2/4 may be too high. Using CvdVmπD2/4 would give

the correct values. Thus the monitoring system for a dredging installation may

overestimate the solids throughput in a pipeline connected with a dredge.

6.20 CHAPTER 6

6.5 REFERENCES

Coulson, J.M., Richardson, J.F., Backhurst, J.R. & Harker, J.H. (1996).

Chemical Engineering. Vol. 1: Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer and Mass Transfer.

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Gibert, R. (1960). Transport hydraulique et refoulement des mixtures en conduites.

Annales des Ponts et Chausees, 130(3), 307-74, 130(4), 437-94 (Dutch translation:

Het persen van mengsels door leidingen. TU Delft).

Matousek, V. (1997). Flow Mechanism of Sand-Water Mixtures in Pipelines. Delft

University Press.

Wilson, K.C. & Tse, J.K.P. (1984). Deposition limit for coarse-particle transport in

inclined pipes. Proc. Hydrotransport 9, BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield, UK, pp.

149-61.

Wilson, K.C., Addie G.R., Sellgren, A. & Clift, R. (1997). Slurry Transport Using

Centrifugal Pumps. Blackie Academic & Professional.

Worster, R.C. & Denny, D.F. (1955). Hydraulic transport of solid materials in

pipelines. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, (London), 169, 563-86.

7.

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS

In the previous chapters the flow of mixture in pipelines was discussed in details. The

following chapters will deal with the effects of an interaction between a pipeline and

pumps on flow of mixture through a dredging installation. Study of these chapters

assumes knowledge of a basic theory of slurry pipeline flows (handled in Chapters 1

to 6) and of a basic theory of centrifugal dredge pumps and pump drives as given in

professor Vlasblom’s course.

the Bernoulli equation. This equation is obtained by integrating the Euler’s equation

of motion along a streamline. If flow is steady, frictionless and incompressible then at

an arbitrary location along a streamline

p v 2f

h+ + = const. (7.1)

ρf g 2g

elevation above datum [m]

p pressure at a location on a stream line [Pa]

vf velocity of fluid at a location on a streamline [m/s].

ρf density of flowing fluid [kg/m3]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2].

Each term of the above equation represents a head (Dutch: opvoerhoogte) with unit

[m]. The head can be interpreted as energy per unit gravity force (see Chapter 3). The

first term is potential energy of fluid control volume per unit gravity force, the second

term flow energy (or flow work) and the third term kinetic energy (see Fig. 7.1). Thus

for two fluid control volumes at two different locations along a streamline the sum of

these three energy terms is constant. However, the proportion of the values of the

particular energy terms changes when flow conditions change during a motion of a

fluid particle from one location to another.

7.1

7.2 CHAPTER 7

P Vm2

h+ + = Level of Mech. Energy

ρ f g 2g

Consider a water flow through a pipe section. Flow is steady (flow rate is constant)

and incompressible (density is constant). If the pipe section is horizontal and a pipe

diameter at the beginning of a pipe section is smaller than at the end of the pipe

section than the pressure at the section begin is lower than that at the section end (see

Fig. 7.2: a horizontal pipe section in front of a pump). This is because the velocity at

the inlet is higher than at the outlet. A portion of kinetic energy is transformed to flow

energy in a pipe section. If a pipe remains of a constant diameter but the pipe section

is inclined the pressure at the top of the pipe section is smaller than that at the bottom

of the pipe section (see Fig. 7.2: an inclined suction pipe). Work had to be done (flow

energy lost) to lift water particles from the bottom to the top of a pipe section. Lifted

particles gained potential energy.

incompressible but the flow of these media can not be considered frictionless. If

flowing through a pipe, water or mixture dissipates a portion of their mechanical

energy. They transform a portion of their mechanical energy into thermal energy

(heat). The mechanical energy loss along a pipe section (between cross sections 1 and

2) must be incorporated to the Bernoulli equation so that

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.3

2 V22

P1 V1 P2

h1 + + = h2 + + + H totalloss (7.2)

ρ f g 2g ρ f g 2g

between pipe cross sections 1 and 2 [m]

P mean absolute pressure in a pipe cross section [Pa]

h geodetic height of a pipe cross section [m]

V mean velocity in a pipe cross section [m/s]

ρf density of fluid [kg/m3]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2].

pump-suction pressure

pressure in suction pipe

pump-discharge pressure

pipe-inlet pressure

water level

pressure meter

waterway bottom

Figure 7.2. Pressure variation along a pipeline connected with a pump (schematic).

flowing through a pump. As a result of an energy addition a pressure differential

occurs in the pumped medium between the inlet and the outlet of a pump (see the

difference between the pump-suction pressure and the pump-discharge pressure in

Fig. 7.2). The pressure, or the energy head, added to the medium depends on the

7.4 CHAPTER 7

speed (revolutions per minute, r.p.m.) of an impeller and on the flow rate of medium

through a pump. A relationship between the head, H, the flow rate (called also

capacity), Q, and the revolutions per minute of the impeller, n, is given by a set of

H-Q curves (Fig. 7.3). A course of these curves is specific for each particular pump.

The course of the curves is sensitive to the geometry of a pump housing and of an

impeller and thus to flow conditions within a pump. The curves are determined by a

pump test. Usually, a pump manufacturer delivers the curves (called pump

characteristics) with a pump. For dredge pumps the pump characteristics may change

in time because the flow conditions within a pump are influenced by a wear of an

impeller and pump housing.

flowing liquid per unit gravity force. It is expressed as the height of the column of

∆P

liquid of ρf exerting the pressure differential ∆P, so that H = .

ρf g

The head due to pressure differential generated by a pump is called the manometric

head, Hman, and it has a unit meter water column [mwc] (see Fig. 7.3).

The Hman-Q curve of a pump gives an amount of energy that a pump provides to a

pump-pipeline system for a certain r.p.m. (speed) of a pump impeller and a flow rate

(Q) through a pump.

parameter called the manometric pressure and it is given (see also Fig. 7.4) as

ρm ( Vp2 − Vs2 )

Pman = Pp − Ps + ρm g ( h p + h s ) + (7.3)

2

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.5

Pp absolute pressure at the discharge outlet of a pump [Pa]

Ps absolute pressure at the suction inlet of a pump [Pa]

hp vertical distance between the pump axis and

the discharge outlet of a pump [m]

hs vertical distance between the pump axis and

the suction inlet of a pump [m]

Vp mean mixture velocity at the discharge outlet of a pump [m/s]

Vs mean mixture velocity at the suction inlet of a pump [m/s]

ρm density of pumped medium [kg/m3]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2].

Vp

Pp

hp

hs Ps

Vs

Figure 7.4. Conditions at inlet and outlet of a pump.

Pump characteristic curves give Hman-Q, Wout -Q (Wout is pump output power) and

η-Q (η is pump efficiency) relationships for certain constant speed n [rpm].

Q m, n1 n H man, n1 n1

2 Wout, n1 n1 3 ηf , n1

= 1, = , = , =1

Q m, n 2 n 2 H man, n 2 n 2 Wout, n 2 n 2 ηf , n 2

enable to produce the pump curves for different constant speeds, n, of the pump (for

more details see Vlasblom’s lecture notes referred in Chapter 11). An application of

the affinity laws is shown in Case study 7 at the end of this chapter (Fig. C7.2).

7.6 CHAPTER 7

7.2.2 Different regions of pump operation (an interaction between pump and

drive)

- the constant speed or

- the constant torque

(for details see Vlasblom’s lecture notes referred in Chapter 11). This affects a shape

of an Hman-Q curve (see Fig. 7.5).

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.7

0.5-m-impeller pump connected with a 162 kW MAN diesel engine.

Speed: 1000 rpm. Pumped material: 0.2 – 0.5 mm sand.

(Data from Laboratory of Dredging Technology, TU Delft).

7.8 CHAPTER 7

Solid particles of a pumped mixture diminish the efficiency of a dredge pump (see

Fig. 7.6). The ratio of pump efficiencies when pumping mixture or water fc = ηm/ηf

is also a measure of manometric pressure reduction and output power reduction

Pman, m ρ m Win, m ρ m Wout, m ρ m ηm

= fc , = , = fc , = fc (7.4).

Pman,f ρf Win,f ρf Wout,f ρf ηf

Figure 7.7. Parameter fc giving reduction of the pump performance due to presence

of sand/gravel particles in pumped liquid according to Eq. 7.5a.

The parameter fc for sand and gravel mixtures is according to Stepanoff (1965)

related to the particle size, d50, and delivered concentration, Cvd, of solids in

transported mixture by

In this equation d50 is in [mm] and Cvd in [-]. Reduction of pump efficiency and

manometric head increases with a particle size and solids concentration. The

reduction is relatively small for fine sand but it is very significant if mixtures of

coarse sand or gravel are pumped (see Fig. 7.7).

The original Stepanoff equation (Eq. 7.5a) does not consider the effect of an impeller

size. However, this effect may be of significant importance. The revised Stepanoff

equation (e.g. Miedema, 1999) including the impeller diameter Dimpel is

fc = 1 − (7.5b).

D impel

In a pump-pipeline system the manometric pressure (or manometric head) of a dredge

pump is required to overcome the total head loss in mixture transported in a pipeline

connected to a dredge pump. The total head loss is composed of

- the major and minor losses due to flow friction in a suction pipeline,

- the loss due to the change in elevation of a suction pipeline,

- the major and minor losses due to flow friction in a discharge pipeline,

- the loss due to the change in elevation of a discharge pipeline,

- the losses due to mixture acceleration in a pipeline.

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.9

The Hman-Q curve of a pipeline gives an amount of energy that the pipeline requires

maintaining a certain flow rate in a pump-pipeline system.

The required amount of mechanical energy is equal to the sum of the energy

dissipated due to friction in a flow of mixture through a pipeline and the potential

energy delivered to (or lost in) mixture to reach a pipeline outlet if this is at a higher

(or lower) geodetic level than a pipeline inlet.

A head lost due to flow of mixture in a pipeline is regarded as sum of major losses

due to internal friction in flow of mixture through straight pipeline sections and minor

losses due to flow friction caused by pipeline fittings.

A determination of the frictional head loss for flow of water or mixture in straight

pipelines was a subject to discussion in Chapters 1, 4 and 5. The frictional head loss

in water flow is determined using the Darcy-Weisbach equation (Chapter 1). This

gives a parabolic H-Q curve (called a pipeline-resistance curve) described by the

equation

2 2

λ L Vf λ L Qf

H major, f = f = f (7.6).

D 2g D 2 gA2

λf flow friction coefficient [-]

L length of a pipe [m]

D diameter of a pipe [m]

Vf mean mixture velocity in a pipe [m/s]

Qf mixture flow rate through a pipe [m3/s]

A area of a pipe cross section [m2]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2].

However, they are models available that are capable of predicting the resistance

curves for a various mixtures flowing in a pipeline (see Chapters 4 and 5). The

models predict the hydraulic gradient Im and this is interpreted as the head lost along

a pipeline of a length L using

Im hydraulic gradient in mixture flow according to

a suitable model [-]

L length of a pipe [m].

7.10 CHAPTER 7

Fittings as bends, joint balls, expansions and contractions of a discharge area, valves

and measuring instruments act as obstructions to the flow. The pipeline inlet and

outlet are also sources of local losses. Obstructions cause flow separation and an

induced mixing process in the separated zones dissipates mechanical energy. This

energy dissipation is additional to that in flow through straight pipeline sections. A

portion of energy dissipated due to a presence of fittings is usually considerably

smaller than frictional losses in straight pipes. In long dredging pipelines behind a

dredge the minor losses might be even considered negligible in comparison with

straight-pipe losses.

The minor losses for water flow obey a quadratic relationship between local head loss

and mean velocity through a fitting

Vf2

H min or ,f = ξ (7.8)

2g

ξ minor loss coefficient [-].

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.11

Values of the coefficient ξ vary between zero and one for different fittings (e.g. Fig.

7.8). Experimentally determined values for ξ are available for water flow through

various fittings and various fitting configurations in the literature.

particularly for stratified flows. In a dredging practice a simple assumption is often

applied that mixture density alone sufficiently represents an effect of solids on the

minor loss so that

Vf2 ρm

H min or ,m = ξ (7.9).

2 g ρf

This might be a suitable approach for fully-suspended flows in which slurry density

might directly influence frictional losses through wall shear stresses. In stratified

flows, however, an induced local turbulence of a carrying liquid might take a portion

of particles from a bed to suspension and reduce frictional losses in a pipeline section

of a certain length behind a fitting. This effect must be taken into account. If no extra

suspension is assumed due to flow disturbances (in flow of coarse particles), an

energy dissipation takes place through small turbulent eddies of a carrying liquid that

decay to the viscosity of the carrier. The carrier viscosity is not affected by a presence

of coarse solid particles. Therefore the value of a minor head should not be influenced

either. Thus Eq. 7.9 might overestimate minor losses in stratified flows. However,

very little is known about an effect of solids on the minor losses in pipelines yet. It is

an interesting subject to further investigation.

The total frictional head loss is a sum of head losses due to friction in a straight

pipeline sections and in fittings mounted to a pipeline

A total frictional pressure drop over a pipeline of the length L is given for a water

flow by the equation

L 1

∆Ptotalloss,f = λ f + ξ ρ f Vf2 (7.11)

D 2

1 2

∆Ptotalloss, m = I mρf gL + ξ ρmVm (7.12).

2

A development of the total frictional pressure drop under the changing mean velocity

in a pipeline is given schematically in Fig. 7.9.

7.12 CHAPTER 7

A geodetic head (called also static head) was discussed in detail in Chapter 6

concerning inclined flows,

∆h elevation change over a pipeline; difference in

geodetic height between pipeline inlet and outlet [m]

Sm relative density of mixture [-].

point of a pump H-Q curve and a pipeline H-Q curve (Fig. 7.10). The cross point

gives the velocity at which a balance is found between the energy provided to a

system by a pump and the energy required to overcome a flow resistance in a pipeline

and a change in a geodetic height between the pipeline inlet and outlet.

Practically this means that if water is pumped through a pipeline of certain geometry

(given by diameter, length, elevation and a number of fittings) the rpm installed on a

pump determines directly the velocity of water in a pipeline. An increase in the rpm

(i.e. a step to an another pump H-Q curve of constant rpm) increases the water

velocity because a new working point (Dutch: werkpunt) is found on a pipeline

resistance curve.

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.13

(schematic).

The same rules are valid for mixture pumping if flow conditions are steady, i.e.

mixture density and size of transported solids do not change in time.

other parameters (as pump rpm and size of transported solids) are constant, this

density fluctuation might produce a fluctuation of the mean mixture velocity in a

pipeline. The increasing density of mixture in a pipeline is a source of increasing flow

resistance. Thus a balance between a provided energy head (that is constant if rpm of

a pump does not change) and a required energy head (that increases with mixture

density in a pipeline) is found at lower velocity. The velocity increases again if mean

mixture density gradually drops in a pipeline due to lower density of mixture

generated in a pipeline inlet.

If a pipeline resistance is given by just one H-Q curve of a pipeline (a pipeline lay out,

properties of soil and density of transported mixture are constant in time) there is just

one working point at which an installation of a pipeline and a pump at a constant

speed operates. If pipeline resistance changes (usually due to fluctuating mixture

density in a pipeline) an installation operates within a working range (Dutch:

werkgebied) instead of at a working point (Fig. 7.11).

7.14 CHAPTER 7

(schematic).

A mixture density fluctuates with a high frequency and amplitude within a dredging

pipeline, particularly if a discharge pipeline is connected with a cutter suction dredge

(see Fig. 7.12).

a 500 meter long discharge pipeline connected with a trailing

suction hopper dredge (TSHD) and a cutter suction dredge (CSD)

(after v.d. Berg, 1998).

position of a working point of a pump-pipeline installation is influenced by the mean

mixture density in an entire pipeline rather than by local density fluctuation in a

pump.

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.15

pipe that is considerably longer than a suction pipe. A dredging operation is

monitored from the beginning to the end of a transportation cycle. The short-time

fluctuations of the density of transported mixture can be neglected. The following

stages of a pump-pipeline operation are of importance:

1. the beginning of a cycle: only water flows through the suction pipe and the

discharge pipe

2. the beginning of a soil excavation process: the suction pipe and the pump are

filled with mixture, the discharge pipe is still filled with water only

3. the mixture transportation: both the suction and the discharge pipes are filled with

mixture

4. the end of a cycle: the suction pipe and the pump are filled with water, the

discharge pipe is filled with mixture.

If a pump operates within a range of the constant speed during an entire transportation

cycle a position of a working point varies for the four different stages (described

above) in a way displayed on Fig. 7.13.

Figure 7.13. Working range within a constant speed region of a dredge pump.

An area defined by points 1,2,3 and 4 on Fig. 7.13 gives the working range.

7.16 CHAPTER 7

that for a pump operating in a constant-speed regime (compare Figs. 7.13 and 7.14).

Figure 7.14. Working range within a constant torque region of a dredge pump.

7.5.3 Pump operation within a range around the nominal torque point

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.17

that for pumps operating either in the constant-speed regime or in the constant-torque

regime (Fig. 7.15).

Let’s compare operations of a certain installation (pumping only water for this

particular example) if a pipeline length changes and other parameters remain constant

(Fig. 7.16). The resistance curve R2 is for a pipeline of an original length, R1 for a

longer pipeline and R3 for a shorter pipeline.

The Fig. 7.16 shows that pumping through a longer pipeline (R1) is associated with

the drop in the output power than pumping through a pipeline of an original length

(R2) if operation realizes within a constant-speed region of a pump. However, a

shortening of the pipeline (R3) can lead to similar drop in the output power the

working point shifts to the constant torque line. In the constant-torque regime the

engine speed decreases in order to avoid overloading of the motor.

(Legend: R1 longer pipe, R2 original length, R3 shorter pipe)

7.18 CHAPTER 7

CONTINUOUSLY FLUCTUATING DENSITY OF MIXTURE

mixture passing through the pump (Figs. 7.17, 7.18). Thus the manometric head

provided by the pump fluctuates in time as fluctuates the mixture density. The

variation in the manometric head should lead to variation in mixture velocity in a

pipeline connected with a pump. However, an effect of the discharge pressure

fluctuation on the flow conditions in a discharge pipeline depends on a length of the

pipeline. At each moment a working point of a pump-pipeline installation is

determined by the mean flow conditions (average mixture density, see Fig. 7.17) in an

entire pipeline rather than by local flow conditions in a pump.

Figure. 7.17. Immediate slurry density in a pump (Ja), immediate pressure at the

beginning (Ja) and at the end (Du) of a pipeline section (Ja-Du).

Average mixture density and pressure drop in the pipeline section (Ja-Du) [++++].

Figure. 7.18. Effect of mixture density fluctuation on torque and speed of a booster

pump (Du) (after Matousek, 1997).

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.19

small changes in a mean density of mixture over an entire pipeline length (see Fig.

7.18, 7.19 or 7.12) makes a prediction and a control of processes in a dredging

installation insecure. This is particularly the case if more pumps are installed in series

in a transportation system.

DENSITY OF MIXTURE AND MEAN PARTICLE SIZE IN A

PIPELINE

under the condition of changing mean mixture density (marked here as γgem [that is

ρm]) and particle size (normaal materiaal/grover materiaal). The system operates

within a region of a constant torque of a pump drive. The working-point variation is

plotted in Hman [mwc, meter water column] versus Q [litre/second] co-ordinates.

Figure 7.19. Variation of working point under various mixture flow conditions in a

pump-pipeline system.

The flow rate through a system drops if mixture density or particle size of transported

solids increases in a system.

7.20 CHAPTER 7

POINT OF A SYSTEM

If a pipeline of a pump-pipeline system becomes very short the working point of the

system reaches the smoke limit of a diesel drive and the drive collapses. This can be

avoided by replacing the impeller of a pump if a pipeline becomes short. The use of a

smaller impeller or of an impeller with fewer blades causes a shift (from A to B in

Figs. 7.21 and 7.21) of a working point to a position far above the smoke-limit point.

Figure 7.20. Effect of a use of smaller impeller in a system with a shorter pipeline.

Figure 7.21. Effect of a use of impeller with fewer blades in a system with

a shorter pipeline.

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.21

7.9 REFERENCES

van den Berg, C.H. (1998). Pipelines as Transportation Systems. European Mining

Course Proceedings, MTI.

Matousek, V. (1997). Flow Mechanism of Sand-Water Mixtures in Pipelines. Delft

University Press.

Miedema, S.A. (1999). Considerations on limits of dredging processes. Proc. WEDA

19th Technical Conference and 31st Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, Louisville,

Kentucky, pp. 233-54.

Stepanoff, A.J. (1965). Pumps and Blowers, Two-Phase Flow: Selected Advanced

Topics. J.Wiley & Sons, Inc.

van den Berg, C.H. (1998). Pipelines as Transportation Systems. European Mining

Course Proceedings, MTI.

de Bree, S.E.M. (1977). Centrifugaal Baggerpompen. IHC Holland.

7.22 CHAPTER 7

A deep dredge has a centrifugal pump on board. The heart of the pump is on the same

geodetic height as the water level. The suction and the discharge pipes are mounted to

the pump at the pump-heard level. The suction pipe of the dredge is vertical and the

discharge pipe is horizontal. Both pipes have a diameter 500 mm. The dredge pump

pumps the 0.2-mm sand from the bottom of the waterway that is 7 meter below the

water level (thus the dredging depth is 7 meter). The density of a pumped sand-water

mixture is 1400 kg/m3. The discharge pipe is 750 meter long. The pump-pipeline

installation is supposed to keep the production at 700 cubic meter of sand per hour.

1. Determine the manometric pressure (manometric head) that the pump must deliver

to ensure the required production of the sand for mixture of the density 1400

kg/m3.

2. What is the equivalent manometric pressure of the pump for water service at the

same flow rate? This enables to place the working point to the eventually available

pump characteristic H-Q for water service.

3. Assume that the plotting of the working point into the H-Q nomograph of the

pump revealed that the working point corresponds with the pump speed 400 rpm

(the point lays on the H-Q curve for 400 rpm). The maximum speed with which an

engine can provide the pump is 450 rpm. What would be the flow rate and the

manometric pressure if the maximum speed would be installed?

For the calculation consider the friction coefficient of the suction/discharge pipes λ =

0.011. The following minor losses must be considered:

- the inlet to the suction pipe: ξ = 0.5,

- the 90-deg bend in suction pipe: ξ = 0.1,

- several flanges in suction/discharge pipes: ξ = 0.3,

- the outlet from the discharge pipe: ξ = 1.0.

Additional inputs:

ρf = 1000 kg/m3

ρs = 2650 kg/m3

Inputs:

∆hdepth = 7 m

Lhor = 750 m

D = 500 mm

d50 = 0.20 mm

ρs = 2650 kg/m3, ρf = 1000 kg/m3, ρm = 1400 kg/m3

λf = 0.011, Σξ = 1.9

Qs = 700 m3/hour = 0.194 m3/s

losses in a pipeline is considered to be represented by a constant value of the

frictional coefficient λf, i.e. independent of variation of mean mixture

velocity.

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.23

ρ − ρf 1400 − 1000

C vd = m = = 0.2424 [-],

ρs − ρf 2650 − 1000

Qs 0.1944

Qm = = = 0.802 m3/s,

C vd 0.2424

4Qm 4 x 0.802

Vm = = = 4.085 m/s.

πD2 3.1416 x 0.52

the pressure difference among the inlet and the outlet of the installation:

Pinlet – Poutlet and the pressure drop over the total length of a pipeline:

∆Pstatic + ∆Ptotloss,m - Pman.

∆Pstatic is the static pressure differential between the inlet and the outlet;

∆Ptotloss,m is the total pressure loss (both major and minor) over the length of a pipe;

Pman is the manometric pressure of the pump.

Pinlet - Poutlet = ∆Pstatic + ∆Ptotloss,m - Pman,

∆Pstatic = ∆hdepth.ρm.g,

Poutlet = Patm.

2

Vm 4.092

Minor loss: ∆Pminor,m = Σξ ρm = 1.9 1400 = 22.2 kPa.

2 2

Major loss:

7.24 CHAPTER 7

∆h depth Vm2 7 4.092

∆Pvert,f = λ f ρf = 0.011 1000 = 12.9 kPa

D 2 0.5 2

horizontal pipe: the Wilson model: ∆Phor,m = fn(d, D, Cvd, ρs, ρf, ∆Ppipe,f) [Pa].

0.45

Ss − 1

V50 ≈ 3.93(d 50 ) 0.35

= 3.93(0.20)0.351 = 2.24 m/s.

1.65

−1.7 −1.7

Im − If V Im − If 4.09

= 0.22 m => = 0.22 = 0.079 [-].

C vd ( Ss − 1) V50 C vd ( Ss − 1) 2.24

∆Phor,f = λ f ρf = 0.011 1000 = 138.0 kPa

D 2 0.5 2

∆Phor,m = 0.079 x 0.2424 x (1.65-1) x 9.81x1000 x 750 + 138 000 = 229.6 kPa.

Thus

Pman = ∆hdepth(ρm - ρf)g+∆Ptotloss,m = 7(1400-1000)9.81+269800 = 297.3 kPa.

The manometric pressure that the pump must deliver to maintain the required

production is 297 kPa, i.e. 3 bar. The pump provides this manometric pressure at the

flow rate of mixture 0.802 m3/s.

Pman,m 297

Pman,f = = ,

ρm 1400

1 − C vd ( 0.8 + 0.6 log d 50 ) 1 − 0.2424 ( 0.8 + 0.6 log 0.2 )

ρf 1000

Pman,f = 233.7 kPa.

Pman,f = 233.7 kPa at Qm = 0.802 m3/s.

Further, it is assumed that this working point holds for pump operation at 400 rpm.

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.25

2

n1 Pman,n1 n1

Qm,n1

The affinity laws: = , = .

Qm,n2 n 2 Pman,n2 n 2

0.802 400 3

= , thus Qm,450 = 0.902 m /s.

Qm,450 450

2

233.7 400

= , thus Pman,f,450 = 295.7 kPa.

Pman,f ,n2 450

Pman,f = 295.7 kPa at Qm = 0.902 m3/s.

ρm

Pman,m,450 = Pman,f ,450 1 − C vd ( 0.8 + 0.6 log d 50 ) =

ρf

1400

= 295.7 1 − 0.24 ( 0.8 + 0.6 log 0.2 ) = 375.8 kPa.

1000

Pman,m = 375.8 kPa at Qm = 0.902 m3/s.

7.26 CHAPTER 7

0.30 mm, ρs = 2650 kg/m3) and lake water (ρf = 1000 kg/m3) from a dredging pit to a

construction site. The installation is composed of an on-board pump (a centrifugal

pump IHC 125-27.5-50, see pump characteristics in Tab. C7.1) and a pipeline of the

diameter 500 millimetre. Fig. C7.0 shows a lay-out of the installation. The dredging

depth is 15 meter. A suction pipeline is inclined under the angle 45 deg (the pipe

length 21 meter) and horizontal (a 2 meter long section in front of a pump suction

mouth). The centre of the pump is at the water-level position. A discharge pipeline is

horizontal and its geodetic position is considered identical with a water level along its

entire length (an elevation of a discharge pipeline is zero). The discharge pipeline is

composed of a 200 meter long floating pipeline and of an on-shore pipeline of a

variable length. During a dredging operation the average density of pumped mixture

is 1412.5 kg/ m3.

The dredged material has to be delivered to a construction site of a quite large area.

Therefore a length of a discharge pipeline will vary during an operation. Determine

the maximum length of a pipeline attainable when pumping mixture of the above

required density. What will be the flow rate through a pipeline of a maximum length?

2m 200 m variable

15 m

45

Figure C7.0. Schematic lay-out of a pump-pipeline system.

INPUTS:

∆hdepth = 15 m

ω = 45 deg

Lhoriz,suction = 2 m

Lhoriz,floating = 200 m

Lhoriz,shore = variable

D = 500 mm

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.27

d50 = 0.30 mm

ρs = 2650 kg/m3, ρf = 1000 kg/m3, ρm = 1412.5 kg/m3 (i.e. Cvd = 0.25)

λf = 0.011

losses in a pipeline is considered to be represented by a constant value of the

frictional coefficient λf , i.e. independent of variation of mean mixture

velocity.

the 5-blades impeller of a diameter 1250 mm and a breadth 275 mm

the diameter of a pump inlet: 500 mm

Characteristics of the pump IHC 125-27.5-50 if pumping water at the maximum speed

(nmax = 475 rpm)

[m3/s] nmax [kPa] [%]

0.45 679.9 55.7

0.50 676.7 58.8

0.55 673.4 61.6

0.60 670.1 64.0

0.65 666.7 66.1

0.70 663.2 67.9

0.75 659.7 69.5

0.80 656.1 70.9

0.85 652.5 72.1

0.90 648.8 73.1

0.95 645.0 74.0

1.00 641.0 74.8

1.05 637.0 75.4

1.10 632.9 76.0

1.15 628.7 76.5

1.20 624.4 76.9

1.25 619.9 77.2

1.30 615.3 77.5

1.35 610.6 77.7

1.40 605.7 77.9

1.45 600.7 78.0

1.50 595.6 78.1

Drive parameter:

The maximum power available at the pump shaft is 1000 kW (at the speed 475 rpm).

7.28 CHAPTER 7

CALCULATION:

a. Pump characteristics

The Pman,f,nmax–Qm,nmax curve of the IHC pump pumping water at the maximum

speed 475 rpm is a curve fitting the points given in Tab. C7.1. This constant-speed

curve can be approximated (correlation coefficient Rxy = 1.00, Fig. C7.1) by the

equation

Pman,f , n max = 702.5 − 42.44Q m, n max − 19.06Q 2m, n max [kPa] (C7.1).

speed is a curve fitting the points given in Tab. C7.1. This curve can be approximated

(correlation coefficient Rxy = 1.00, Fig. C7.1) by the equation

ηf , n max = 1.953Q m, n max − 2.0Q 2m, n max + 0.989Q3m , n max − 0.195Q 4m, n max [-]

(C7.2).

Remark: Theoretically, the 3rd order polynomial is sufficient to relate the pump

efficiency with the flow rate.

at the maximum speed 475 rpm.

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.29

Q m, n max n Pman,f , n max n max 2 η f , n max

= max , = , =1

Qm n Pman,f n ηf

enable to produce the constant-speed curves (Pman,f–Qm) and efficiency curves

(ηf–Qm) for different constant speeds, n, of the pump (see Fig. C7.2 for speeds 475,

450, 425, 400 and 375 rpm).

different constant values of pump speed.

(An application of affinity laws).

7.30 CHAPTER 7

The power delivered by a drive to the pump is limited by a value Win,max = 1000

kW at the maximum speed nmax = 475 rpm. This maximum-power value is reached

at the flow rate Qm = 1.244 m3/s (the Qm value is calculated using ηf =

PmanQm/Win,max combined with Eqs. C7.1 & C7.2). For higher flow rates the

diesel engine, that drives the pump, can not maintain the constant speed and the

engine operates at the constant torque. Thus the revolutions of a shaft drop if the flow

rate grows above Qm = 1.244 m3/s. The constant torque has a value equal to

60Win,max/(2πnmax) = 20 104 Nm.

The constant-torque curve of a pump-drive set is obtained from Eqs. C7.1 & C7.2 for

the condition

Q m 60 60 n2

Pman,f = Win, max where Pman,f = Pman,f , n max ,

ηf 2πn 2πn max 2

n max

Q m, n max n max η f , n max

= and =1

Qm n ηf

The condition is fulfilled for a set of [Pman,f, Qm] points (see Tab. C7.2 and Fig.

C7.3) that can be approximated (correlation coefficient Rxy = 0.9976) by the equation

when pumping water, mixture of Sm = 1.4125 respectively,

in the range of maximum speed of the pump and in

the range of constant torque of a drive.

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.31

Table C7.2:

Constant torque points for the performance of the pump-drive set pumping water at

different pump speeds:

n Qm Pman,f ηf

[rpm] [m3/s] [kPa] [-]

475 1.244 620.21 0.771

460 1.317 571.64 0.777

450 1.368 539.83 0.780

440 1.420 508.53 0.779

430 1.469 478.13 0.776

420 1.514 448.73 0.768

410 1.551 420.72 0.756

400 1.578 394.31 0.739

375 1.606 334.88 0.681

The constant-speed curve is obtained (see Eqs. 7.4 & 7.5) from

S −1

Pman, m = Pman,f S m 1 − m (0.8 + 0.6 log d50 ) [kPa],

Ss − 1

thus for d50 = 0.30 mm and Ss = 2.65

Pman, m = Pman,f Sm [1 − 0.2947(S m − 1)] [kPa] (C7.4)

and for Sm = 1.4125

Pman, m = 1.2408Pman,f [kPa].

Q m 60 60 n2

Pman,f S m = Win, max where Pman,f = Pman,f , n max ,

ηf 2πn 2πn max n 2max

Q m, n max n ηf , n max

= max and = 1.

Qm n ηf

The condition is fulfilled for a set of [Pman,m, Qm] points that can be approximated

(correlation coefficient Rxy = 1.00) for Sm = 1.4125 (see Tab. C7.3 and Fig. C7.3)

by the equation

Pman, m = 2408 − 3457Q m + 2205Q 2m − 575.4Q 3m [kPa] (C7.5)

7.32 CHAPTER 7

Table C7.3:

Constant torque points for the performance of the pump-drive set pumping mixture of

Sm = 1.4125 at different pump speeds:

n Qm Pman,m ηm

[rpm] [m3/s] [kPa] [-]

475 0.743 819.47 0.609

460 0.798 761.72 0.628

450 0.836 724.08 0.639

440 0.874 687.24 0.649

430 0.914 651.00 0.657

420 0.955 615.45 0.665

410 0.999 580.41 0.672

400 1.045 545.96 0.677

375 1.170 462.26 0.685

350 1.287 384.14 0.671

Remark:

The variable speed in the constant-torque regime of the engine can be approximated

(correlation coefficient Rxy = 0.9998) for Sm = 1.4125 (see Tab. C7.3) by the

equation

n = 723 − 396.1Q m + 83.08Q 2m [rpm]

b. Pipeline characteristics

λ V 2 0.011 Vm 2

2

If = f m = = 0.00112Vm [-],

D 2g 0.5 19.62

Q m 4Q m 4Q m

For Vm = =

2

=

2

= 5.09296Q m ,

A πD 3.1416x 0.5

thus

If = 0.02905 Q 2m [-] (C7.6).

Mixture: Wilson model for heterogeneous flow in horizontal pipe (Eqs. 4.16 - 17):

M = 1.7

0.45

0.35 Ss − 1

V50 ≈ 3.93(d 50 ) = 3.93(0.30) 0.351 = 2.58 m/s.

1.65

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.33

−M −1.7

I m − If V I −I V

= 0.22 m => m f = 0.22 m

(S m − 1) V50 (Sm − 1) 2.58

Im = If + 0.06924(Sm - 1) Q −

m

1.7 [-] (C7.7),

for Sm = 1.4125

−1.7

Im = If + 0.02856 Q m [-].

Mixture: Wilson model for heterogeneous flow in inclined pipe (Eq. 6.6):

M = 1.7

γ = 0.5

ω = 45 deg

I mω − I f

I m − If

Imω = If + 0.52668(Im - If) [-] (C7.8).

Pressure drop, ∆pmajor,m [Pa], lost in a pipeline section of the length Lsection:

∆pmajor,m = Imρf gLsection.

Horizontal pipeline:

∆pmajor,hor,m = (Eq. C7.6) + (Eq. C7.7)

∆pmajor,hor,m = 0.02905 Q 2m gLhoriz + 0.06924(Sm - 1) Q −1.7

m gLhoriz

[kPa],

∆pmajor,hor,m = 0.28498 Q 2m Lhoriz + 0.67924(Sm - 1) Q −1.7

m Lhoriz [kPa]

(C7.9),

for Sm = 1.4125

∆pmajor,hor,m = 0.28498 Q 2m Lhoriz + 0.28019 Q −1.7

m Lhoriz [kPa],

∆h depth

Inclined pipeline: Lincl =

sin ω

∆pmajor,incl,m = (Eq. C7.6) + (Eq. C7.8)

∆pmajor,incl,m = 0.02905 Q 2m gLincl + 0.52668[0.06924(Sm - 1) Q − 1.7

m ]gLincl

[kPa],

∆ h depth −1.7 ∆ h depth

∆pmajor,incl,m = 0.28498 Q 2m + 0.35774(Sm - 1) Q m

sin ω sin ω

[kPa] (C7.10),

7.34 CHAPTER 7

for Sm = 1.4125

∆h depth 1.7 ∆h depth [kPa].

∆pmajor,incl,m = 0.28498 Q 2m + 0.14756 Q −

m

sin ω sin ω

Suction pipeline: pipe entrance: ξ = 0.4

all bends, joints etc.: ξ = 0.3

Floating pipeline: all bends, joints etc.: ξ = 0.8

Shore pipeline: all bends, joints etc.: ξ = 1.5

Total value: Σξ = 3.0

Remark:

The coefficient of minor losses for a shore pipeline is further considered constant if

the length of a pipeline varies.

V2 ρ V2

H min or, m = Σξ m m [mwc], i.e. ∆p min or, m = Σξ m ρ m [Pa].

2g ρ f 2

V2

∆pminor,m = Σξ m S m = 12.97 Σξ Sm Q 2m [kPa] (C7.11),

2

∆pminor,m = 2.12 Vm2 = 54.96 Q 2 [kPa].

m

∆pstatic,m = ρmg ∆hdepth - ρfg ∆hdepth [Pa],

for Sm = 1.4125

∆pstatic,m = 0.4125 x 9.81 x ∆hdepth = 4.05 ∆hdepth [kPa].

∆ptotalpipe,m = ∆pmajor,hor,m + ∆pmajor,incl,m + ∆pminor,m + ∆pstatic,m [kPa]

PUMP AND PIPELINE CHARACTERISTICS 7.35

m (Sm - 1)(0.67924Lhoriz +

0.35774Lincl) + 12.97 Σξ Sm Q 2m + 9.81 (Sm - 1)∆hdepth [kPa]

∆h depth

∆ptotalpipe,m = 0.28498 Q 2m (Lhoriz+ ) + Q−1.7

m (Sm - 1)(0.67924Lhoriz +

sin ω

∆h depth

0.35774 ) + 12.97 Σξ Sm Q 2m + 9.81 (Sm - 1)∆hdepth [kPa]

sin ω

(C7.13).

Balance:

Pman,m = ∆ptotalpipe,m

(Eq. C7.4) (Eq. C7.13)

or

(Eq. C7.5)

OUTPUTS:

For Sm = 1.4125: Lmax = 1150 m at Qm = 0.756 m3/s.

For Sm = 1.4125: Lmax = 975 m at Qm = 0.897 m3/s.

Table C7.4:

Flow rates at different lengths of an entire pipeline

(see also Fig. C7.4):

Sm L Qm n

[-] [m] [m3/s] [rpm]

1.4125 400 1.245 359

1.4125 500 1.181 371

1.4125 600 1.121 383

1.4125 700 1.062 396

1.4125 800 1.004 409

1.4125 900 0.944 423

1.4125 950 0.913 431

1.4125 975 0.897 435

1.4125 1000 0.881 439

1.4125 1150 0.756 471

7.36 CHAPTER 7

pipeline. Pump at max. speed (475 rpm) or max. torque.

Pumped mixture of constant density 1412.5 kg/m3.

Dredging depth: 15 m, pipeline diameter: 500 mm.

8.

OPERATION LIMITS OF

A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM

PRESSURE IN A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM

A lay out of a dredging pipeline, properties of transported solids and required mixture

flow conditions (mixture velocity and density in a pipeline) determine a manometric

pressure that must be produced by a dredge pump. The manometric pressure required

to overcome the dredging-pipeline resistance is a pressure differential over a dredge

pump, i.e. a differential between the pressure at the pump outlet to a discharge pipe

and the pressure at the inlet to a pump connected with a suction pipe. If no geodetic

height is assumed between the pump inlet and outlet

ρ m Vp2 − Vs2

Pman = Pp − Ps + (8.1).

2

For flow of mixture of density ρm the absolute suction pressure at a pump inlet (Fig.

8.1)

ρf Vs2

Ps = Patm + ρfghs,pipe - ρmg(hs,pipe – hs,pump) - ρfgHtotloss,s,m - (8.2).

2

Patm absolute atmospheric pressure [Pa]

hs,pipe depth of a suction pipe inlet below a water level [m]

hs,pump depth of a pump inlet below a water level [m]

Htotloss,s,m total head lost due to friction in a suction pipe [m]

Vs mean velocity of mixture in a suction pipe [m/s]

ρf Vp2

Pp = ρmg(hd,pipe+hd,pump) + ρfgHtotloss,d,m + Patm - (8.3)

2

hd,pipe vertical distance between a water level and

a discharge pipe outlet [m]

hd,pump depth of a pump outlet below a water level [m]

Htotloss,d,m total head lost due to friction in a discharge pipe [m]

Patm absolute atmospheric pressure [Pa].

Vp mean velocity of mixture in a discharge pipe [m/s]

8.1

8.2 CHAPTER 8

Patm hd,pipe

hs,pump

Ps hd,pump

hs,pipe

Pump-pipeline system:

mean velocity V

mixture density rm

The Eqs. 8.1 – 8.3 give a relationship between the manometric pressure delivered by a

pump to mixture and the velocity of mixture in a pipeline connected to the pump. This

relationship is further dependent on solids size and concentration in a pipeline and to

a pipeline lay-out. The relationship is used to optimise the production and the energy

consumption of a pump-pipeline system during a dredging operation. A suitable range

of a system operation is confined by limits arising from processes occurring in a

dredging pipeline. An entire system does not work successfully if a dredge pump

operates outside the operational limits.

within a certain range suitable for a safe and economic operation. The flow-rate range

has a lower limit given by the deposition-limit velocity and an upper limit given by

the velocity at which pump starts to cavitate.

VELOCITY AT THE INITIAL CAVITATION OF A PUMP

cavitation is a condition in a liquid in which the local pressure drops below the vapour

pressure and vapour bubbles (cavities) are produced. Cavitation decreases

considerably a pump efficiency and might be a reason of a damage of pump

components (pitting and corrosion). A cavitating pump provides lower manometric

head and thus the lower production of solids by a dredging pipeline. The pump

cavitation must be avoided during a pump-pipeline system operation.

OPERATION LIMITS OF A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 8.3

A pump begins to cavitate, i.e. cavitation occurs at the suction inlet to a pump

impeller, if the Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) available to prevent pump

cavitation is smaller than NPSH required by a pump to avoid cavitation.

(NPSH)r < (NPSH)a

in which:

The available (NPSH)a is a total available energy head over the vapour pressure at

the suction inlet to the pump during an operation at velocity Vm in a suction pipe of a

certain geometry and configuration.

( NPSH )a = + = + h s,pipe − H totloss,s,m − Sm ( h s,pipe − h s,pump )

ρf g 2g ρf g

Pvapour

−

ρf g

(8.4)

Pvapour vapour pressure [Pa].

The vapour pressure of a pumped medium limits the minimum absolute pressure that

can be theoretically reached at the suction side of a pump. At this pressure the liquid

(water) is transformed into steam. The steam bubbles develop in a water flow, they

enter the pump and deteriorate its efficiency. The vapour pressure is dependent on the

temperature of a medium. For water the typical values are:

10 1.18

20 2.27

The lay-out of a suction pipe and flow conditions in a pipe determine the absolute

suction pressure available at the pump inlet.

8.4 CHAPTER 8

Figure 8.2. Net Positive Suction Head Available on a suction inlet of a pump.

The required (NPSH)r is a minimum energy head a certain pump requires to prevent

cavitation at its inlet. This is a head value at the incipient cavitation. The (NPSH)r-Q

curve is a characteristic specific for each pump and it must be determined by tests. A

design (dimensions, shape) and an operation (specific speed) of a pump decide the

absolute suction pressure at the initial cavitation.

(NPSH )r = + (8.5)

ρf g 2g

Ps,min minimum absolute suction pressure without cavitation [Pa]

Pvapour vapour pressure [Pa].

At the incipient cavitation the absolute suction pressure Ps,min at the pump inlet is

equal to the difference between the atmospheric pressure Patm and the so-called

“decisive vacuum” (Dutch: maatgevend vacuum) (Vac)d, i.e.

The decisive vacuum is the relative suction pressure that represents a threshold

criterion for a non-cavitational operation of a certain pump.

If a pump starts to cavitate it looses its manometric head. The (Vac)d is defined as the

vacuum at the flow rate for which the manometric head is 95 per cent of the

non-cavitational manometric head at the same pump speed (r.p.m.). The (Vac)d is

OPERATION LIMITS OF A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 8.5

related with the flow rate in a “decisive-vacuum curve” in a H-Q plot (see Fig. 8.3).

The decisive-vacuum curve is determined by a cavitation test.

300

5%

manometrische druk (kPa)

250

200

vernauwde

zuigleidingen

150

vacuüm

maatgevend vacuüm

75

manometrische druk (kPa)

50

vernauwde onvernauwde

25

zuigleidingen zuigleiding

0 1 2 3

debiet (m3/s)

Figure 8.3. Decisive vacuum (Dutch: Maatgevend vacuum) curve of a pump.

A substitution of Eq. (8.5) to Eq. (8.6) and rearranging gives a relationship between

the (NPSH)r and the decisive vacuum (Vac)d

= −( NPSH ) r + − + (8.7).

ρf g ρf g ρf g 2g

As follows from the relationship between the (HPSH)r and the decisive vacuum

(Vac)d a cavitation test gives also the (NPSH)r-Q curve, i.e. the minimum NPSH as a

function of capacity Q.

8.6 CHAPTER 8

An upper limit for the working range of a pump-pipeline system is given by points of

intersection of a pump decisive vacuum curve and a set of vacuum curves of a suction

pipe for various mixture densities. The vacuum curve of a suction pipe summarises

the friction, geodetic and acceleration heads over an entire length of the suction pipe

to the total vacuum head and relates this head with a pump capacity (see Fig. 8.4a,

8.4b and 8.4c). The total vacuum head, Vac/ρfg, is a difference between the total

absolute suction pressure head and the atmospheric pressure head

V2

Vac Patm − Ps

ρf g

=

ρf g

( )

= S m h s, pipe − h s, pump − h s, pipe + H totloss,s, m + s

2g

(8.8)

ρf density of liquid [kg/m3]

g gravitational acceleration [m/s2]

Ps absolute suction pressure at a pump inlet [Pa]

Patm absolute atmospheric pressure [Pa]

Sm relative density of mixture (ρm/ρf) [-]

hs,pipe depth of a suction pipe inlet below a water level [m]

hs,pump depth of a pump inlet below a water level [m]

Htotloss,s,m total head lost due to friction in a suction pipe [m].

Vs mean velocity of mixture in a suction pipe [m/s]

Figure 8.3a. Decisive vacuum curve and vacuum curves of a suction pipe for flow of

mixture of various densities (schematic).

OPERATION LIMITS OF A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 8.7

Figure 8.3b. Decisive vacuum curve and vacuum curves of a suction pipe transporting

mixture of various densities from the depth 9 meter (after v.d.Berg,

1998).

Figure 8.3c. Decisive vacuum curve and vacuum curves of a suction pipe transporting

mixture of various densities from the depth 18 meter

(after v.d. Berg, 1998).

Table 8.1. Points of intersection between decisive vacuum curve and vacuum curves for

different mixture densities; the intersection points determine the maximum

production of solids attainable for given mixture density in a pump-pipeline

system lifting mixture from a certain depth (see Fig. 9.1 in Chapter 9).

8.8 CHAPTER 8

maintained above a certain critical value. An analysis of the above explained

cavitational criterion leads to the following proposals:

- to reduce the static head that the pump must overcome, i.e. to put the pump as low

as possible (see par. 8.5)

- to reduce the head lost due to flow friction, i.e. to minimise local losses and a

suction pipe length

- to increase pressure by using a larger pipe at the suction inlet of a pump (see par.

8.4).

During an operation (if the position of a pump and a geometry of a suction pipeline

can not be changed) friction losses can be reduced

- either by diminishing the mean mixture velocity in a pipeline

- or by reducing the mixture density in a suction pipeline.

VELOCITY AT THE INITIAL STATIONARY BED IN A

PIPELINE

It was shown in the previous paragraph that high head loss due to too high velocity of

mixture in a dredging installation might cause cavitation in a dredge pump and thus a

considerable reduction of production and even a damage of a pump. On the other

hand too low velocity might cause unnecessarily high head losses due to friction too.

Furthermore the too low velocity might cause a blockage of a pipeline.

If settling mixtures are transported a portion of solids occupies a granular bed at the

bottom of a pipeline. The part of solids that occupies the bed is strongly dependent on

the mixture velocity in a pipeline. Under the increasing velocity the thickness of the

bed tends to diminish because still more particles tend to be suspended due to

increasing turbulent intensity of a carrying liquid. However, if the velocity is

decreasing instead of increasing the bed becomes thicker and at certain velocity,

called the deposition-limit velocity (or critical velocity), the first particles in the bed

stop their sliding over a pipeline wall. If velocity decreases further the entire bed

stops and, under certain circumstances, dunes might be developed at the top of a

stationary bed. The flow becomes instable and a pipeline might be blocked. This is

more likely to happen in some “critical” parts of a pipeline as are bends, particularly

those to vertical pipe sections. A danger of blockage increases if solids occupy a

considerable part of a total pipeline volume.

Even if a blockage is not likely to happen due to relatively low concentration and/or

an absence of critical pipeline parts during a dredging operation, it is worthwhile to

watch out the deposition-limit value of the mean mixture velocity in a pipeline. A

OPERATION LIMITS OF A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 8.9

presence of a stationary bed means that solids that are actually not transported occupy

a part of a pipeline. A stationary bed reduces a pipeline discharge area and so

tremendously increases the frictional losses. Frictional losses not far below the

deposition-limit velocity might be much higher than losses at even very high mixture

velocities. On the other hand, an operation at velocity only slightly above the

deposition-limit value is economic since the frictional loss at this velocity is usually

considerably lower than at the extremes of a velocity range. The effects of velocity on

the frictional losses and the variation of deposition-limit velocity under the different

mixture flow conditions were discussed to details in earlier chapters.

The deposition-limit velocity is for most dredging operations considered the lower

limit for a range of operational velocity. The boundary given by this velocity can be

plotted to the H-Q (or Im-Vm) plot as a curve connecting deposition-limit velocity

values for different solids concentrations in a mixture flow of certain material in a

pipeline of a certain diameter (see Fig. 8.5).

If the pipeline is composed of sections of different pipe sizes, the mixture flow rate

must be maintained at the level assuring a super-critical regime (Vm > Vdl) in the

largest pipe section (the section of the largest pipe diameter). Consider that in the

largest section the mixture velocity is the lowest (continuity equation) and moreover

the deposition-limit value of the mixture velocity is the highest because Vdl tends to

grow with pipe diameter.

If the solids concentration fluctuates along a pipeline, the mixture flow rate must be

maintained at the level assuring a super-critical regime in the section of an extreme

concentration. For a prediction, use the highest value of the deposition-limit velocity

from the entire range of expected solids concentrations. Vdl is sensitive to solids

8.10 CHAPTER 8

appropriate value.

If during a job a dredging pipeline is prolonged, the flow rate supplied by a dredge

pump might become insufficient to assure a super-critical regime in a pipeline. Then

two solutions must be considered:

- to pump mixture at much lower concentration; this will lead to lower frictional

losses and thus higher flow rate that might be high enough to avoid a thick

stationary bed in a pipeline

- to install a booster station; this increases a manometric head provided by pumps

and increase a flow rate.

If coarser solids must be pumped than expected when a dredging installation was laid

out, the flow rate supplied by a pump might become insufficient to assure a

super-critical regime in a pipeline. Then again the above two solutions must be

considered.

For a certain required flow rate of mixture a larger pipeline means lower mean

velocity in comparison with a smaller pipeline. This means that there is a better

chance to pump a mixture without a danger of pump cavitation if a suction pipe is

larger. Furthermore, a pipe resistance decreases with an increasing pipe diameter.

This has also a positive effect with regard to a pump cavitation limit. On the other

hand a possibility that a stationary bed will be developed in a pipeline increases with

an increasing pipeline diameter.

A suction pipe larger than a discharge pipe is installed in some dredging installations.

The diameter of a suction pipe is chosen to be of about 50 mm larger than that of a

discharge pipe if a system is designed for transportation of fast-settling mixtures

(flows of coarse or heavy particles). An operation at the suction side of a dredging

pipeline is usually limited by a pump cavitation. For a certain mixture flow rate the

velocity in a suction pipe is low and this helps to avoid cavitation. This is more

important than a presence of a stationary bed that may possibly occur in a short

suction pipe. The presence of a stationary bed is more dangerous in a long discharge

pipe and since a cavitation is very unlikely to occur in a discharge pipeline the

deposition-limit velocity limits an operation in a discharge pipeline. It is useful to

choose smaller pipe diameter (when compared to a suction pipe) to avoid the

sub-critical regime of mixture flow. A higher frictional loss and a higher wear of a

pipeline wall of course pay this.

OPERATION LIMITS OF A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 8.11

becomes shorter. A geodetic height over which a mixture has to be lifted in a suction

pipe becomes smaller. In a shorter suction pipe pressure loss due to flow friction over

a suction pipe length is lower than that in a suction pipe of an original length. A

vacuum curve for a shorter suction pipe shows lower vacuum value at a certain flow

rate for mixture of certain density. Thus a cross point between a decisive vacuum

curve and a vacuum curve for a certain mixture density is reached at higher capacity

Q (compare Fig. 8.4c and Fig. 8.6). Since the total resistance (expressed by a vacuum

curve) of a suction pipe is lower in a shorter suction pipe than in a pipe of an original

length the margin occurs between a net positive suction pressure required and

available at a pump inlet. Consequently, pipe vacuum curves of mixture density

higher than is that for an original pipe still cross the decisive vacuum curve of a

pump. The mixture of density higher than in an original pipe can be pumped before an

upper limit of a pump-pipeline operation is reached (compare Tab. 8.1 and Tab. 8.2).

This means a considerable improvement of production. Therefore a submerged pump

(a pump placed on a inclined pipe below a water level) is often used on dredging

installations.

Figure 8.6. Decisive vacuum curve and vacuum curves of a suction pipe transporting

mixture of various densities from the depth 18 meter using a pump

positioned 5 meter below the water level (after v.d. Berg, 1998).

Table 8.2. Points of intersection between decisive vacuum curve and vacuum curves for

different mixture densities as shown on Fig. 8.6; the intersection points

determine production of solids at conditions in a pump-pipeline system with

a pump 5 meter below a water level (see Fig. 9.5 in Chapter 9).

8.12 CHAPTER 8

Fig. 8.7 shows a working range of a dredge pump that pumps, with a constant pump

speed, a mixture of a constant density through a discharge pipeline of variable length.

The maximum length of the pipeline is limited by the deposition-limit velocity. If the

pipeline would be longer the pressure delivered by the pump would not be enough to

maintain the mean velocity of mixture in the discharge pipeline above the

deposition-limit threshold. The minimum length of the discharge pipeline is limited

by the decisive vacuum of a pump. If the pipeline would be shorter, the high mean

velocity would cause so high frictional pressure losses in a suction pipe that cavitation

would occur in a suction side of the pump.

langste persleiding

850

manometrische druk (kPa)

750

650

550

werkgebied

450

onderkritisch

bovenkritisch

100

maatgevend vacuüm

75

vacuüm (kPa)

50

zuigleiding-

25

karakteristiek

debiet (m 3/s)

deposition-limit (critical) velocity in a pipeline and the decisive vacuum of

the pump limits the working range.

OPERATION LIMITS OF A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 8.13

van den Berg, C.H. (1998). Pipelines as Transportation Systems. European Mining

Course Proceedings, MTI.

de Bree, S.E.M. (1977). Centrifugaal Baggerpompen. IHC Holland.

8.14 CHAPTER 8

For this Case study the same dredging installation and the same mixture flow

conditions are considered as in Case study 7.1>

A deep dredge has a centrifugal pump on board. The heart of the pump is on the same

geodetic height as the water level. The suction and the discharge pipes are mounted to

the pump at the pump-heard level. The suction pipe of the dredge is vertical and the

discharge pipe is horizontal. Both pipes have a diameter 500 mm. The dredge pump

pumps the 0.2-mm sand from the bottom of the waterway that is 7 meter below the

water level (thus the dredging depth is 7 meter). The density of a pumped sand-water

mixture is 1400 kg/m3. The discharge pipe is 750 meter long. The pump-pipeline

installation is supposed to keep the production at 700 cubic meter of sand per hour.

1. Determine whether for the above described conditions the mean velocity through

a pipeline high enough is to avoid a stationary deposit in the pipeline.

2. Determine whether for the above described conditions the pressure at the suction

mouth of the pump is high enough to avoid cavitation. The minimum pressure for

the non-cavitational operation is considered 3 x 104 Pa.

For the calculation consider the friction coefficient of the suction/discharge pipes λ =

0.011. The following minor losses must be considered:

- the inlet to the suction pipe: ξ = 0.5,

- the 90-deg bend in suction pipe: ξ = 0.1,

- the flanges in the suction pipe: ξ = 0.05,

- the flanges in the discharge pipe: ξ = 0.25,

- the outlet from the discharge pipe: ξ = 1.0.

Additional inputs:

ρf = 1000 kg/m3

ρs = 2650 kg/m3

Inputs:

∆hdepth = 7 m

Lhor = 750 m

D = 500 mm

d50 = 0.20 mm

ρs = 2650 kg/m3, ρf = 1000 kg/m3, ρm = 1400 kg/m3

λf = 0.011, Σξ = 1.9

Qs = 700 m3/hour = 0.194 m3/s

losses in a pipeline is considered to be represented by a constant value of the

frictional coefficient λf , i.e. independent of variation of mean mixture

velocity.

OPERATION LIMITS OF A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 8.15

ρ − ρf 1400 − 1000

C vd = m = = 0.2424 [-],

ρs − ρf 2650 − 1000

Q 0.1944

Qm = s = = 0.802 m3/s,

C vd 0.2424

4Qm 4 x 0.802

Vm = = = 4.085 m/s.

πD 2 3.1416 x 0.5 2

Deposition-limit velocity:

Vcrit = 3.3 m/s (the MTI nomograph, Fig. 4.6)

The actual average velocity in a horizontal pipeline behind the pump is higher than

the deposition-limit velocity. There will be no stationary deposit at the bottom of the

pipeline for velocity 4.09 m/s.

2. Comparison of the actual suction pressure at the pump with the minimum

pressure for non-cavitational operation

Vm2

Pinlet = Psuct + ∆Pstatic + ∆Ptotloss,m + ρf

2

∆Pstatic = ∆hdepth.ρm.g,

∆h depth Vm2

∆Ptotloss,m = λf + Σξsuct ρm .

D 2

∆Pstatic the static pressure differential between the inlet and the outlet of the

suction pipe;

∆Ptotloss,m the total pressure loss (both major and minor) over the length of a pipe;

Psuct the absolute pressure at the outlet of the suction pipe;

Patm the atmospheric pressure.

Psuct = Patm - ∆hdepth (ρm - ρf) g - λ f + Σξsuct ρm - ρf

D 2 2

7 4.092 4.092

Psuct = 105–7(1400-1000)9.81- 0.011 + 0.65 1400 - 1000 = 54.7 kPa.

0.5 2 2

The absolute pressure at the suction mouth of the pump is 54.7 kPa. This is higher

than the minimum non-cavitation pressure 30 kPa. The pump will not cavitate.

8.16 CHAPTER 8

In Case study 7.2 the maximum length was determined of a pipeline connected with a

centrifugal pump operating at its maximum speed if mixture of density 1412.5 kg/m3

composed of water and a 0.3 mm sand is transported. The flow rate of pumped

mixture was determined for a pipeline of a maximum length. It is necessary to check

whether this flow rate is attainable in a system, i.e. whether it lays within an

operational range of a pump-pipeline system.

defined in Case study 7.2) and check whether the flow rate for the pipeline of the

maximum length lays within this range. Determine the range of pipeline lengths in

which a pump can operate at the maximum speed (475 rpm) if density of pumped

mixture is 1412.5 kg/m3.

Solution:

CALCULATION:

a. Pump characteristics

The decisive-vacuum curve of the IHC pump can be approximated by the equation

(Vac )d = 94.99 − 3.64Q m − 2.43Q 2m [kPa] (C8.1).

∆hs,pipe =∆hdepth = 15 m

∆hs,pump = 0 m

gets a form of Eq. C7.13. This equation is solved for the following input values

ω = 45 deg

Lhoriz,suction = 2 m

all bends, joints etc.: ξ = 0.3

Total value: Σξ = 0.7

15

Vac = ∆ptotalpipe,m = 0.28498 Q 2m (2+ ) + Q−1.7

m (Sm - 1)(0.67924x2 +

sin(45)

15

0.35774 ) + 12.97x0.7 Sm Q 2m + 9.81 (Sm - 1)x15 [kPa] (C8.2).

sin(45)

For Sm = 1.4125

OPERATION LIMITS OF A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 8.17

15

Vac = ∆ptotalpipe,m = 0.28498 Q 2m (2+ ) + Q−1.7

m 0.4125(0.67924x2 +

sin(45)

15

0.35774 ) + 12.97x0.7x1.4125 Q 2m + 9.81x0.4125x15 [kPa]

sin(45)

Balance:

(Vac)d = Vac

(Eq. C8.1) (Eq. C8.2)

determines the flow rate value (Qupper) at the beginning of cavitation of a pump. This

flow-rate value is the upper limit of an operational range of a pump-pipeline system

pumping an aqueous mixture of 300-micron sand at mixture density 1412.5 kg/m3.

Only operation at flow rates lower than this threshold value will be cavitation free.

OUTPUT:

Qupper = 1.115 m3/s.

The lower limit is given by the flow rate value (Qlower) at the critical

(deposition-limit) velocity.

CALCULATION:

The MTI correlation (Eq. 4.19) for the critical velocity gives

1

1 0.25 6 2.65 − 1

Vcrit = 1.7 5 − 0.5 = 3.61 m / s,

0.3 0.25 + 0.1 1.65

πD 2 πx 0.52

Qlower = Vcrit A = Vcrit = 2.92 = 0.709 m 3 / s.

4 4

OUTPUT:

Qlower = 0.709 m3/s.

8.18 CHAPTER 8

Balance

Pman,m = ∆ptotalpipe,m

(Eq. C7.5) (Eq. C7.13)

- for the working point at Qupper = 1.115 m3/s gives the length of an entire

pipeline L = 610 meter. This is the minimal length for which the 1412.5 kg/m3

mixture can be pumped. If the pipeline becomes shorter, the flow rate tends to

increase. This would cause cavitation at the inlet of a pump. The density of

transported mixture in a short pipeline must be lowered to avoid cavitation;

- for the working point at Qlower = 0.709 m3/s gives the length of an entire

pipeline L = 1123 meter. This working point lays at the descending part of a

pipeline resistance curve. An operation at this part of the curve should be avoided,

since it is potentially instable and energy costly (see Fig. C7.4). The

recommended minimum flow rate for pumping the 1412.5 kg/m3 mixture at the

maximum speed of the pump is that the maximum length of a pipeline (see Case

study 7): Lmax = 975 meter, i.e. Qminimum = 0.897 m3/s.

9.

PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS IN A

PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM

limited by an upper limit of a working range of a system, i.e. by cavitation of a pump.

For a system of a certain lay-out of a suction pipe the maximum production is

obtained from the points of intersection between vacuum curves for various mixture

densities in a suction pipe and a decisive vacuum curve of a pump. A point of

intersection of a vacuum curve for certain mixture density and a decisive vacuum

curve gives the maximum mixture flow rate, Qm, attainable for mixture flow of the

certain density, ρm. Then the corresponding solids flow rate, i.e. solids production, is

obtained as

ρ −ρ

Qs = Q m m f 3600 [m3/hour] (9.1).

ρs − ρf

Thus all points of intersection for various mixture densities in a suction pipe of a

certain lay-out give a set of ρm, Qm, Qs data. These provide a characteristic curve of

maximum production as a function of mixture flow rate in a pump-pipeline system

(Fig. 9.1). The curve has a maximum at a certain value of mixture density. This

indicates that pumping of mixture at the highest densities does not provide the highest

production. This is because pumping of these high-dense mixtures is possible only at

very low mixture velocities, otherwise cavitation occurs. Theoretically, the curve

approaches zero production at its boundaries. At the lower boundary (Qm = 0) a

pumped mixture is so dense that a cavitation criterion is reached already at the lowest

mixture velocities in a suction pipe. The upper boundary gives the maximal velocity

at which the decisive vacuum is reached. The maximal velocity is reached in flow of

the lowest solids concentration (approaching zero). Naturally, production of such flow

approaches zero too. More concentrated mixture flows provide more resistance and

thus the decisive vacuum is reached already at lower velocities An analysis of the

cavitation criterion shows that a dredging depth is the major factor limiting the

production by a pump-pipeline system (see Fig. 9.1).

9.1

9.2 CHAPTER 9

production on the vertical axis and Qm the flow rate of mixture on the horizontal

axis).

Fig. 9.2) gives an range of production values that may be reached within a working

range of a pump.

Qs - Vm diagram (this for a different installation than on Fig. 9.1).

PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS IN A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 9.3

pumping mixture of certain maximum density attainable under the given dredging

conditions (soil type, soil condition in a pit etc.). The vacuum measured at the pump

inlet is slightly lower than a decisive vacuum of the pump. A working point of the

pump-pipeline installation determines a mixture flow rate through a pipeline and so a

solids production by the installation. A position of the working point on the pump

characteristic curve depends on the course of the pipeline resistance curve, i.e. on the

total resistance of a pipeline. The longer the pipeline the higher the total resistance

and the lower the mixture flow rate through an installation. The pipeline length is a

factor limiting the production.

working range of a pump

Imagine that during the job a discharge pipeline must be considerably lengthened.

The total pipeline resistance increases considerably and a system finds a new working

point at the much lower mixture flow rate. The mixture velocity drops below a

deposition-limit velocity. Thus the new working point falls outside the acceptable

working range of the installation. To prevent the formation of a stationary deposit in a

pipeline the mixture density (i.e. concentration of solids in a pipeline) must be

reduced to diminish a total pipeline resistance and maintain the working point within

the working range of the installation. A considerable decrease in the mixture

density and the mixture velocity leads to a considerable drop in a solids

production due to the prolonging of a discharge pipeline.

Imagine that during the job a discharge pipeline must be shorten. The total pipeline

resistance diminishes and a system finds a new working point at the higher mixture

flow rate. However, an increase in the mixture velocity in a pipeline increases the

vacuum at the pump inlet so that it becomes higher than the decisive vacuum. The

pump starts to cavitate. To prevent the cavitation the mixture velocity must be

lowered by reducing a pump speed. Thus the new installed flow rate, and so

production, is approximately the same as that before a discharge-pipeline shortening.

In installations where the production is limited by a cavitation criterion the

production is virtually independent of a pipeline length.

9.2.2 Cases for which a change of a pipeline length does not require a change of a

working range of a pump

Within the working range of a pump-pipeline installation the production drops with

an increasing pipeline length but the drop is considerably smaller since only mixture

velocity is reduced if mixture is pumped at maximum pump speed. The mixture

density can be maintained at the constant level.

Figure 9.3 shows a relationship between the solids production from a pump-pipeline

installation and the length of a pipeline for various operational regimes of a pump:

9.4 CHAPTER 9

I. TOO SHORT PIPELINE (the pump tends to operate outside a normal working

range, the pump speed must be lowered to avoid cavitation = a pump operation is

limited by a pump cavitation)

PUMP (a pump operates at maximum speed and mixture of maximum attainable

density is transported)

III. TOO LONG PIPELINE (the pump tends to operate outside a normal working

range, the mixture density must be lowered to maintain velocity above the

deposition limit in a pipeline = a pump operation is limited by the deposition-limit

velocity in a pipeline)

pump. If the working point is found at the constant torque line of a pump the

production drop is usually smaller than for the working point at the constant speed

line of a pump. This is because the reduction in a manometric head provided by a

pump results in bigger flow rate drop for the constant-speed operation than for the

constant-torque operation of a pump.

PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS IN A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 9.5

Figure 9.4. How to select the right dredge for the job. The Qs - L diagrams for

various types of the IHC cutter suction dredge Beaver if dredging

medium sand (i.e. Soil type B).

9.6 CHAPTER 9

It was shown in Chapter 8 (par. 8.5) that a submerged pump allows pumping mixture

of higher density than a pump placed on board of a dredge. Therefore the production

in a system with a submerged pump is limited by decisive vacuum at higher values

than in a system with an on-board pump (Fig. 9.5). The curve on Fig. 9.5 is given by

cross points of the decisive vacuum curve and the vacuum curves for different

mixture densities on Fig. 8.6 (see also Tab. 8.2).

production on the vertical axis and Qm the flow rate of mixture on the

horizontal axis).

9.4 SUMMARY

In some cases, particularly if a discharge pipeline is short, the production is limited by

a cavitation criterion rather than by a total pipeline resistance, i.e. a pipeline length.

van den Berg, C.H. (1998). Pipelines as Transportation Systems. European Mining

Course Proceedings, MTI.

de Bree, S.E.M. (1977). Centrifugaal Baggerpompen. IHC Holland.

PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS IN A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 9.7

CASE STUDY 9

In Case studies 7.2 & 8.2 the range was determined for lengths of a pipeline

connected with a centrifugal pump that pumps the mixture of density 1412.5 kg/m3

composed of water and a 0.3 mm sand. Furthermore, the flow rate of pumped mixture

was determined for various pipeline lengths (see Tab. C7.4). From these outputs the

production of solids can be determined as a function of a length of a pipeline in a

transportation system.

in Case study 7.2) for different lengths of a pipeline from the range that admits

pumping mixture of density 1412.5 kg/m3.

CALCULATION:

S −1 1.4125 − 1

Qs = Q m m 3600 = 3600 Q m = 900Q m [m3/hour] (C9.1).

Ss − 1 2.65 − 1

Qs

Qsi = = 1500Q m [m3/hour] (C9.2).

1− n

OUTPUT:

Table C9.1:

Production of solids at different lengths of a pipeline (see also Fig. C9.1):

Sm L Speed Qm Qsi

[-] [m] [rpm] [m3/s] [m3/hour]

1.4125 610 385 1.115 1672.5

1.4125 700 396 1.062 1593.0

1.4125 800 409 1.004 1506.0

1.4125 900 423 0.944 1416.0

1.4125 975 435 0.897 1345.5

9.8 CHAPTER 9

of constant density Sm = 1.4125.

(rpm as a label in the diagram).

PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS IN A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 9.9

solids.

1. Working points of a system for various densities of pumped mixture. The length of

a pipeline is 2000 meter.

2.

a. Working points of a system for various length of a pipeline. The density of pumped

mixture is 1100 kg/m3.

9.10 CHAPTER 9

b. Working points of a system for various length of a pipeline. The density of pumped

mixture is 1300 kg/m3.

c. Working points of a system for various length of a pipeline. The density of pumped

mixture is 1500 kg/m3.

pipeline and various densities of pumped mixture.

PRODUCTION OF SOLIDS IN A PUMP-PIPELINE SYSTEM 9.11

flow rates and densities and for various pipeline lengths.

5. Operational range for mixture flow rate and production confined by the

stationary-deposition limit and the pipeline-resistance limit for a system with a

pipeline of a length L2.

9.12 CHAPTER 9

10.

SYSTEMS WITH PUMPS IN SERIES

SERIES

system if an original dredge pump is not sufficient to provide a required production.

This is the case if the manometric head provided by a pump is not high enough to

overcome a pipeline resistance and install an appropriate value of mixture velocity in

a pipeline. Typically, a pipeline resistance grows because a pipeline is lengthened (a

larger dredging depth or a larger distance from a dredge to a deposit site) or a coarser

soil must be transported.

- to be designed for the same working range of flow rates

- to have similar shape of the Q-H curve

- to have virtually identical position of the nominal full-torque

- to have passages and connections of similar dimensions (passages of boosters

should be at least of the same size as that of a first pump).

The total manometric head provided by a set of pumps in series is equal to the sum of

manometric heads of particular pumps for a given flow rate. A new H-Q curve for an

installation composed from a set of pumps and a pipeline is a result of this summation

(see Fig. 10.1).

For manometric head, Hman, and manometric pressure, Pman, by a pump at a given

mixture flow rate Qm

n n

H man, total = ∑ H man,i , i.e. Pman, total = ∑ Pman,i (10.1).

i =1 i =1

n

Win, total = ∑ Win,i (10.2)

i =1

n

Q m ∑ Pman,i

ηtotal = i =1 (10.3).

n

∑ Wi

i =1

10.1

10.2 CHAPTER 10

intersection between the twin-pump characteristic and the pipeline characteristic On

Fig. 10.2 different working points are found for a set of two pumps and a pipeline at

various delivery distances. On the figure the same is plotted also for an installation

composed of a single pump and a pipeline at various delivery distances.

SYSTEMS WITH PUMPS IN SERIES 10.3

Not only a delivery distance grows if an additional pump is installed, also the

production increases significantly as can be seen on Fig. 10.3.

single pump, a set of two pumps respectively.

If a set of pumps in series is installed to a dredging installation the first pump serves

usually as “the suction pump” (Dutch: zuigpomp) and the pumps behind the suction

pump as “the delivery pumps” (Dutch: perspompen). A suction pump is supposed to

handle low suction pressure at its inlet (the pump must have a high decisive vacuum)

and provides only a low delivery pressure. Delivery pumps operate at higher suction

pressure values and provide higher manometric head than a suction pump. Boosters

(i.e. delivery pumps) should operate at suction pressure heads not lower than 10 meter

water column (mwc), i.e. at suction heads not lower than is the atmospheric pressure

head.

A typical example of a set of pumps is an installation with a submerged pump on a

dredge ladder and one or two on-board dredge pumps. The submerged pump acts as a

suction pump and the on-board dredge pump(s) as delivery pump(s) for a long

delivery pipeline.

10.4 CHAPTER 10

controlled to maintain a dredging process as steady as possible. The operation control

must prevent an on-time magnification of velocity fluctuations in a pipeline that

usually develop if mixture is pumped of fluctuating density and solids properties.

Large velocity fluctuations might result to water hammer. Water hammer is

associated with huge pressure gradients over sections of a transport installation that

may cause a total damage of pumps and pipes. To prevent water hammer in

uncontrolled installations it is necessary to avoid a situation that a delivery pump

performs a suction function (i.e. a suction pressure at the inlet to a delivery pump is

lower than the atmospheric pressure). Such a situation may occur, for instance, if a

suction pump would collapse. The suction pressure at the delivery pump would drop,

possibly even below a non-cavitation limit. A very low pressure in front of a delivery

pump increases considerably a risk of water hammer in a system.

Mixture-flow interruptions generated by excavating and suction processes might be a

further reason for a development of water hammer in a pipeline with pumps in series.

A suddenly low supply of mixture to a pipeline in front of a booster can cause that the

booster starts to suck (a result of a low pipeline resistance), i.e. low pressure is

generated at the inlet to a booster pump. This causes an acceleration of mixture

masses in the pipeline in front of the pump and deceleration of mixture masses in a

pipeline behind the pump. If a supply restores again, large masses of mixture are

subjected to acceleration with collisions between mass’s and pump & pipeline

components as results. Further collisions occur between accelerated and decelerated

masses in a pipeline. The collisions cause water hammer effects.

function without disastrous effects. A certain control procedure is required also to

start or stop an installation operation. An installation is equipped with various

components, instruments and controllers to prevent water hammer effects.

Usually, speed of a pump controls the mixture flow in a pipeline. A delivery pump is

regulated to a certain velocity set point in order to maintain stable flow. If the mean

velocity in a pipeline grows above a set point value the controller decreases the rpm

of the pump. If the velocity drops below the set point value, the controller increases

the rpm. The speed of pumps is also regulated to prevent cavitation at the suction side

of pimps (the suction pump in particular). If the suction pressure at the inlet of a pump

drops below a non-cavitation limit the controller decreases the pump rpm in order to

decrease the velocity and so increase pressure in a pipeline in front of a pump.

PIPELINE

- a suction pressure at the booster-pump inlet must be sufficiently high (higher than

atmospheric pressure, i.e. approximately 1 bar or 10 mwc)

- a discharge pressure at the booster-pump outlet may not be higher than a

maximum pressure that the pump components can stand.

SYSTEMS WITH PUMPS IN SERIES 10.5

Thus a pressure distribution along a long pipeline is of the greatest importance for a

determination of a suitable booster location.

Figure 10.4. Pressure head distribution along a dredging pipeline for an installation

without a booster station.

Figure 10.5. Pressure head distribution along a dredging pipeline for an installation

with a booster station.

10.6 CHAPTER 10

11.

LITERATURE ON DREDGING PROCESSES

Bray, R.N., Bates, A.D. & Land, J.M. (1997). Dredging. A Handbook for Engineers.

Arnold. (ISBN 0 340 54524 0)

028360 5)

van der Schrieck, G.L.M. (1997). Baggertechniek. College diktaat f14, TU Delft,

Faculteit der Civiele Techniek.

7844 0147 0)

Baggerbedrijf.

van den Berg, C.H. (1998). Pipelines as Transportation Systems. European Mining

Course Proceedings, MTI.

Brown, N.P. & Heywood, N.I. (1991) Slurry Handling Design of Solid-Liquid

Systems. Elsevier Applied Science. (ISBN 1 85166 645 1)

Science. (ISBN 1 85166 634 6)

Shook, C.A. & Roco, M.C. (1991). Slurry Flow. Principles and Practice.

Butterworth-Heinemann. (ISBN 0 7506 9110 7)

Systems. Lecture notes wb3414, TU Delft, Sub-faculty of Mechanical Engineering.

11.1

11.2 CHAPTER 11

Wilson, K.C., Addie G.R., Sellgren, A. & Clift, R. (1997). Slurry Transport Using

Centrifugal Pumps. Blackie Academic & Professional. (ISBN 0 7514 0408 X)

11.3 PERIODICALS

Published monthly by DMG Business Media Ltd., United Kingdom. (ISSN

0264-4835)

International Dredging Review. Published eight times a year by IDR, USA. (ISSN

0737-8181)

Association).

Development & Ocean Technology. Published bi-monthly by Lands Services, United

Kingdom. (ISSN 0264-87833)

Published quarterly by the IADC, The Netherlands. (ISSN 0376-6411)

Management Corp., USA. (ISSN 1045-0343)

- ch3.pdfUploaded bymehrdad_k_r
- Laminar and Turbulent FinalUploaded bybrhomi
- 47141175Uploaded byHans Santibañez ⎝⏠⏝⏠⎠
- ejercicios resueltosUploaded byFabian Monge
- Lagrangian CFD Modeling of Impinging Diesel Sprays for DI HCCIUploaded byAdrian García Moyano
- 1970-Petukhov- Heat Transfer and Friction in Turbulent Pipe Flow With Variable Physical PropertiesUploaded bymonsterh5
- Friction FactorUploaded byshailiitbhu
- coastal-hydraulics.pdfUploaded byelcheche
- OLGA 2016.2.1 Release NotesUploaded byrafael
- 617798Uploaded byoscar16865
- documentUploaded byGrigoras Mihai
- 09_sp1 Boundary LayerUploaded bymechgokul
- SWSIM-Enhanced Turbulence Modeling FlowUploaded byAlex Daniel
- numerical_simulation_of_spark_ignition_enginesUploaded byKarthikeyan Gnanasekaran
- CAE paperUploaded byAnonymous 7BQxlt8c
- Thermal FluidUploaded byJackcolt
- 12-Hole Cleaning-A-03-April-12 - Copy - Copy.pptUploaded bySaranya Yellela
- fluid_mech_hw_problems_ch4.pdfUploaded bySa-mer Beskales
- jamunaUploaded bymymunamagi
- docshare.tips_sediment-particles-and-turbulent-flow-simulation.pdfUploaded bySamuel Stevens
- 2009 Continuous Casting Molds EmployingUploaded byAlberto Bueno
- Paper on PiggingUploaded bydddassdd
- CNT4701-2015-1-E-1Uploaded byVho-Ren Takalani
- 1 (1)Uploaded byRavi Theja
- Hydro Power Device ReportUploaded byMegan Vogel
- CLANAK_Breaksown Whitstand Voltage FormulaUploaded byivan(D3)
- Hidraulica 2-2016Uploaded byihp4romania
- energies-06-00145Uploaded byManHeng Yit
- Lab HandoutUploaded bylitrakhan
- ME200-Fluid Mechanics and Machinery (1)Uploaded byvishnu

- Tank Vapor Emission ModelingUploaded byChem.Engg
- Design-of-Shell-Tube-Heat-Exchanger-by-Kern-Method-2-57-Excel-Template.xlsUploaded byneel
- Alfa Laval Pump HandbookUploaded bysen_subhasis_58
- (SB0A015) FMC Technologies Flow Research and Test CenterUploaded byRoberto Carlos Teixeira
- Transport Phenomena in Material Processing (good).pdfUploaded byMyeongyun Lee
- 1551Uploaded byMalav Mehta
- Viscous Flow in PipesUploaded byShinee Jayasilan
- Batch to Continuous ProcessingUploaded byChem.Engg
- Nptel.ac.in Courses 108108078 PDF Chap3 Student Slides03Uploaded bySuresh Doosa
- drag reduction techniques.pdfUploaded by917435001
- Chapter 11 CengalUploaded byDaniel Morgan
- Jeremy's ThesisUploaded byRavi Sharma
- [Intro to CAE] Fundamentals of CFDUploaded byAhmad Reza Atef
- Flight Without Formulae 158pUploaded byLautaro Ferrada Q.
- WTUploaded byJuanPabloSánchez
- Steady Flow Analysis of Pipe Networks_ an Instructional ManualUploaded byRoberto Rodriguez Rico
- A Parametric Study on the Starting Transients of a VacuumUploaded byPurfaji Putune Eyang Ma'sum
- VISCOUS-FLOW-IN-PIPES (1).pdfUploaded byMuhammad Izzamir Firdaus
- Geertsma_Theory of Dimension Ally ScaledUploaded byandhrik862
- Final ThesisUploaded byebrahem_sahil5188
- Cavity-flow Wall Effects and Correction RulesUploaded bysaba135
- is.2065.1983Uploaded bysuresh kumar
- Ada 354010Uploaded byEne Florin
- 3445605701675Uploaded bySata Ajjam
- PressureDrop Calculation AdditionalProblemsUploaded byDavid Macatangay
- Total PressureUploaded byAbdulkadir Köker
- Flow and Heat Transfer in Narrow Channels With Corrugated Walls a Cfd Code ApplicationUploaded byleonravi
- Lab ReportUploaded bysanduni
- Result and CalculationUploaded byHazimah Jamil
- Ts-3 Thermal Performance and Pressure Drop of the Helical-coil Heat Ex Changers With and Without Helically Crimped FinsUploaded bySoham Patil