0 Up votes0 Down votes

2 views13 pageshi

Mar 14, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

hi

© All Rights Reserved

2 views

hi

© All Rights Reserved

- Fluid Mechanics Notes
- Chapter 1
- Lect 5 - 7 - Shell Momentum Balance
- 1996 Chan Modelling Steady and Transient Rheology
- Chapter3 ejercicios manejo de solidos
- Syllabus Main KAS
- Rheology of Supersaturated Sucrose Solutions
- Section 7
- cfxpre.pdf
- Incomplete Fluid–Fluid Displacement of Yield Stress Fluids in Near-horizontal Pipes
- Aneta Work Plan
- Fluid 2 Project 1
- Lube-Tech093-ViscosityBlendingEquations_2.pdf
- Gateforum CE GATE-2018 Paper-I
- Chapter Wise Tests
- 2014 Lecture 3
- Pressure boundary treatement - DSMC
- tut1
- Syllabus CHE341 Wint2012 Modified
- Tesla Microvalve Optimization Model

You are on page 1of 13

BHR Group Ltd, UK

SYNOPSIS

This paper summarises appropriate approaches for the prediction of frictional pressure loss

across pipework and pipe fittings for “non-settling” sludges and slurries to assist in the

development of a system curve. This curve, combined with centrifugal pump characteristics

define alternative possible duty points, depending on pump impeller speed. Because pump

characteristics are usually supplied based on water flow, deration of pump performance needs

to be carried out to allow for the effect of sludge or slurry flow properties. This can be done

using the ANSI/HI (2004) standard for Newtonian materials and the ANSI/HI (2005) standard

for settling slurries, but there is currently no generally recognised method for derating

centrifugal pumps for non-Newtonian “non-settling” sludges or slurries. Software has been

developed in BHR’s System Losses Tool (SLOT) which assists in determining pump duty

points.

The flow properties of “non-settling” sludges and slurries can be measured over relevant shear

rate ranges using a rotational or tube viscometer, or using a recirculating flow loop.

Alternatively, the rheological properties of a wide range of sewage sludge types can be

estimated using BHR’s Sludge Rheology Database. The flow curves (or “rheograms”) obtained

are represented using a suitable model and the parameters in the model estimated. Combined

with the pipe internal diameter and volume flowrate required, these estimated parameters are

then used to determine whether the flow is in the laminar or turbulent flow regimes. Depending

on the flow regime, appropriate equations for predicting frictional pressure loss across

pipework and pipe fittings on both the pump suction and discharge allow the development of a

system curve, once any pipe net elevation changes are also taken into account.

These flow properties are represented by the material’s flow curve which must be measured

over the appropriate shear rate range. Sludges often exhibit non-Newtonian behaviour where

the relationship between shear rate and shear stress does not vary proportionally as for a

Newtonian fluid such as water. Owing to the different composition of sludges, their rheological

behaviour varies according to the sludge type. The most common non-Newtonian behaviour

found with sludges is known to be ‘shear-thinning’, where viscosity reduces with increasing

shear rate and hence position within the pipeline or pump. In addition, some sludges exhibit a

yield stress. This is known as viscoplastic behaviour. Sludge/slurry viscosity is given by

μ τ/γ

Eqn. 1

where:

= viscosity [Pas]

1

γ = shear rate [s-1]

= shear stress [Pa]

There are two flow curve models that are commonly used to characterise the rheological

properties of various types of sewage sludge, and other slurry types. These are the Herschel-

Bulkley (or generalised Bingham Plastic) model:

and the power law model:

τ Kγ

n Eqn. 3

where:

K = consistency coefficient (Pa sn)

n = flow behaviour index (-)

Fig 1 shows some typical flow curves for flocculated china clay (kaolin) slurries (Ref. 1).

Because straight lines can be drawn for laminar flow conditions when logarithmic plots of

shear stress versus shear rate are obtained at six different solids volume fractions (0.086 to

0.234), these flow curves are best described by the power law model.

(at six solids volume fractions, 0.086 to 0.234)

In addition, the Bingham plastic model is also used to describe viscoplastic behaviour of many

slurry types,

τ τ yB η p γ Eqn. 4

Many types of sewage sludge are best described using the Herschel-Bulkley flow model. Fig 2

provides examples for activated sludge.

2

Fig 2 Original upper bound and subsequently smoothed flow curves for

activated sewage sludge

In BHR Group’s Water & Wastewater Mixing (WWM) research programme, an MS ACCESS

Sludge Rheology Database (‘SRDB’) has been established. This enables improved sludge flow

property prediction for a much wider range of sludge types (currently 500+ rheograms) than

those from the obsolete WRc Report TR 185 (Ref. 2). The new SRDB has been established

from a combination of existing data and sludge samples obtained from WWM members and

measured using the BHR rheology laboratory. The SRDB includes entries for sludge type and

origins, temperature, dry solids content, viscometer type, shear stress vs shear rate data, and

fitted flow curve model parameters. The SRDB has enabled predictive sludge rheology

correlations to be built up for many different sludge types.

The viscosity of slurries whose particles settle quite rapidly under gravitational forces in

horizontal or inclined pipe has no meaning owing to the wide variation in particle

concentration, and therefore cannot be measured and used to predict frictional pressure losses

across pipework and fittings. The flow of settling slurries in horizontal pipes can be classified

into various flow patterns as shown in Fig 3. These flow patterns refer to the in situ vertical

solids concentration profile (VSCP) and whether all solids are suspended or a proportion are

conveyed as a bed sliding along the pipe bottom. At high mean flow velocities it may be

possible to convey some coarse slurries so that there exists no discernible VSCP

(homogeneous flow: top diagram in Fig 3), but it is usually uneconomic to operate pipelines

carrying settling slurries at such high velocities in order to approach homogeneous flow.

3

Fig 3 Flow patterns for settling slurry in horizontal pipeflow

The heterogeneous flow pattern occurs when there exists a pronounced VSCP but where all

particles are suspended in the continuous phase (second figure down in Fig 3), and generally

turbulent flow conditions are required for this to occur. This flow pattern occurs at mean slurry

velocities which exceed the deposition velocity, i.e., the “velocity at which no particle settles

out onto the pipe bottom for more than 1 or 2 seconds”. At lower velocities still, a bed of solid

particles may form (third and fourth figures down in Fig 3). This bed may be stationary or may

slide. It is dangerous to operate long pipelines with the sliding bed flow pattern as solids build-

up may occur and block the pipeline. The consequence of a pronounced VSCP in

heterogeneous flow or, in addition, the presence of particle beds is that the in situ solids

concentration is higher than the discharge solids concentration. It also follows from this that

the mean velocity of the solids in the pipeline is usually lower than that of the mixture.

2 PIPELINE HYDRAULICS

System pressure losses are functions of the pipe internal diameter, inner pipe wall roughness

(for turbulent flow), length, pipe fittings, and net elevation changes, as well as the sludge

rheological properties and desired flowrates (Ref. 3 and 4). Design engineers need to estimate

total pressure losses on the suction and discharge sides of a pump for alternative pipe

diameters and pipe velocities as well as determining whether flow is laminar or turbulent.

This leads to pump selection and sizing, derating the pump performance for sludge properties

and calculating pump power (volume flowrate multiplied by total pressure loss). The system

can then be optimised using sets of pump characteristics (different impeller speeds for the same

centrifugal pump) and system curves (for different pipe diameters and/or sludge/slurry flow

properties).

and Slurries

4

Head losses arising from laminar slurry/sludge flow can be calculated using the Hagen-

Poiseuille equation for Newtonian slurries, or other equations for power law, Bingham plastic

(Buckingham equation), and Herschel-Bulkley type non-Newtonian behaviour. There is only

one equation in each case based on the flow model chosen to describe the material properties,

the volume flowrate and the internal pipe diameter. There is no effect of inner pipe wall

roughness on frictional head loss.

There is quite a wide choice of equations for the prediction frictional head loss for turbulent

flow of Newtonian materials (Ref. 3), including, Blasius (1913), von Karman, Nikuradse

(1930’s), Colebrook & White (1939), Moody (1944), and Churchill (1977). Many of these

equations also include the effect of relative inner pipe wall roughness, e/D (Ref. 3). The

parameter “e” is the average pipe wall roughness and D is the internal pipe diameter. When

comparing these alternative equations, it has been shown that, for a given set of conditions, the

variation in predictions is often no greater than ±5% (Ref. 5), so it is of little consequence

which equation is chosen, except that the Blasius equation should not be used for pipe

Reynolds numbers greater than 100,000. However, for the turbulent flow of non-Newtonian

sludges and slurries, there are many equations whose predictions of frictional head loss can

vary widely. It is recommended that several are used (Ref. 3) and a judgement made regarding

whether a mean or upper bound value should be adopted. Alternatively, if only one method is

used, it is recommended that the methodology based on modelling by Wilson & Thomas be

applied (Refs. 6 to 8), as there is a growing amount of experimental evidence suggesting that

that the prediction from this modelling are the most reliable.

Methods for estimating single loss coefficients for the turbulent flow of Newtonian materials

include various datasets (Refs. 9 to 11). Methods for estimating loss coefficient data with a

size dependence include the Crane method (Ref. 12), the Hydraulic Institute method (Ref. 13),

Miller’s graphical data (Ref. 14), and Idelchik’s graphical data (Ref. 15). Predictive methods

for estimating laminar flow loss coefficient data include Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook

dataset (Ref. 10), Rao’s nomograph (Ref. 16), Hooper ‘s 2-K method for laminar and turbulent

flow through fittings (Refs. 17 and 18), and Darby’s 3-K method for laminar and turbulent

flow through fittings (Refs. 19 and 20). Thus, there is a considerable amount of information

available for Newtonian material, but much less for non-Newtonian materials.

Methods for estimating loss coefficients for laminar and turbulent flow of non-Newtonian

fluids through various fittings and valves in pipework can be categorised into either predictive

methods or experimental studies. Non-Newtonian fluids used in the experimental studies

include apple sauce/water mixtures, molasses, coal/water mixtures, aqueous CMC solutions,

aqueous sodium salt of CMC solutions, aqueous xanthan gum solutions, aqueous xanthan

gum/sucrose solutions, china clay/water suspensions, laterite/water suspensions, gypsum/water

suspensions iron ore slurries, zinc tailings, and surfactant-stabilised oil-in water emulsions.

Flow curve behaviour exhibited by these non-Newtonian fluids include the power law,

Bingham plastic and Herschel- Bulkley models.

Apart from the TR 185 design guide (Ref. 1), no experimental studies on flow of sewage and

wastewater sludges through various fittings have been published. As a result, the WWM

research consortium at BHR has embarked upon a test programme to measure the frictional

head loss across several types of pipe fitting, including bends, elbows, tees and gate valves.

5

The rheological properties of sewage and wastewater sludges are being simulated using several

aqueous polymer solutions at various concentrations, including CMC and Rhodopol®.

The system curve is a plot of the head that must be met by the slurry pump at any given

capacity. This is a function of the piping details on pump discharge and the slurry flow

properties and is not determined by the pump itself.

Fig. 4 shows three typical system curves. The head comprises the sum of two factors:

• static head: the physical difference in slurry level (between suction free surface and

delivery free surface or any syphon height that must be filled with slurry at start-up)

• friction head: head required to be generated at the pump outlet to overcome friction

losses in the complete system (excluding the pump itself) and any other losses (e.g.,

entry/exit losses).

Head, H

Volume flowrate, Q

flow properties and whether the flow is laminar or turbulent

Currently, as with rheological property prediction, system loss design approaches are often

based by water companies and also their contractors on WRc’s TR 175 (Ref. 21) and TR 185

(Ref. 1) technical reports. The frictional pressure losses calculation approach used in TR 185 is

a simplified one and a critique by Dawson et al (Ref. 22) has shown that it is flawed. There was

therefore a need to update the TR 185 design methods with the latest published know-how on

non-Newtonian slurry pumping, integrate the calculations with the BHR Sludge Rheology

6

Database (SRDB), and incorporate the calculation approach into a software tool. This has

been addressed in BHR’s WWM 6 research programme with the production of the BHR

System Losses Tool (SLOT). SLOT is continuing to be developed in the current 2-year

WWM7 programme. Potential benefits of applying SLOT are capital cost saving through

improved pump selection and system design, operating cost savings through lower energy

costs, lower labour costs, and higher throughput.

2.2 Frictional Head Loss Estimation for Settling Slurries in Horizontal/Inclined Pipe

Estimation of the frictional head loss for both sliding bed and heterogeneous flow patterns is

typically based nowadays on the two-layer model. This is a mechanistic model, based as much

as possible on known physical laws. It consists of a set of algebraic equations which describe

the flow in terms of idealised or simplified versions of concentration and velocity distributions.

The derivation was extended and made rigorous by Professor K C Wilson, formerly at Kinston

University, Canada (Refs. 23 and 24). The Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) in Canada

has also extended the model to fine particles and high concentrations and has incorporated a

broad range of experimental data obtained with pipes ranging up to 495 mm internal diameter.

The model consists of a set of algebraic equations which describe the flow in terms of idealised

or simplified versions of the solids concentration and velocity profiles across the pipe cross-

section of horizontal and inclined pipe. The model assumes a constant velocity and solids

concentration across the cross-section in two hypothetical upper and lower layers, and

concentration and velocity variations within these layers are neglected.

The SRC contribution to the model development has included its extension to fine particles. A

broad particle size distribution is dealt with by assuming that <74 micron solids are distributed

uniformly across the pipe cross-section and relevant fluid parameters, such as density and

viscosity, are based on the “fines”, rather than on the liquid phase. The >74 micron solids

represent the “coarse” slurry. This parameter is used for the estimation of both the deposition

velocity and the frictional pressure loss in the model (Refs. 25 and 26). A further parameter in

the modelling of the slurry pipe flow is the maximum packing fraction of the solids, by volume.

This is a measure of the maximum packing that the solids can achieve, and is often estimated

through gravity settling tests using slurry samples placed in a graduated cylinder.

Coulombic frictional forces acting between the slurry particle sand pipe wall are represented in

term of a coefficient of sliding friction in the lower layer. This is also an important parameter

and is typically assumed to be 0.5 or 0.6, depending on the pipe wall material, e.g., steel or

plastic-lined. However, this coefficient can also be measured using a sample of the slurry

sliding against a section of the pipe to be used.

At constant impeller speed, a roto-dynamic pump will produce a certain slurry delivery

flowrate dependent upon the total discharge head. The relationships between the delivery head,

H, input power, P, efficiency, η, with varying delivery volume flowrate, Q, are termed pump

characteristic performance curves or more simply pump characteristics.

In accordance with the known Hydraulic Institute (HI) procedure, the change in pump

performance when pumping Newtonian liquids and slurries for given water curves and pump

7

impeller speed is expressed by correction factors for head, C H’ flowrate, CQ, and efficiency, Cη.

These correction factors are defined in Fig. 5.

In an extension of the previous HI procedure for viscosity corrections, ANSI/HI 9.6.7, 2004

(Ref. 27) provides a generalised derating method linked to a large body of experimental data

and based on a pump performance Reynolds number adjusted for specific speed. A parameter,

B, is coupled to various empirical relationships for the correction factors which also are

represented graphically in Figures 6 and 7. Parameter B is defined by

B Eqn. 5

N 0.25Q 0.375

where

ν = kinematic sludge or slurry viscosity in mm/s

H = head in m

N = impeller speed in rev/min

Q = volume flowrate in m3/h

Fig 6 Flow and head correction factors as functions of B in ANSI/HI 2004 standard

8

Fig 7 Efficiency correction factor as a function of parameter B in ANSI/HI 2004 standard

A generalised design diagram for estimation of the performance derating is given in Fig. 8, and

is taken from Refs. 28 and 29. The diagram gives the head ratio HR (H r), or head reduction

factor (RH), in terms of pump impeller (D) and average solids particle size (d 50) for a baseline

reference slurry with 15% by volume solids of 2.65 relative density and a negligible amount of

fine particles (particle size < 75 microns, or 200 mesh).

Fig 8 Prediction of head ratio as functions of pump impeller diameter and average particle size

for 15% v/v slurry, particle SG 2.65 and particles > 75 microns (ANSI/HI 2005 standard).

9

Sellgren & Addie (Ref. 30) found that the head reduction factor (fractional reduction in head),

HR, is a function of pump impeller diameter. As the impeller diameter increases, the head

reduction ratio decreases, i.e., smaller pumps are more affected than larger pumps, and this is

reflected in Fig. 8. Based on their correlation, the head reduction factor for an arbitrary

impeller diameter, di, is given by

0.9

d

HR 1 (1 HR O ) i Eqn. 6

d iO

This equation requires knowledge of the head reduction ratio of a reference pump which

cannot be obtained except by direct measurement. It is, however, useful when measured data

are available. The equation can, however, be used in conjunction with the correlation of

McElvain (Ref. 31) shown in Fig 9, with a reference impeller diameter of 0.35m (Ref. 32).

McElvain used two particle sizes of silica and one size of heavy mineral (SG = 4.6) over a

range of solids concentrations from 14 to 61% by weight with Warman centrifugal pumps and

found the flowing equation to apply

HR ER 1 5KC v Eqn. 7

K is a function of particle size and solids density. Values of K were presented graphically by

McElvain as shown in Fig. 9. To develop a required head of slurry, it is necessary to run a

pump at higher speed than that required to develop the same head for water. When Ho has been

determined from a knowledge of the system, Hw can then be calculated. The pump speed for

Hw may then be used for selecting the duty point on the pump performance curve.

The fines in the slurry may combine with the carrier fluid to form a vehicle, or carrier medium

with non-Newtonian, or viscous, properties. There is a corresponding reduction in the settling

velocity of the larger particles owing to the presence of fines. Empirical data suggest that the

head ratio, HR0, should be modified by the following equation, in which Xh is the fraction of

solids of size less than 75 microns,

HR 1 (1 HR 0 )(1 X h ) 2 Eqn. 8

10

As an example, if the head ratio, HR 0, is calculated at 0.80 assuming no fines, a 25%

proportion of fines in the solids size distribution will increase the predicted head ratio, HR, to

0.887.

3.2.3 Use of ANSI/HI standard for different coarse particle settling slurries

Fig. 8 gives the head ratio HR (Hr), or head reduction factor (R H), in terms of pump impeller

(D) and average solids particle size (d50) for a baseline reference slurry with 15% by volume

solids of 2.65 relative density and a negligible amount of fine particles (X h = 0). For other

slurries, RH values obtained from Fig. 7 are concurrently multiplied by correction factors, C CV,

CS and Cfp for slurries with different concentration (C V), different relative density of solids (s),

and different content of fine (< 75 microns) particles (Xh). These correction factors are defined

as follows,

C

C CV V Eqn. 9

15

0.65

s 1

CS Eqn. 10

1.65

C fp (1 X h ) 2 Eqn. 11

As an example, consider a pump with a 1.1m diameter impeller pumping a slurry with a CV of

15% having a solids specific gravity solids (s) of 2.65 containing a d 50 particle size of 1 mm

with no fine particles. According to the ANSI/HI nomogram, the R H value is about 7%

(HR=0.93). If solids specific gravity is 4.8, the solids concentration 25%, and the percent of

fine particles less than 75 microns (Xh) is increased from zero to 20%, then CCV = 1.67, CS =

1.72, and Cfp = 0.64. The revised value of RH is then 7% x1.67 x 1.72 x 0.64 = 13%. The head

ratio, HR, is therefore reduced from 0.93 to 0.87.

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The flow properties of both settling and “non-settling” sludges and slurries need to be assessed

in order to estimate frictional head losses on both the suction and discharge sides

of a pump. This is done either through measurement, or, in the case, of various

sewage sludges, using the BHR Sludge Rheology Database. Estimation of

frictional pressure losses in pipeflow and across a variety of fittings is well-

established for Newtonian sludges and slurries in either laminar or turbulent flow.

However, there is still significant uncertainty in the prediction of the pipe frictional

losses for the turbulent flow of non-Newtonian materials, and there are significant

gaps for frictional losses across various pipe fittings, particularly for laminar flow.

The head developed by a centrifugal pump is also affected by the presence of

solids, and so deration of the pump for head (and also throughput and efficiency) is

required and can be undertaken using two ANSI/HI standards which deal with

Newtonian, “non-settling” slurries and settling slurries. However, there is currently

no accepted method for pump deration for non-Newtonian, “non-settling” slurries,

and this topic is currently being researched.

5 REFERENCES

1. Heywood, N.I. and Richardson, J.F. Proc. Hydrotransport 5 Conference, Paper C1, May

1978. Published by BHR Group Ltd, Cranfield, UK.

11

2. Frost, R.C. (1983), WRC Water Research Centre Technical Report TR 185, ‘How to

Design Sewage Sludge Pumping Systems’.

3. Brown, N P & Heywood, N I (1991) “Slurry Handling: Design of Solid-Liquid Systems”,

Springer, New York, 680p.

4. Heywood, N I (1999) “Stop your Slurries from stirring up Trouble”, Chemical Engineering

Progress, September, pp 21-41.

5. Heywood, N I & Cheng D C-H (1984) “Comparison of Methods for Predicting Head Loss

in Turbulent Flow of Non-Newtonian Fluids”. Trans Inst Meas Control, 6(1), 33-45.

6. Wilson, K.C. and Thomas, A.D. (1985), “A New Analysis of the Turbulent Flow of non-

Newtonian Fluids”, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 63, 539-546.

7. Thomas, A D & Wilson, K C (1987) “A New Analysis of Turbulent Flow-Yield Power Law

Fluids”. Can J Chem Eng, 65, 335-338.

8. Thomas, A D & Wilson, K C (2007) “Rough-wall and Turbulent Transition Analyses for

Bingham Plastics”. In: Proc Hyrotransport 17 Conference, pp 77-86. Published by BHR

Group Ltd, Cranfield, UK.

9. Coulson, J.M. and Richardson, J.F. with Backhurst, J.R. and Harker, J.H. (1999), Coulson

& Richardson’s Chemical Engineering, Vol 1: Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer and Mass Transfer,

6th ed. Elsevier, Oxford.

10. Green, D.W. and Perry, R.H. (2008), Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 8th ed.

McGraw-Hill, New York

11. Wallingford, H.R and Barr, D.I.H. (2006), “Tables for the Hydraulic Design of Pipes, Sewers and

Channels”. 8th ed. Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, UK.

12. Crane Co (1979), Flow of fluids through valves, fittings and pipe, Technical paper No

410, Crane Co., 4100 Kedzie Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60632, USA.

13. Hydraulic Insitute (1970), Pipe Friction Manual, 3rd ed.

14. Miller D.S. (1990), Internal Flow Systems, 2nd ed., Published by BHR Group Ltd,

Cranfield, UK.

15. Idelchik, I.E. (1966), Handbook of hydraulic resistance: Coefficients of local resistance

and friction. A.E.C.-tr-6630, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

16. Rao K.V.K. (1986), “Determine Laminar-flow Head Losses for Fittings. Chemical

Engineering, 93 (3), 108–109.

17. Hooper, W. B. (1981), “The Two-K Method predicts Head Losses in Pipe Fittings”.

Chemical Engineering, Aug 24, 96–100.

18. Hooper, W. B. (1988), “Calculate Head Loss caused by Change in Pipe Size”. Chemical

Engineering, Nov 7, 89–92.

19. Darby, R. (2001a), “Take the Mystery out of non-Newtonian Fluids”, Chemical

Engineering, March, 66-73.

20. Darby, R. (2001b) “Correlate Pressure Drops through Fittings”, Chemical Engineering,

April, 127-130.

21. Frost, R.C. (1982), WRC Water Research Centre Technical Report TR 175, ‘Prediction of

Friction Losses for the flow of Sewage Sludges in straight pipes’.

22. Dawson, M K et al (2009) “Sludge System Pumping Losses: UK Industry Standard is

Flawed”. Paper presented at 14th European Biosolids and Organic Resources Conference

and Exhibition, Leeds, UK, November.

23. Wilson, K C (1970) Proc ASCE, J Hyd Div, 96, 1-12.

24. Wilson, K C (1976) Proc Hydrotransport 4, Paper A1, pp 1-16.

25. SRC Slurry Pipeline Course (2002), SRC Pipe Technology Centre, Saskatoon, Canada,

June. Presented by Dr C A Shook.

26. Gillies, R G and Shook, C A (2000) “Modelling High Concentration Settling Slurry

Flows”. Can J Chem Eng, 78, 709-716.

27. ANSI/HI 9.6.7 (2004) “Effects of Liquid Viscosity on Rotodynamic (Centrifugal and

Vertical) Pump Performance”.

28. ANSI/HI 12.1 - 12.6 (2005) Standard for Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Slurry Pumps.

29. Addie, G R, Roudnev, A S and Sellgren A (2007) “The New ANSI/HI Centrifugal Slurry

Pump Standard”. In: Proc Hydrotransport 17, 8-10 May, Cape Town, South Africa, p. 210.

12

30. Sellgren, A & Addie, G (1993) “Solids Effect on the Characteristics of Centrifugal Slurry

Pumps”. In: Proc Hydrotransport 12, Bruges, Belgium. Organised by BHR Group,

Cranfield, Beds, UK.

31. McElvain, R.E. (1974) "High Pressure Pumping". Skillings Mining Review, 63(4), 1-4.

32. Wilson, KC, Addie, G R, Sellgren, A & Clift, R (2006) Slurry Transport using Centrifugal

Pumps. Third edition, pp 231-233.

13

- Fluid Mechanics NotesUploaded byguptaranjeet40
- Chapter 1Uploaded byGie Andal
- Lect 5 - 7 - Shell Momentum BalanceUploaded bySatyajit Samal
- 1996 Chan Modelling Steady and Transient RheologyUploaded byLee Song Han
- Chapter3 ejercicios manejo de solidosUploaded byjanota24
- Syllabus Main KASUploaded byusername28
- Rheology of Supersaturated Sucrose SolutionsUploaded byAtmira Nurandarini Utomo
- Section 7Uploaded byHAFIZ IMRAN AKHTER
- cfxpre.pdfUploaded byShaheen S. Ratnani
- Incomplete Fluid–Fluid Displacement of Yield Stress Fluids in Near-horizontal PipesUploaded byHolmes Ripoll
- Aneta Work PlanUploaded byNizar Machmud
- Fluid 2 Project 1Uploaded bySanjay Ragupathy
- Lube-Tech093-ViscosityBlendingEquations_2.pdfUploaded byvivek20072008
- Gateforum CE GATE-2018 Paper-IUploaded byNouman Quraishi
- Chapter Wise TestsUploaded byKarthik Chockkalingam
- 2014 Lecture 3Uploaded byBhavya Patel
- Pressure boundary treatement - DSMCUploaded byVignesh Ram
- tut1Uploaded bymiladparsman
- Syllabus CHE341 Wint2012 ModifiedUploaded bycheifXmaster
- Tesla Microvalve Optimization ModelUploaded byAlesam44b
- fl62fib.pdfUploaded byMejo
- 0- Application_of_Rheology_Polymers.pdfUploaded byIMOdraude
- kunz_richard_k_197412_ms_106170Uploaded byLahcen Akerkouch
- past_exam.docUploaded byJohn This
- flow simulation SW 2012Uploaded byDimas Satria
- Trickle Bed ReactorUploaded byArdy Anto Supardi
- Pipe Flow Hydraulics Webinar PresentationUploaded bymukhzinrashid
- T1 - Fluid Mechanics_CH1.pptxUploaded byAiyman Khattab
- Unsteady Flow in PipesUploaded bychile
- Naiver Stokes.pdfUploaded byAbdul Rauf

- CADWorx 2013 SpecificationsUploaded byMahdi Daly
- 104890612 Water TreatmentUploaded bynawajha
- Water TreatmentUploaded byDaniel Rivaldi
- wat_0011Uploaded bynawajha
- 2014-CTB3365DWx-Coagulation-flocculation.pdfUploaded bynawajha
- Wastewater TreatmentUploaded byYeap Pei Ching
- Technical Specification Volume II-Part IUploaded bynawajha
- Getting StartedUploaded bynawajha
- Getting StartedUploaded byXenogenic Medusa
- Creating CADWorx 2013 Specifications and Adding Components to the SpecificationUploaded byAngel Andres Olano Mendoza
- tia6e_ch04_pptUploaded bynawajha
- QNO-334-Submittal-AUploaded bynawajha
- 05 SedimentationUploaded byCesar Gutierrez
- Project Controls Manual 2014-10-16 Issued Rev 4Uploaded byCH4N4P0P4
- CDW Overview.pdfUploaded bynawajha
- 01wg183_inf6_engUploaded bynawajha
- Wastewater CharacterizationUploaded byhorasius
- 01wg183_inf6_engUploaded bynawajha
- Hydropneumatic TankUploaded bynawajha
- 01wg183_inf6_engUploaded bynawajha
- Amtrol HandbookUploaded byKokchuan Wang
- 45-56-005_AVKCMS_ENUploaded bynawajha
- 0306_lecture12Uploaded byRodante Montallana
- Configuring of Pumps for Small Closed SystemsUploaded bynawajha
- 40885Uploaded bynawajha

- lab-2Uploaded bytrushalvora
- Student Unit Op Lab manual_Thin Film Evaporator.pdfUploaded byMuiz Moktar
- 20_2_1630.pdfUploaded byMohmmed Mahmoud
- Modelling and simulationUploaded byReya Raghunathan
- Numerical Modeling of Oil Spill Containment by Boom Using SPHUploaded byAnonymous HijNGQtN
- Lesson 7 - Winglets, Raked Wingtips, Vortices, DragUploaded byaahsan345
- 17454015 Control Valves and TuningUploaded byshanthimam38
- Daikin AHU Integration KitUploaded byerdo mandana
- HVAC Commisioning ChecklistUploaded byBalakumar
- A Theoretical Study of Hydrodynamic CavitationUploaded bydina
- CH621 (2)Uploaded byHimanshu
- airtechnic_multi-cyclones.pdfUploaded byShariq Khan
- Note Cc303 - Fluid Pressure PoliteknikUploaded bykbx6743
- 3. CuNi Catalog 8.25.11Uploaded byValli Raju
- HVAC Slide ShowUploaded byMoinullah Khan
- Xylene ReactionUploaded bydarkbreaker3244
- Water-to-Water System Design Guide.pdfUploaded byJofel Dulguime Suan
- Mustang Series M116-5 or M6116-5 (Globe), M1116-5 or M61116-5 (Angle) Specification SheetUploaded byWatts
- Wave Load and StructuraAnalysis for a Jack-Up Platform InUploaded byshuyong2006
- Cooling of Semicondutro DevicesUploaded byYellasiri Suresh
- Good Chemical Engineering BooksUploaded byMad Bha
- Fixed-Bed Catalytic ReactorUploaded byHesham Mashaal
- Lubrication of Cameron ValvesUploaded byHassan Manzar
- Bunsen BurnerUploaded byLukas Cefai
- PDF DatastreamUploaded byFahmi Tamimi El Mahmud
- Hydraulic System RequirementsUploaded byGuille Giraldo
- Vapor CompressionUploaded byWael_Barakat_3179
- Chapter 11 Gravity Flow Water Systems FINAL November 16 2008Uploaded bychukaluk
- Ables ApparatusUploaded byghambira
- AMPAC USA Seawater Desalination Catalog 2015.pdfUploaded byAmpac USA

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.