Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics) The Limit Deposit Velocity Model, A New Approach PDF
Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics) The Limit Deposit Velocity Model, A New Approach PDF
Abstract: In slurry transport of settling slurries in Newtonian fluids, it is often stated that one should apply a line speed
above a critical velocity, because blow this critical velocity there is the danger of plugging the line. There are many defi-
nitions and names for this critical velocity. It is referred to as the velocity where a bed starts sliding or the velocity above
which there is no stationary bed or sliding bed. Others use the velocity where the hydraulic gradient is at a minimum, be-
cause of the minimum energy consumption. Most models from literature are one term one equation models, based on the
idea that the critical velocity can be explained that way.
Here the following definition is used: The critical velocity is the line speed below which there may be either a station-
ary bed or a sliding bed, depending on the particle diameter and the pipe diameter, but above which no bed (stationary or
sliding) exists, the Limit Deposit Velocity (LDV). The way of determining the LDV depends on the particle size, where
5 regions are distinguished.
These regions for sand and gravel are roughly; very small particles up to 0.014–0.040 mm (d < δv), small particles
from δv–0.2 mm, medium particles in a transition region from 0.2–2.00 mm, large particles > 2 mm and very large parti-
cles > 0.015·Dp. The lower limit of the LDV is the transition between a sliding bed and heterogeneous transport. The new
model is partly based on physics and correlates well with experiments from literature.
Keywords: Critical velocity; Limit Deposit Velocity; Slurry transport; Newtonian fluid.
273
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
Sape A. Miedema, Robert C. Ramsdell
(1981), Turian et al. (1987), Davies (1987), Schiller and general, give higher Durand and Condolios (1952) Froude FL
Herbich (1991), Gogus and Kokpinar (1993), Gillies (1993), numbers. The two curves in the graph are for the Jufin and
Berg (1998), Kokpinar and Gogus (2001), Shook et al. (2002), Lopatin (1966) equation, which is only valid for sand and
Wasp and Slatter (2004), Sanders et al. (2004), Lahiri (2009), gravel, and the DHLLDV framework which is described in this
Poloski et al. (2010) and Souza Pinto et al. (2014). paper.
The research consisted of two parts, analyzing the experi- Both models give a sort of upper limit to the LDV. The data
mental data and analyzing the resulting models based on these points of the very small particle diameters, Thomas (1979) and
data. First the experimental data will be discussed. Poloski (2010), were carried out in very small to medium diam-
eter pipes, while the two curves are constructed for a 0.1524
EXPERIMENTAL DATA (6 inch) pipe, resulting in slightly lower curves. Data points
above the DHLLDV curve are in general for pipe diameters
Fig. 1 shows many data points of various authors for sand smaller than 0.1524 m. Some special attention is given to the
and gravel in water. Each column of data points shows the relation between the Durand Froude FL number and the pipe
results of experiments with different volumetric concentrations, diameter Dp. Both Thomas (1979) and Wasp et al. (1977) car-
where the highest points were at volumetric concentrations of ried out research with a d = 0.18 mm particle in 6 pipe diame-
about 15%–20%, higher concentrations gave lower points. The ters, see Fig. 2. These experiments show a slight decrease of the
experimental data also shows that smaller pipe diameters, in FL value with increasing pipe diameter with a power close to –0.1.
1.4
Graf & Robinson
1.2 Fuhrboter
Newitt
1.0 Sinclair
Blatch
0.8
Sassoli
0.6 Silin
Gibert
0.4 Gillies
Poloski
0.2
Smith Dp=0.075 m
Wasp Cvt=11%-38%
1.4
1.2
Thomas Cvt=12%-24%
Durand Froude Number FL (-)
y = 0.8084x-0.137
1.0
0.8
Power (Wasp
y = 0.7984x-0.097 Cvt=11%-38%)
0.6
Power (Thomas
Cvt=12%-24%)
0.4
274
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
The Limit Deposit Velocity model, a new approach
EQUATIONS & MODELS Jufin and Lopatin (1966) show an increase with the particle
diameter and a slight decrease with the pipe diameter (power –
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the Limit Deposit Velocities of 1/6). The model of van den Berg (1998) shows an increasing FL
DHLLDV, Durand and Condolios (1952), Jufin and Lopatin with the particle diameter, but no dependency on the pipe diam-
(1966), Wasp et al. (1970), Wasp and Slatter (2004), Souza eter. Durand and Condolios (1952) did not give an equation but
Pinto et al. (2014), Hepy et al. (2008), Gogus and Kokpinar a graph. The data points as derived from the original publication
(1993), Kokpinar and Gogus (2001), Berg (1998), Turian et al. in (1952) (Low Correct) and from Durand (1953) (High Incor-
(1987) and Gillies (1993) for 2 pipe diameters. The curves of rect) are shown in the graphs. The data points show a maximum
Hepy et al. (2008), Gogus and Kokpinar (1993) and Kokpinar for d = 0.5 mm. They did not report any dependency on the pipe
and Gogus (2001) show a maximum FL value for particles with diameter. The model of Gillies (1993) tries to quantify the Du-
a diameter near d = 0.5 mm. However these models show an rand and Condolios (1952) data points (the incorrect ones) but
increasing FL value with the pipe diameter, which contradicts does not show any dependency on the pipe diameter for the FL
the numerous experimental data, showing a slight decrease. The Froude number. The increase of the FL value with the pipe
models of Turian et al. (1987) , Wasp et al. (1970), Wasp and diameter of the Hepy et al. (2008), Gogus and Kokpinar (1993)
Slatter (2004) and Souza Pinto et al. (2014) show an increasing and Kokpinar and Gogus (2001) models is probably caused by
FL value with increasing particle diameter and a slight decrease the forced d/Dp relation.
with the pipe diameter.
2.5 Jufin-Lopatin
Wasp 1
Durand Froude number FL (-)
Wasp 2
2.0
Wasp-Slatter
Souza Pinto et al.
1.5 Hepy
Gogus-Kokpinar
1.0 Kokpinar-Gogus
van den Berg
Turian et al.
0.5
Gillies
Shook
0.0 Poloski
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01
Particle diameter d (m) Durand-Condolios
High Incorrect
Durand-Condolios
© S.A.M. Dp=0.1016 m, Rsd=1.59, Cvs=0.175, μsf=0.600 Low Correct
Fig. 3. A number of LDV models for a 0.1016 m (4 inch) pipe and 20% concentration.
2.5 Jufin-Lopatin
Wasp 1
Durand Froude number FL (-)
Wasp 2
2.0
Wasp-Slatter
Souza Pinto et al.
1.5 Hepy
Gogus-Kokpinar
1.0 Kokpinar-Gogus
van den Berg
Turian et al.
0.5
Gillies
Shook
0.0 Poloski
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01
Particle diameter d (m) Durand-Condolios
High Incorrect
Durand-Condolios
© S.A.M. Dp=0.4064 m, Rsd=1.59, Cvs=0.175, μsf=0.600 Low Correct
Fig. 4. A number of LDV models for a 0.4064 m (16 inch) pipe and 20% concentration.
275
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
Sape A. Miedema, Robert C. Ramsdell
With a strong relation with the particle diameter and a weak Gillies, 1993; Poloski et al., 2010). Above 2 mm, the FL value
relation for the pipe diameter, the pipe diameter will follow the will remain constant according to Durand and Condolios (1952)
particle diameter. Another reason may be the fact that they used and Gillies (1993). For particles with d/Dp > 0.015, the Wilson
pipe diameters up to 0.1524 m (6 inch) and the smaller the pipe et al. (1992) criterion for real suspension/saltation, the FL value
diameter the more probable the occurrence of a sliding bed and increases again. This criterion is based on the ratio particle
other limiting conditions, due to the larger hydraulic gradient diameter to pipe diameter and will start at a large particle
helping the bed to start sliding. diameter with increasing pipe diameter. Yagi et al. (1972)
The figures show that for small pipe diameters all models are reported many data points in this region showing an increasing
close. The reason is probably that most experiments are carried FL value.
out with small pipe diameters. Only Jufin and Lopatin (1966) 3. The relative submerged density Rsd: The relation
covered a range from 0.02 m to 0.9 m pipe diameters. Recently between the LDV and the relative submerged density is not very
Thomas (2014) gave an overview and analysis of the LDV (or clear, however the data shown by Kokpinar and Gogus (2001)
sometimes the LSDV). He repeated the findings that the LDV and the conclusions of Lahiri (2009) show that the FL value
depends on the pipe diameter with a power smaller than 0.5 but decreases with increasing solids density and thus relative
larger than 0.1. The value of 0.1 is for very small particles, submerged density Rsd to a power of –0.2 to –0.4.
while for normal sand and gravels a power is expected between 4. The spatial volumetric concentration Cvs: The
1/3 according to Jufin and Lopatin (1966) and 1/2 according to volumetric concentration leading to the maximum LDV is
Durand and Condolios (1952). Most equations are one term somewhere between 15% and 20% according to Durand and
equations, making it impossible to cover all aspects of the LDV Condolios (1952). Lahiri (2009) reported a maximum at about
behavior. Only Gillies (1993) managed to construct an equation 17.5%, while Poloski et al. (2010) derived 15%. This maximum
that gets close to the original Durand and Condolios (1952) LDV results from on one hand a linear increase of the
graph. sedimentation with the concentration and on the other hand a
In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 the incorrect data of Durand and reduced sedimentation due to the hindered setting. These two
Condolios (1952) are the ones used in many textbooks. counteracting phenomena result in a maximum, which is also
However Durand (1953) forgot to divide the FL value by the present in the equation of the potential energy. For small
square root of the relative submerged density. Based on the concentrations a minimum LDV is observed by Durand and
original data the correct values are determined. The incorrect Condolios (1952). This minimum LDV increases with the
values however match later experiments better. particle diameter and reaches the LDV of 20% at a particle
diameter of 2 mm with a pipe diameter of 0.1524 m (6 inch).
CONCLUSIONS LITERATURE For the dredging industry the Jufin and Lopatin (1966) equa-
tion gives a good approximation for sand and gravel, although a
The models analyzed result in a number of dominating pa- bit conservative. The model of Berg (1998) is suitable for large
rameters. These are the particle diameter d, the pipe diameter diameter pipes as used in dredging for sand and/or gravel, but
Dp, the liquid density ρl and kinematic viscosity νl, the solids underestimates the LDV for pipe diameters below 0.8 m. Both
density ρs, the sliding friction coefficient μsf, the bed concentra- models tend to underestimate the LDV for particle diameters
tion Cvb and the spatial volumetric concentration Cvs. Derived below 1 mm. The Jufin & Lopatin equation is for sand and
parameters are the relative submerged density Rsd, the Darcy gravel:
Weisbach friction factor for pure liquid flow λl and the thick-
ness of the viscous sub-layer δv. Dimensionless numbers are not
( )
1/ 6
considered at first, since they may lead to wrong interpretations. vls,ldv = 8.3 ⋅ Cvt ⋅ψ * ⋅ D1p/ 3
Lately Lahiri (2009) performed an analysis using artificial
neural network and support vector regression. Azamathulla and or
Ahmad (2013) performed an analysis using adaptive neuro-
( )
1/ 6
fuzzy interference system and gene-expression programming. 8.3 ⋅ Cvt ⋅ψ * ⋅ D1p/ 3
Although these methodologies may give good correlations, they FL = (2)
do not explain the physics. Lahiri (2009) however did give 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p
statistical relations for the dependency on the volumetric con-
centration, the particle diameter, the pipe diameter and the rela-
tive submerged density. 3/ 2
*
v
Resuming, the following conclusions can be drawn for sand with : ψ = t
g ⋅d
and gravel:
1. The pipe diameter Dp: The LDV is proportional to the
pipe diameter Dp to a power between 1/3 and 1/2 (about 0.4) for
small to large particles (Thomas (1979), Wasp et al. (1977), STARTING POINTS DHLLDV FRAMEWORK
Lahiri (2009) and Jufin and Lopatin (1966)) and a power of
about 0.1 for very small particles (Thomas (1979), Wilson and Analyzing the literature, equations and experimental data,
Judge (1976), Sanders et al. (2004) and Poloski et al. (2010)). the LDV can be divided into 5 regions for sand and gravel, see
2. The particle diameter d: The LDV has a lower limit for Fig. 5:
very small particles, after which it increases to a maximum at a 1. Very small particles, smaller than about 50% of the
particle diameter of about d = 0.5 mm (Thomas (1979), Thomas thickness of the viscous sub layer, giving a lower limit of
(2014), Durand and Condolios (1952), Gillies (1993) and the LDV. This is for particles up to about 0.015 mm in
Poloski et al. (2010)). For medium sized particles with a particle large pipes to 0.04 mm in very small pipes.
size d > 0.5 mm, the FL value decreases to a minimum for a 2. Small particles up to about 0.2 mm, a smooth bed, show an
particle size of about d = 2 mm (Durand and Condolios, 1952; increasing LDV with increasing particle diameter.
276
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
The Limit Deposit Velocity model, a new approach
3. Medium particles with a diameter from 0.2 mm up to a eddies, just because eddies are not large enough. This will
diameter of 2 mm, a transition zone from a smooth bed to a probably result in an increasing LDV with the particle
rough bed. First the LDV increases to a particle diameter of diameter. Yagi et al. (1972) reported many data points in
about 0.5 mm, after which it decreases slowly to an this region showing this increase.
asymptotic value at a diameter of about 2 mm. The above conclusions are the starting points of the
4. Large particles with a diameter larger than 2 mm, a rough DHLLDV Limit Deposit Velocity Model and has been shown in
bed, giving a constant LDV. the figures. Fig. 5 shows the flow chart for the determination of
5. Particles with a particle diameter to pipe diameter ratio the LDV, based on these findings.
larger than about 0.015 cannot be carried by turbulent
277
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
Sape A. Miedema, Robert C. Ramsdell
( )
1/ 3 0.77
= 2.26 ⋅ μsf ⋅ν l ⋅ Rsd ⋅ Cvb ⋅ g ⋅
((C vb − Cvs ) )
0.88 1/ 3
− 0.25 ⋅
d
νl
⋅A
(10)
8 (8)
( )
1/ 3
vls,ldv = 2.26 ⋅ μsf ⋅ν l ⋅ Rsd ⋅ Cvb ⋅ g ⋅
λl
( )
1/ 3
with: A= μ sf ⋅ν l ⋅ Rsd ⋅ Cvb ⋅ g
278
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
The Limit Deposit Velocity model, a new approach
tial energy losses of the particles are decreasing with increasing makes sense, because in the homogeneous regime all particles
line speed, Miedema and Ramsdell (2013), while the energy are supposed to be in suspension.
losses of the liquid flow are increasing with increasing line The value of αp = 3.5 is based on the maximum LDV values
speed. Now it is assumed that a certain fraction of the energy found in literature and not on a best fit. In fact αp may vary from
losses of the liquid flow is available for the suspension of the 3.0 as a lower limit to 3.5 as an upper limit. So the value of 3.5
particles. This fraction is defined as 1/αp3. So at the line speed is conservative. A best fit would probably give a value of about
where the potential energy losses are equal to 1/αp3 times the 3.25. However in dredging the LDV should be a safe LDV,
liquid energy losses, all particles will be in suspension. At a since the particle size, the concentration and the line speed may
lower line speed some particles will form a bed at the bottom of vary in time.
the pipe. The potential energy losses of the particles can be
expressed by means of the excess hydraulic gradient due to REGION 4: ROUGH BED, LARGE PARTICLES
potential energy, Miedema and Ramsdell (2013). The liquid
flow energy losses can be expressed in terms of the liquid hy- When the particles are larger, the small eddies are not strong
draulic gradient. This gives at the LDV: enough to keep them in suspension. The transport mechanism
over the bottom of the pipe will be more saltation or similar to
β sheet flow. For medium and large particles in sedimentation
C
vt ⋅ 1 − vs ⋅ Cvs ⋅ Rsd 2
transport it is often assumed that particles are in suspension or
κC 1 λ ⋅v (11) in saltation when the friction velocity is larger than the terminal
= 3 ⋅ l ls,ldv settling velocity, u* > vt. Larger particles will be more difficult
vls,ldv α p 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Dp
to keep in suspension, but at a certain bed shear stress saltation
will take over. Whether this occurs exactly at u* = vt can be
Solving for the Limit Deposit Velocity gives: questioned, but some proportionality seems reasonable since the
friction velocity is proportional to the bed shear stress. The
β Shields-Parker diagram, (Garcia, 2008), uses this assumption.
C
κC
(
vt ⋅ 1 − vs ⋅ Cvs ⋅ 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p ) (12)
Substituting the friction velocity for the terminal settling veloci-
3
vls,ldv = α3 ⋅
p
ty gives:
λl
β
C
This equation shows that the Limit Deposit Velocity of small u* ⋅ 1 − vs ⋅ Cvs ⋅ Rsd 2
κC 1 λ ⋅v (14)
particles depends on the terminal settling velocity with a correc- = 3 ⋅ l ls,ldv
tion for hindered settling vt·(1–Cvs/κC)β, the spatial volumetric vls,ldv α p 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Dp
concentration Cvs, the relative submerged density Rsd, the pipe
diameter Dp and the Darcy Weisbach friction factor λl. The term The question is now, what to use for the friction velocity u*?
(1–Cvs/κC)β·Cvs should have a maximum at a spatial concentra- In general a limiting volumetric bed concentration can be as-
tion of about 17.5% independ on the value of the power β and sumed for a line speed just below the Limit Deposit Velocity
the factor κC. In terms of the Durand & Condolios LDV Froude Cvs,ldv. This limiting concentration is the cross section of parti-
number FL factor this can be written as: cles in the bed at the LDV divided by the pipe cross section, and
not the total concentration, since most of the particles are in
vls,ldv suspension or saltation.
FL,s =
( 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p )
1/ 2 The limiting volumetric bed concentration can be divided by
the bed concentration Cvb giving a relative limiting volumetric
β 1/ 3 bed concentration Cvr,ldv. This relative limiting volumetric bed
vt ⋅ 1 − Cvs ⋅ Cvs concentration gives the fraction of the bed related to the pipe
cross section. In terms of the bed shear stress this gives:
= α p ⋅ κC
1/ 2
(
λl ⋅ 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p
) (13)
u* =
τ12
ρl
1/ 9 (15)
1.65
with : α p = 3.5 ⋅
Rsd π
τ12 = μ sf ⋅ g ⋅ ρl ⋅ Rsd ⋅ ⋅ D p ⋅ Cvr ,ldv ⋅ Cvb
κ C =0.175 ⋅ (1 + β ) 4
279
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
Sape A. Miedema, Robert C. Ramsdell
π Dp
h = Cvs,ldv ⋅ ⋅ (20) 1/ 2
4 (1 − n ) π 1/ 2 (25)
μsf ⋅ Cvb ⋅ ⋅ Cvr ,ldv
⋅
8
So now the shear stress equals, in terms of the relative limit- λl
ing volumetric concentration:
( )
3/ 2
π ⋅ 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p
τ12 = μsf ⋅ Cvs,ldv ⋅ ⋅ ρl ⋅ 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p
8
And the Durand & Condolios LDV Froude number:
π C
8
( )
= μsf ⋅ ⋅ ρl ⋅ 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p ⋅ vs,ldv ⋅ Cvb
Cvb
(21) vls,ldv
FL,r =
( 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p )
1/ 2
π
τ12 = μsf ⋅ ⋅ ρl ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p ) ⋅ Cvr ,ldv ⋅ Cvb
8
1/ 3
C β
Substituting the shear stress for the friction velocity gives: 1 − vs ⋅ Cvs
κC (26)
C
β
λl
τ12
⋅ 1 − vs ⋅ Cvs ⋅ Rsd 2 =αp ⋅
ρl κC 1 λl ⋅ vls,ldv (22)
= ⋅ 1/ 2
vls,ldv α 3p 2 ⋅ g ⋅ D p π 1/ 2
μ sf ⋅ Cvb ⋅ ⋅ Cvr ,ldv
⋅ 8
Thus, based on the limiting volumetric concentration: λl
π
ρl ⋅ μ sf ⋅ ⋅ Cvr ,ldv ⋅ Cvb ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p ) The limiting relative volumetric concentration Cvr,ldv appears
8 to depend on the pipe diameter Dp and the relative submerged
ρl density Rsd. With a constant thickness of the thin layer h, the
vls,ldv amount of solids in this thin layer is proportional to the pipe
diameter Dp. The cross section of the pipe however is propor-
(23) tional to the pipe diameter Dp squared. So the limiting relative
β volumetric concentration Cvr,ldv will be reversely proportional to
Cvs the pipe diameter. The limiting relative volumetric concentra-
1 − ⋅ Cvs ⋅ Rsd 2
κC 1 λl ⋅ vls,ldv tion Cvr,ldv is decreasing with increasing relative submerged
⋅ = 3⋅ density Rsd. This can be explained by assuming that a certain
vls,ldv α p 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Dp
critical bed shear stress τ12 requires a decreasing relative volu-
metric concentration Cvr,ldv with an increasing relative sub-
This can be rewritten as: merged density Rsd, giving:
280
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
The Limit Deposit Velocity model, a new approach
( )
model. At a certain line speed the bed concentration reaches a
value where the particles do not touch each other anymore if the FL = FL,s ⋅ e− d / d0 + FL,r ⋅ 1 − e− d / d0 (29)
bed would be in rest. However, due to the particle-pipe wall and
particle-particle interactions, the particles are still capable of
transmitting the gravity forces, resulting in sliding friction with 1/ 2
1.65
the pipe wall. One cannot speak of a sliding bed anymore, alt- with : d0 = 0.0005 ⋅
hough a black box approach still shows sliding friction behav- Rsd
ior. That’s why this regime is named the sliding flow regime.
One cannot really speak of an LDV here, but a value is required The coefficient d0 is found by calibrating the equations on as
for the determination of the slip ratio as part of the DHLLDV much experimental data as possible. It is not tried to get the best
framework. The experiments of Yagi et al. (1972) show this fit, but to be on the safe side, 90-95% of the data points should
behavior. be below the resulting LDV curve. In general, the maximum
In the sliding flow regime, the particles are so large that they LDV curves are found at a concentration of about 17.5%.
flow over the bottom of the pipe giving sliding friction behav- Above 17.5% the LDV decreases again.
ior, the limiting relative volumetric concentration increases with It is remarkable that the LDV shows a maximum for sand
an increasing particle diameter to pipe diameter ratio. The crite- particles with a diameter of 0.5 mm, while the Shields curve
rion for fully stratified flow of Wilson et al. (1992) is applied (Miedema, 2012a) and (Miedema, 2012b) shows a minimum for
here. When the particles are large it is also the question whether about the same particle diameter. The curves are mirrored
they still fit in the thin layer with thickness h. around a horizontal axis. The difference between the LDV
curve and the Shields curve is however, the Shields curve deals
d ≤ 0.015 ⋅ D p with the initiation of motion, while the LDV curve deals with
suspension, saltation or sliding of the bed.
−1
R
Cvr ,ldv = 0.00004 ⋅ D −p 1 ⋅ sd THE TRANSITION SLIDING BED –
1.65
HETEROGENEOUS, A LOWER LIMIT
0.0013
=
2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p When the Limit Deposit Velocity found this way is smaller
than the transition velocity between the sliding bed regime and
the heterogeneous regime, the latter should be chosen for the
d > 0.015 ⋅ D p (28) LDV. Whether this is exactly this transition velocity is a ques-
1/ 2 tion, but since a LDV smaller than this transition velocity would
−1
R d result in an Erhg value in the heterogeneous regime higher than
Cvr ,ldv = 0.00004 ⋅ D −p 1 ⋅ sd ⋅ the sliding bed Erhg, which is impossible, this transition is cho-
1.65 0.015 ⋅ D p
sen as a limitation to the LDV curves.
1/ 2 When a sliding bed is present, particles will be in suspension
0.0106 d
= ⋅ above the sliding bed. The higher the line speed, the more parti-
2 ⋅ g ⋅ Rsd ⋅ D p Dp cles will be in suspension. The interaction between the particles
in suspension and the particles in the bed will still be by inter
particle interactions, reason that the sliding bed is still carrying
the weight of all the particles in suspension. Apparently the
weight of all the particles is resulting in sliding friction. At a
certain line speed all the particles will be in suspension or saltat-
ing and the sliding bed regime transits to heterogeneous flow.
The particles now interact with the pipe wall by collisions and
281
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
Sape A. Miedema, Robert C. Ramsdell
not by sliding friction anymore. This transition will, in reality, the maximum LDV curve should be used, which occurs at a
not be too well defined. However in this model for now it is volumetric concentration of about 17.5%.
assumed to be a sharp transition. At the Limit Deposit Velocity Fig. 6 shows the construction of the LDV curve for sands
the excess pressure losses of both regimes should be equal, and gravels in a 6 inch (0.1524 m) pipe, for a 17.5% spatial
Miedema (2015c), giving: volumetric concentration. Up to a particle diameter of about
0.2 mm the resulting curve follows the smooth curve (red line).
β From 0.2 mm to about 2 mm the resulting curve follows the
vt C
μ sf = ⋅ 1 − vs transition equation. Above 2mm, in this case the transition
vls,ldv κC velocity between the sliding bed regime and the heterogeneous
8/ 3 2 (30) regime is followed. Finally above about 10 mm the sliding flow
7 .5 2 1 (ν ⋅ g )1/ 3 criteria is followed. The shape of the curve depends strongly on
l
+ ⋅ ⋅ the pipe diameter. With small diameter pipes, the transition
λl C x
vls,ldv
velocity between the sliding bed regime and the heterogeneous
regime will be dominant for larger particles. While for large
This equation shows that the transition between the sliding pipe diameters as used in dredging, this will hardly have any
bed regime and the heterogeneous regime depends on the slid- influence. The graph also contains the Jufin and Lopatin (1966)
ing friction coefficient. Implicitly Newitt et al. (1955) already LDV curve, which is a one equation curve. This equation is
found this, but didn’t explicitly mention this, because they chosen because of the large range of pipe diameters, from about
assumed that potential energy is responsible for all the excess 1 inch to 90 cm, investigated. Of course a one equation model
head losses in heterogeneous flow. The equation derived is a can never result in a complex curve based on different criteria
second degree function and can be written as: as is shown here. However for practical purposes it also gives a
good and safe result.
β Fig. 7 shows the resulting LDV curves for volumetric con-
C
vt ⋅ 1 − vs centrations from 1% to 25% on a linear horizontal axis. The
κC
+
2 horizontal axis is limited to particles of 2.5 mm in order to
−vls,ldv ⋅ vls,ldv
μsf compare this graph with the famous Durand and Condolios
(1952) graph. Although the Durand & Condolios graph as cop-
(31) ied by many authors contains an error on the vertical axis by a
8/ 3 factor 1.285, giving an asymptotic value of 1.34 for large parti-
7.52 1 2/ 3 cles (which should have been 1.05), and the resemblance with
⋅ ⋅ (ν l ⋅ g )
λl Cx their graph is remarkable. Based on the experiments published
+ =0 by Gibert (1960) and others, the wrong Durand & Condolios
μsf graph seems to be the right graph.
Fig. 8 shows the path of the LDV curve in a Erhg graph, the
with: relative excess hydraulic gradient: Erhg = (im–il)/(Rsd·Cvs).
The points are calculated for particle diameters of 0.1, 0.2,
A = −1 0.3, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 3 and 10 mm. It is shown that for very small
particles the LDV follows the homogeneous curve closely.
From 0.2 to 3 mm the curve transits from the homogeneous
β curve to the sliding bed curve. Above 3 mm the LDV will
C
vt ⋅ 1 − vs follow the sliding bed curve. For smaller pipe diameters the
B= κC LDV curve moves to the right, meaning that the distance
μsf between the homogeneous curve and the sliding bed curve
decreases. Particles smaller than 3 mm will already reach the
sliding bed curve. For larger pipe diameters the LDV curve
8/ 3 (32) moves to the left, meaning that the distance between the
7.52 1 2/ 3
⋅ ⋅ (ν l ⋅ g ) homogeneous curve and the sliding bed curve increases.
λl Cx Particles larger than 3 mm will not reach the sliding bed curve.
C= Fig. 9 shows the LDV as a function of the pipe diameter for
μsf 5 different particle sizes. In the graph also the average powers
of the LDV curves with respect to the pipe diameters are shown.
Equations (12) and (26) give a power of 1/3 based on the pres-
− B − B2 − 4 ⋅ A ⋅ C ence of the pipe diameter in the equations. However, the equa-
vls,ldv =
2⋅ A tions also contain the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor in the
denominator, increasing the powers slightly to a value around
THE RESULTING LIMIT DEPOSIT VELOCITY 0.4. For small diameter pipes, the limiting transition velocity
CURVES between the sliding bed and the heterogeneous regime results in
a flat part. For particles with d > 0.015·Dp, the adjustment of the
In slurry transport applications like dredging, the slurry LDV according to equation (28) will reduce the power. Based
transport process is not steady state, but dynamical. At the en- on this analysis, it is impossible to model the LDV with a one
trance of the pipeline the volumetric concentration and the term equation. There are 4 different regions of the LDV and a
particle size distribution, PSD, will vary in time. Because of this limiting transition velocity. A smooth bed, a rough bed, a transi-
the hydraulic gradient will vary, resulting in a varying line tion region and the criterion d > 0.015·Dp together with the
speed. Even with steady state volumetric concentration and limiting transition velocity between the sliding bed and the
PSD, moving dunes and large vortices may occur. So to be safe, heterogeneous regime. Curve fit techniques on experimental data
282
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
The Limit Deposit Velocity model, a new approach
SB-He: μsf=0.5
4.0
SB-He: μsf=0.6
3.0
SB-He: μsf=0.7
2.0
Transition He-SF
1.0
Jufin-Lopatin
0.0
1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01
Particle diameter d (m)
Fig. 7. The resulting LDV curve for different concentrations on a linear axis.
will always give a result, but this will be a different result based Each region is modelled separately, resulting in dynamic
on the particle and pipe diameters used in the experiments. transition particle diameters, depending on the parameters in-
volved. The modelling is independent of head loss models. The
CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION modelling is calibrated mainly with sand and gravel experi-
mental data, although limited data is used for other relative
There are many definitions and names for the critical veloci- submerged densities.
ty. Here the critical velocity is defined as the Limit Deposit The equations found give an upper limit to the LDV and are
Velocity, the line speed above which there is no stationary bed thus conservative, but safe.
or sliding bed. Below the LDV there may be either a stationary Although the model seems completed, there are still a number
or fixed bed or a sliding bed, depending on the particle diameter of issues that required further investigation. For region 1, very
and the pipe diameter and of course the liquid properties. fine particles, the liquid viscosity and density may need adjust-
The DHLLDV framework divides particles in 5 regions and ment, however it is the question whether this is necessary in the
a lower limit. These regions are for sand and gravel; very small viscous sub-layer. For region 5, very large particles, it is the
particles up to about δv, small particles up to 0.2 mm, a transi- question whether an LDV exists. At concentrations above a
tion region from 0.2 mm to 2 mm, particles larger than 2 mm certain threshold (related to sheet flow) the bed concentration
and particles larger than 0.015 times the pipe diameter. The may decrease continuously. Still some characteristic LDV value
lower limit is the transition between a sliding bed and heteroge- is required to determine the slip velocity in the DHLLDV
neous transport. framework. For all regions the relative submerged density has
283
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
Sape A. Miedema, Robert C. Ramsdell
0.100
d=0.75 mm, Cvs=c.
Fig. 8. The path of the LDV curve in a Erhg graph for a 6 inch (0.1524 m) pipe.
d=0.10 mm
y = 5.2432x0.2374 d=0.25 mm
y= 7.0249x0.393 d=0.50 mm
LDV (m/sec)
y = 3.7407x0.3937
y = 6.6302x0.4266 d=2.00 mm
1.0
Power (d=0.02 mm)
y = 1.1668x0.1825
Power (d=0.10 mm)
© S.A.M.
Fig. 9. The LDV as a function of the pipe diameter for 5 particle sizes.
not yet been investigated thoroughly, although it is part of the Berg, C.H., 1998. Pipelines as transportation systems. In:
model. For the limited data investigated the model gives good Proceedings of the European Mining Course. IHC-MTI,
results, but more experimental data could adjust the implemen- Kinderdijk, the Netherlands.
tation of the relative submerged density. For dredging purposes Charles, M.E., 1970. Transport of solids by pipeline.
however the model is suitable. Hydrotransport 1. BHRA, Cranfield.
More graphs, spreadsheets and programs can be found on Davies, J.T., 1987. Calculation of critical velocities to maintain
the website of The Delft Head Loss & Limit Deposit Velocity solids in suspension in horizontal pipes. Chemical
Framework: www.dhlldv.com. Engineering Science, 42, 7, 1667–1670.
Durand, R., 1953. Basic Relationships of the Transportation of
REFERENCES Solids in Pipes - Experimental Research. In: Proceedings of
the International Association of Hydraulic Research.
Azamathulla, H.M., Ahmad, Z., 2013. Estimation of critical Minneapolis.
velocity for slurry transport through pipeline using adaptive Durand, R., Condolios, E., 1952. Etude experimentale du
neuro-fuzzy interference system and gene-expression refoulement des materieaux en conduites en particulier des
programming. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and produits de dragage et des schlamms. [Experimental study of
Practice, 131–137. the discharge pipes materieaux especially products of
284
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
The Limit Deposit Velocity model, a new approach
dredging and slurries]. Deuxiemes Journees de Miedema, S.A., Ramsdell, R.C., 2014a. An analysis of the
l'Hydraulique, 27–55. (In French.) hydrostatic approach of wilson for the friction of a sliding
Fuhrboter, A., 1961. Über die Förderung von Sand-Wasser- bed. WEDA/TAMU. WEDA, Toronto, Canada, p. 21.
Gemischen in Rohrleitungen. [On the advances of sand - Miedema, S.A., Ramsdell, R.C., 2014b. The Delft Head Loss &
water mixtures in pipelines]. Mitteilungen des Franzius- Limit Deposit Velocity Model. In: Hydrotransport, BHR
Instituts, H. 19.(In German.) Group, Denver, USA, p. 15.
Garcia, M.H., 2008. Sedimentation Engineering (Vol. 110). Newitt, D.M., Richardson, M.C., Abbott, M., Turtle, R.B.,
ASCE Manuals & Reports on Engineering Practise No. 110. 1955. Hydraulic conveying of solids in horizontal pipes.
Gibert, R., 1960. Transport hydraulique et refoulement des Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, 33,
mixtures en conduites. [Hydraulic transport and discharge 93–110.
pipes of mixtures]. Annales des Ponts et Chausees, 130, 3, Oroskar, A.R., Turian, R.M., 1980. The hold up in pipeline
307–374, 130, 4, 437–494. (In French.) flow of slurries. AIChE, 26, 550–558.
Gillies, R.G., 1993. Pipeline flow of coarse particles, PhD Parzonka, W., Kenchington, J.M., Charles, M.E., 1981.
Thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. Hydrotransport of solids in horizontal pipes: Effects of
Gogus, M., Kokpinar, M.A., 1993. Determination of critical solids concentration and particle size on the deposit velocity.
flow velocity in slurry transporting pipeline systems. In: Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 59, 291–296.
Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on Slurry Poloski, A.P., Etchells, A.W., Chun, J., Adkins, H.E., Casella,
Handling and Pipeline Transport. British Hydraulic Research A.M., Minette, M.J., Yokuda, S., 2010. A pipeline transport
Group, Bedfordshire, UK, pp. 743–757. correlation for slurries with small but dense particles.
Graf, W.H., Robinson, M., Yucel, O., 1970. The critical deposit Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 88, 182–189.
velocity for solid-liquid mixtures. Hydrotransport 1. BHRA, Ramsdell, R.C., Miedema, S.A., 2013. An overview of flow
Cranfield, UK, pp. H5-77–H5-88. regimes describing slurry transport. In: WODCON XX,
Hepy, F.M., Ahmad, Z., Kansal, M.L., 2008. Critical velocity WODA, Brussels, Belgium, p. 15.
for slurry transport through pipeline. Dam Engineering, 19, Sanders, R.S., Sun, R., Gillies, R.G., McKibben, M.,
3, 169–184. Litzenberger, C., Shook, C.A., 2004. Deposition velocities
Jufin, A.P., Lopatin, N.A., 1966. O projekte TUiN na for particles of intermediate size in turbulent flows. In:
gidrotransport zernistych materialov po stalnym Hydrotransport 16, BHR Group, Santiago, Chile, pp. 429–
truboprovodam. [TUiN project on hydrotransport of grain 442.
materials in steel tubes]. Gidrotechniceskoe Strojitelstvo, 9, Schiller, R.E., Herbich, J.B., 1991. Sediment Transport in
49–52. (In Russian.) Pipes. Handbook of Dredging. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kokpinar, M.A., Gogus, M., 2001. Critical velocity in slurry Shook, C.A., Gillies, R.G., Sanders, R.S., 2002. Pipeline
transport in horizontal pipelines. Journal of Hydraulic Hydrotransport with Application in the Oil Sand Industry.
Engineering, 127, 9, 763–771. SRC Publication 11508-1E02, Saskatchewan Research
Lahiri, S.K., 2009. Study on slurry flow modelling in pipeline. Council, Saskatoon, Canada.
National Institute of Technology, Durgapur, India. Souza Pinto, T.C., Moraes Junior, D., Slatter, P.T., Leal Filho,
Miedema, S.A., 2012a. Constructing the Shields Curve: Part A L.S., 2014. Modelling the critical velocity for heterogeneous
Fundamentals of the Sliding, Rolling and Lifting flow of mineral slurries. International Journal of Multiphase
Mechanisms for the Entrainment of Particles. Journal of Flow, 65, 31–37.
Dredging Engineering, 12., 1–49. Thomas, A.D., 1979. Predicting the deposit velocity for
Miedema, S.A., 2012b. Constructing the Shields Curve: Part B horizontal turbulent pipe flow of slurries. International
Sensitivity Analysis, Exposure & Protrusion Levels, Settling Journal of Multiphase Flow, 5, 113–129.
Velocity, Shear Stress & Friction Miedema, S.A., 2014 Thomas, A.D., 2014. Slurries of most interest to the mining
Velocity, Erosion Flux and Laminar Main Flow. Journal of industry flow homogeneously and the deposit velocity is the
Dredging Engineering, 12, 50–92. key parameter. In: HydroTransport 19, BHR Group, Denver,
Miedema, S.A., 2014. An analytical approach to explain the Colorado, USA, pp. 239–252.
Fuhrboter equation. Maritime Engineering, 167, 2, 1–14. Thomas, D.G., 1962. Transport characteristics of suspensions:
Miedema, S.A., 2015a. A head loss model for homogeneous Part VI. Minimum velocity for large particle size
slurry transport. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, suspensions in round horizontal pipes. A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 8,
1, 1–12. 3, 373–378.
Miedema, S.A., 2015b. Head loss model for slurry transport in Thomas, D.G., 1965. Transport characteristics of suspensions:
the heterogeneous regime. Journal of Ocean Engineering, VIII. A note on the viscosity of Newtonian suspensions of
12., 50–92. uniform spherical particles. Journal of Colloidal Sciences,
Miedema, S.A., 2015c. The Slip Ratio or Holdup Function in 20, 267–277.
Slurry Transport. Dredging Summit and Expo 2015. Turian, R.M., Hsu, F. L., Ma, T.W., 1987. Estimation of the
WEDA, Houston, Texas, USA, p. 12. critical velocity in pipeline flow of slurries. Powder
Miedema, S.A., Matousek, V., 2014. An explicit formulation of Technology, 51, 35–47.
bed friction factor for sheet flow. In: Proc. 15th International Wasp, E.J., Slatter, P.T., 2004. Deposition velocities for small
Freight Pipeline Society Symposium, IFPS, Prague, Czech particles in large pipes. In: Proc. 12th International
Republic, p. 17. Conference on Transport & Sedimentation of Solid Particles,
Miedema, S.A., Ramsdell, R.C., 2013. A head loss model for Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 20–24.
slurry transport based on energy considerations. In: Proc. Wasp, E.J., Kenny, J.P., Aude, T.C., Seiter, R.H., Jacques,
XX World Dredging Conference, WODA, Brussels, R.B., 1970. Deposition velocities transition velocities and
Belgium, p. 14. spatial distribution of solids in slurry pipelines. In: Hydro
Transport 1, paper H42, BHRA Fluid Engineering,
Coventry, pp. 53–76.
285
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC
Sape A. Miedema, Robert C. Ramsdell
Wasp, E.J., Kenny, J.P., Gandhi, R.L., 1977. Solid liquid flow Cx Durand & Condolios coefficient –
slurry pipeline transportation. Transactions Technical d Particle diameter m
Publications. d0 Transition particle diameter m
Wilson, K.C., 1979. Deposition limit nomograms for particles Dp Pipe diameter m
of various densities in pipeline flow. In: Hydrotransport 6, Erhg Relative excess hydraulic gradient –
BHRA, Canterbury, UK, p. 12. FL Durand Limit Deposit Velocity Froude –
Wilson, K.C., Judge, D.G., 1976. New techniques for the scale- number
Fsf Sliding friction force kN
up of pilot plant results to coal slurry pipelines. In:
FW Weight of bed at LDV kN
Proceedings International Symposium on Freight Pipelines,
g Gravitational constant (9.81) m/s2
University of Pensylvania, Washington DC, USA, pp. 1–29. h Thickness of bed layer at LDV m
Wilson, K.C., Judge, D.G., 1977. Application of analytical il Hydraulic gradient of liquid –
model to stationary deposit limit in sand water slurries. In: im Hydraulic gradient of mixture –
Dredging Technology, BHRA Fluid Engineering, College ΔL Length of pipeline m
Station, Texas, USA, pp. J1 1–12. n Porosity of bed –
Wilson, K.C., Addie, G.R., Clift, R., 1992. Slurry Transport Rsd Relative submerged density –
using Centrifugal Pumps. Elsevier Applied Sciences, New u* Friction velocity m/s
York. vls Cross-section averaged line speed m/s
Wilson, W.E., 1942. Mechanics of flow with non colloidal inert vls,ldv Line speed at Limit Deposit Velocity m/s
solids. Transactions ASCE, 107, 1576–1594. vt Particle terminal settling velocity m/s
Yagi, T., Okude, T., Miyazaki, S., Koreishi, A., 1972. An αp Energy fraction coefficient –
Analysis of the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Horizontal δv Thickness of viscous sub layer m
Pipes. Nagase, Yokosuka, Japan. Report of the Port & λl Darcy-Weisbach friction factor between –
Harbour Research Institute, Vol. 11, No. 3. liquid and pipe wall
Zandi, I., Govatos, G., 1967. Heterogeneous flow of solids in κC Concentration eccentricity constant –
pipelines. Proc. ACSE, J. Hydraul. Div., 93(HY3), 145–159. ρl Density of liquid ton/m3
νl Kinematic viscosity liquid m2/s
μsf Sliding friction coefficient –
NOMENCLATURE
τ12 Bed shear stress kPa
Cvb Bed volumetric concentration –
Received 11 November 2014
Cvs Spatial volumetric concentration –
Accepted 15 June 2015
Cvs,ldv Concentration of bed at LDV –
Cvr,ldv Bed fraction at LDV –
Cvt Transport or delivered volumetric –
concentration
286
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 24.09.19 19:44 UTC