See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239389391

Critical Flow Velocity in Slurry Transporting Horizontal Pipelines

Article  in  Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · September 2001

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:9(763)

CITATIONS READS
44 6,582

2 authors:

Mehmet Ali Kokpinar Mustafa Gogus

TEDU Cankaya University
19 PUBLICATIONS   217 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   369 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Yukari Kalekoy Dam and HEPP Spillway Hydraulic Model Studies View project

Beyhan 1 Dam and HEPP Water Intake Structure Hydraulic Model Studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mustafa Gogus on 27 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY IN SLURRY TRANSPORTING
HORIZONTAL PIPELINES
By Mehmet Ali Kökpınar1 and Mustafa Göğüş2

ABSTRACT: A new empirical equation is proposed for predicting critical flow velocity in slurry-transporting
horizontal pipelines. An analysis of the settling velocity of solid particles, including the effect of solid particle
concentration, is undertaken because of this parameter’s importance. This study builds on a previous study
carried out to consider the settling velocity of a single solid particle in clear-water condition, which is actually
different from the real physics of the hydrotransport phenomenon of the solid particles. Two earlier proposed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 06/08/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

methods are applied to the calculation of the settling velocity of a solid particle, including the effect of solid
particle concentration within the suspending fluid. The most appropriate method for slurry transportation among
these two methods is discussed and used in the analysis of critical flow velocity. The new proposed equation is
based on analysis of data from the experiments as well as data from the earlier studies. A unique feature of the
proposed equation is that it can be applied to noncohesive, uniform, and nonuniform coarse solid particles. In
a comparison of prediction accuracy with four existing relationships, the proposed equation was found to give
significantly better agreements with the observed data. Therefore, it can be stated that the new equation can
safely be used by designers in the problems of slurry transportation.

INTRODUCTION characteristics. The first equation was given by Yufin (ASCE

The problem of predicting critical flow velocity in solid-
liquid carrying pipelines with a sufficient accuracy is of great
interest to many hydraulic engineers. The interest is the min-
imum cost of slurry transportation at this velocity. In addition,
for the velocities below the critical velocity, there may be dep-
osition of solid particles in the pipeline, causing excessive pipe
abrasion, head loss, and plunging.
To define the critical flow velocity in a solid-liquid carrying
pipe, a stationary layer of noncohesive coarse solid particles
is considered initially. The noncohesive coarse solid particles
usually do not alter the rheological properties of the carrier
fluid employed, which is usually water. Therefore, solid and
liquid phases behave somewhat separately. When the flow ve-
locity increases gradually, because of shear exerted on the par-
ticles, some particles at the uppermost layer tend to move
along the flow direction by jumping, rolling, or sliding. This
situation follows an appearance of a number of bed forma-
tions. A further increase in flow velocity results in the initiation
of motion of particles at the lower layers and eventually, at a
critical condition, all the particles at the pipe wall move with-
out any deposition. In this condition, solid particles pass from
a saltation regime to a heterogeneous regime. Within the tran-
sition zone between heterogeneous and saltation regimes, there
is a unique velocity, corresponding to minimum head loss in
the pipeline, below which deposits will occur but above which
no deposit in the pipeline will be encountered. In the present
study, this velocity is defined as the critical flow velocity Vc,
and, for any design problem related to the topic, information
on this velocity is strongly required. Solid-liquid carrying
pipeline systems may be operated economically if there is ade-
quate information to define a critical velocity Vc of the mixture
(Graf 1971; ASCE 1975; Wasp et al. 1979; Swamee 1995;
Matousek 1996).
In prior research studies, critical velocity equations were
derived empirically in terms of flow, fluid, and solid particle
1
PhD, Hydr. Lab., Tech. Res. and Quality Control Dept., State Hydr.
Works, Yücetepe, Ankara, 06100, Turkey.
2
Prof., Hydr. Lab., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Middle East Tech. Univ.,
Ankara, 06531, Turkey.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2002. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on May 14, 1999; revised April 27, 2001. This paper
is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 9, Sep-
tember, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/01/0009-0763–0771/$8.00 ⫹
$.50 per page. Paper No. 20961.
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001 / 763
1975); nevertheless, the most reliable and practically used one
was proposed by Durand (1953). Durand conducted experi-
ments in a pipeline system of diameters ranging from 0.04 to
0.58 m. He used solid particles such as coal and sand with
volumetric concentrations up to 15%. Spells (1955) analyzed
data collected by Horvard, Yufin, Smith and Carruters, and
Settle and Parkins and stated an empirical relation on critical
flow velocity Vc in terms of density and viscosity of the mix-
ture (ASCE 1975). In addition to the studies just cited, the
subject has been investigated by many other investigators.
The proposed prior equations are listed in Table 1. Unfor-
tunately, each equation gives different results (Avcı 1981).
Therefore, to design a slurry-carrying pipeline system, differ-
ent critical flow velocities are obtained from those equations.
To overcome this difficulty, the writers carried out an experi-
mental and theoretical study on noncohesive coarse particle
transport in a Newtonian carrier fluid. The data obtained from
this study and from the studies presented in Table 2, which
are based on similar definitions of critical flow velocity given
in this study, are used to derive a more general empirical equa-
tion for critical flow velocity Vc. Black and blue granular plas-
tic particles as uniform solid materials and fine sand, coarse
sand, fine tuff, coarse tuff, and coal as nonuniform solid par-
ticles were used in the experimental study. The properties of
the solid particles are presented in columns 3 and 5 of Table 2.
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
When a solid-liquid mixture is conveyed through a pipe, the
following variables are involved:
f (V, ␳s, ds, ␳f , ␮f , Cv, D, SF, g) = 0 (1)
in which V = flow velocity of mixture; ␳s = density of solid
particle; ds = characteristic particle diameter; ␳f = density of
fluid; ␮f = dynamic viscosity of fluid; Cv = volumetric con-
centration of solid particles in the mixture; D = pipe diameter;
SF = shape factor of a solid particle; and g = gravitational
constant. Among these variables, the dependent variable for
the design purposes is the critical mixture velocity V. The flow
velocity V is replaced with Vc, whose value is important for
the design problem, and shape factor SF is replaced with the
settling velocity of a solid particle.
Because it is easy to predict and applicable to the fluid trans-
port of particles, many investigators define the settling velocity
of particles in clear-water conditions w. Nevertheless, in re-
ality, the particle transport occurs not individually but in close

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:763-771.

 TABLE 1. Some Equations on Critical Flow Velocity
Investigator Equation
Yufin (ASCE 1975) Vc = 14.23d 0.65D 0.54 exp(1.36[Cv (s ⫺ 1)]0.5 d ⫺0.13) a
Durand (1953) Vc = FL兹2gD(s ⫺ 1) b
Spells (1955) Vc = [0.0251gd85(D␳m /␮m)0.775(s ⫺ 1)]0.816 c
Hungmark (1961) Vc /兹gD = ⌽[Cv(s ⫺ 1)FD] d
Sinclair (1962) Vc /(Vc)max = ⌽(Cv), (Vc)2max /[gd85(s ⫺ 1)0.8] = ⌽(d85 /D)
Zandi and Gavatos (1967) Vc = {[40Cv Dg(s ⫺ 1)]/兹CD}0.5
Wiendenroth (1967) Vc = 0.6兹gD (w2/gd )0.25 e
Babcock (1971) Vc = {[10Cv Dg(s ⫺ 1)]/兹CD}0.5
Vc = {[17.8兹CvDg(s ⫺ 1)]/兹CD}0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 06/08/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Larsen (1968)
1.2 ⫺1.4
Rose and Duckworth (1969) Vc = 10.24w2C 0.4
w (D/d ) s (gD)⫺0.5 f
Göğüş and Kökpınar (1993) (Vc /兹gD) = 0.124(D/d )0.537C 0.322
v (s ⫺ 1)0.121(wd/␯w)0.243
a
D and d are in feet.
b
FL is a constant, Vc is undefined for Cv > 0.15.
c
It is valid for d < 0.5 mm.
d
⌽ and FD can be found from charts.
e
Cv is not considered.
f
Cw is used as concentration ğ.

TABLE 2. Experimental Data and Results of Analysis

w (m/s) wm (m/s) Critical Flow Velocity Vc (m/s)
Materials and D ds Göğüş and Durand Zandi and Yufin
origin of data (m) (mm) Cv s CDa Measured Cheng Mitzmager Cheng Measured Eq. (13) Kokpınar (1993) (1953) Gavatos (1967) (1975)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7a) (7b) (8a) (8b) (9a) (9b) (9c) (9d) (9e) (9f)
Sand, series 1 0.150 1.090 0.014 2.60 0.57 0.11 0.12 0.20 0.11 2.63 2.10 1.97 — 0.99 1.32
0.150 1.090 0.023 2.60 0.65 0.11 0.12 0.19 0.11 2.91 2.35 2.32 1.78 1.26 1.35
0.150 1.090 0.032 2.60 0.75 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.11 2.96 2.51 2.58 1.84 1.46 1.38
0.150 1.090 0.015 2.60 0.60 0.11 0.12 0.20 0.11 2.33 2.12 2.02 — 1.02 1.33
0.150 1.090 0.037 2.60 0.80 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.11 2.97 2.59 2.62 1.91 1.56 1.40
0.150 1.090 0.026 2.60 0.62 0.11 0.12 0.19 0.11 3.00 2.45 2.41 1.88 1.33 1.36
0.150 1.090 0.011 2.60 0.54 0.11 0.12 0.20 0.11 2.69 1.98 1.83 — 0.88 1.32
0.150 1.090 0.019 2.60 0.70 0.11 0.12 0.18 0.11 2.98 2.20 2.18 — 1.15 1.34
Sand 0.102 0.450 0.007 2.65 1.23 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.05 1.55 1.16 1.15 — 0.50 0.84
(Graf et al. 1970) 0.102 0.450 0.010 2.65 1.39 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.05 1.71 1.26 1.29 — 0.59 0.85
0.102 0.450 0.030 2.65 1.71 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.05 1.90 1.64 1.84 1.55 0.99 0.89
0.102 0.450 0.070 2.65 2.01 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.04 1.98 2.01 2.40 1.64 1.41 0.99
0.152 0.880 0.008 2.65 0.64 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.10 1.95 1.87 1.69 — 0.75 1.25
0.152 0.880 0.011 2.65 0.66 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.10 2.04 2.03 1.88 — 0.88 1.25
0.152 0.880 0.030 2.65 0.71 0.09 0.10 0.16 0.09 2.21 2.63 2.59 1.84 1.41 1.31
0.152 0.880 0.050 2.65 1.13 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.09 2.25 2.81 3.06 1.99 1.77 1.37
0.152 0.450 0.008 2.65 1.38 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.05 1.78 1.84 1.82 — 0.65 1.05
0.152 0.450 0.019 2.65 1.58 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.05 2.12 2.28 2.41 — 0.98 1.08
0.152 0.450 0.025 2.65 1.65 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.05 2.27 2.44 2.63 1.89 1.11 1.10
0.152 0.450 0.054 2.65 1.74 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.04 2.42 2.98 3.34 2.02 1.56 1.18
Sand 0.150 0.440 0.050 2.60 1.73 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.04 2.47 2.87 3.20 1.94 1.47 1.15
(Durand 1952) 0.150 0.440 0.100 2.60 2.46 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 2.65 3.28 3.53 2.21 1.90 1.30
0.150 0.440 0.150 2.60 3.20 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.03 2.71 3.52 3.98 2.34 2.11 1.46
0.150 2.040 0.025 2.60 0.48 0.21 0.18 0.30 0.17 2.19 2.29 2.30 1.87 1.39 1.63
0.150 2.040 0.079 2.60 0.54 0.21 0.18 0.28 0.15 2.41 3.07 3.15 2.09 2.30 1.82
0.150 2.040 0.075 2.60 0.53 0.21 0.18 0.29 0.15 2.53 3.04 3.13 2.05 2.25 1.80
0.150 2.040 0.100 2.60 0.59 0.21 0.18 0.27 0.14 2.62 3.23 3.33 2.12 2.52 1.89
Sand 0.052 0.421 0.050 2.68 1.88 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.04 1.45 0.90 1.06 1.19 0.87 0.65
(Avcı 1981) 0.052 0.421 0.100 2.68 2.41 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 1.58 1.04 1.29 1.30 1.13 0.73
0.052 0.298 0.050 2.68 3.21 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.03 1.45 0.87 0.98 1.10 0.77 0.60
Sand 0.108 0.230 0.150 2.60 9.99 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 2.08 2.28 2.50 1.80 1.33 —
(Yotsukura 1961) 0.108 0.230 0.200 2.60 16.46 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 2.35 2.28 2.68 — 1.36 —
0.108 0.230 0.050 2.60 5.46 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 1.83 1.85 2.12 1.66 0.96 —
0.108 0.230 0.100 2.60 8.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 1.94 2.11 2.51 1.75 1.21 —
0.108 0.585 0.250 2.60 4.37 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 2.44 2.57 2.14 — 2.08 1.39
0.108 0.585 0.050 2.60 1.25 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.06 1.99 2.01 2.26 1.67 1.34 1.03
0.108 0.585 0.100 2.60 1.67 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.05 2.12 2.32 2.63 1.88 1.75 1.48
0.108 0.585 0.200 2.60 2.92 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.03 2.96 2.57 2.94 — 2.06 1.44
0.108 1.150 0.050 2.60 0.93 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.11 2.52 1.90 2.04 1.75 1.52 1.22
0.108 1.150 0.100 2.60 1.08 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.09 2.32 2.24 2.54 1.84 2.01 1.35
0.108 1.150 0.150 2.60 1.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.08 2.67 2.48 2.84 1.93 2.28 1.50
Sand 0.027 0.250 0.010 2.60 5.30 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.46 0.26 0.55 — 0.24 —
(Wicks 1968) 0.140 0.250 0.010 2.60 5.30 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.79 1.58 3.04 — 0.55 —
Coarse sand, 0.150 5.340 0.015 2.55 0.44 0.35 0.31 0.50 0.30 1.96 1.74 1.64 — 1.12 2.18
series 2 0.150 5.340 0.027 2.55 0.49 0.35 0.31 0.47 0.29 2.31 2.00 1.96 — 1.48 2.23
0.150 5.340 0.037 2.55 0.51 0.35 0.31 0.46 0.29 2.45 2.17 2.16 — 1.71 2.27
0.150 5.340 0.026 2.55 0.49 0.35 0.31 0.47 0.29 2.03 1.98 1.93 — 1.45 2.23
Coal, series 3 0.150 3.700 0.022 1.74 0.48 0.12 0.17 0.27 0.16 1.62 1.71 1.63 1.24 0.91 1.91
0.150 3.700 0.036 1.74 0.57 0.12 0.17 0.25 0.16 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.32 1.15 1.94
0.150 3.700 0.050 1.74 0.59 0.12 0.17 0.25 0.15 1.88 2.06 2.10 1.34 1.33 1.96
0.150 3.700 0.021 1.74 0.46 0.12 0.17 0.28 0.16 1.71 1.70 1.61 1.24 0.89 1.91
0.150 3.700 0.039 1.74 0.58 0.12 0.17 0.25 0.16 1.71 1.94 1.93 1.33 1.19 1.94
0.150 3.700 0.055 1.74 0.62 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.15 2.04 2.10 2.13 1.37 1.39 1.97

764 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:763-771.

 TABLE 2. (Continued )
w (m/s) wm (m/s) Critical Flow Velocity Vc (m/s)
Materials and D ds Göğüş and Durand Zandi and Yufin
origin of data (m) (mm) Cv s CDa Measured Cheng Mitzmager Cheng Measured Eq. (13) Kokpınar (1993) (1953) Gavatos (1967) (1975)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7a) (7b) (8a) (8b) (9a) (9b) (9c) (9d) (9e) (9f)
Coal 0.025 2.205 0.030 1.74 0.50 0.07 0.12 0.21 0.12 0.32 0.28 0.30 0.48 0.42 0.63
(Sinclair 1962) 0.025 2.205 0.040 1.74 0.55 0.07 0.12 0.20 0.11 0.34 0.30 0.33 0.50 0.48 0.63
0.025 2.205 0.050 1.74 0.60 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.11 0.35 0.31 0.35 0.54 0.53 0.64
0.025 2.205 0.060 1.74 0.61 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.11 0.37 0.33 0.37 0.55 0.57 0.64
0.025 2.205 0.070 1.74 0.63 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.11 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.55 0.61 0.65
0.025 2.205 0.080 1.74 0.67 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.10 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.56 0.64 0.66
0.025 2.205 0.100 1.74 0.74 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.10 0.41 0.36 0.42 0.57 0.70 0.67
0.025 2.205 0.120 1.74 0.83 0.07 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.45 0.37 0.44 0.60 0.75 0.68
0.025 2.205 0.140 1.74 0.93 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.47 0.38 0.46 0.62 0.79 0.89
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 06/08/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.025 2.205 0.160 1.74 1.02 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.50 0.39 0.48 — 0.83 0.71
0.025 2.205 0.180 1.74 1.03 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.52 0.40 0.48 — 0.86 0.72
Blue plastics, 0.150 2.250 0.031 1.20 0.93 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.06 1.29 1.37 1.38 1.05 0.54 1.61
series 4 0.150 2.250 0.032 1.20 1.00 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.06 1.36 1.37 1.40 1.05 0.55 1.61
0.150 2.250 0.056 1.20 1.04 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.06 1.46 1.58 1.65 1.05 0.71 1.62
0.150 2.250 0.068 1.20 1.10 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 1.54 1.65 1.74 1.05 0.77 1.63
0.150 2.250 0.074 1.20 1.13 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 1.53 1.68 1.78 1.05 0.80 1.63
0.150 2.250 0.072 1.20 1.11 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 1.56 1.67 1.77 1.05 0.79 1.63
Black plastics, 0.150 2.250 0.050 1.35 0.67 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.08 1.41 1.85 1.89 1.38 0.87 1.63
series 5 0.150 2.250 0.028 1.35 0.60 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.08 1.26 1.61 1.58 1.38 0.67 1.62
0.150 2.250 0.068 1.35 0.85 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.07 1.49 1.94 1.97 1.38 1.00 1.65
0.150 2.250 0.047 1.35 0.65 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.08 1.40 1.83 1.86 1.38 0.85 1.63
0.150 2.250 0.056 1.35 0.66 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.07 1.46 1.91 1.91 1.38 0.92 1.64
0.150 2.250 0.027 1.35 0.60 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.08 1.27 1.59 1.57 1.38 0.66 1.62
Fine tuff, 0.150 1.652 0.029 1.31 1.13 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.06 1.41 1.51 1.58 0.81 0.61 1.47
series 6 0.150 1.652 0.049 1.31 0.90 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.06 1.74 1.80 1.80 0.86 0.78 1.48
0.150 1.652 0.069 1.31 0.98 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.05 1.54 1.95 1.99 0.90 0.90 1.49
0.150 1.652 0.089 1.31 1.15 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.05 1.85 2.03 2.10 0.93 1.00 1.51
0.150 1.652 0.051 1.31 1.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.05 1.80 1.77 1.82 0.86 0.79 1.48
0.150 1.652 0.073 1.31 0.97 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.05 1.97 1.98 2.02 0.91 0.92 1.50
Coarse tuff, 0.150 3.899 0.035 1.04 0.56 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.06 0.99 0.89 0.31 0.25 1.91
series 7 0.150 3.899 0.060 1.04 0.57 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.42 1.14 1.04 0.32 0.31 1.92
0.150 3.899 0.084 1.04 0.58 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.64 1.24 1.16 0.33 0.36 1.92
0.150 3.899 0.037 1.04 0.57 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.25 1.00 0.89 0.31 0.25 1.91
0.150 3.899 0.064 1.04 0.58 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.46 1.16 1.06 0.32 0.32 1.92
0.150 3.899 0.091 1.04 0.59 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.03 1.63 1.27 1.17 0.34 0.38 1.92
Anthracite 0.052 0.843 0.050 1.18 4.58 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.52 0.43 0.61 0.38 0.25 0.68
(Avcı 1981) 0.052 0.843 0.100 1.18 5.86 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.54 0.52 0.74 0.43 0.33 0.69
0.052 0.596 0.050 1.18 4.58 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.49 0.46 0.55 0.39 0.25 0.63
0.052 0.596 0.100 1.18 5.86 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.52 0.53 0.68 0.43 0.33 0.63
0.052 0.596 0.150 1.18 7.86 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.58 0.57 0.70 0.47 0.38 0.64
0.052 0.596 0.200 1.18 11.40 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.63 0.58 0.71 — 0.40 0.65
0.052 0.596 0.300 1.18 20.20 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.68 0.59 0.73 — 0.39 0.67
Polystyrene 0.052 3.200 0.100 1.04 1.08 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.27 0.38 0.42 — 0.22 1.01
(Avcı 1981) 0.052 3.200 0.200 1.04 1.13 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.28 0.46 0.51 — 0.28 1.02
PVC 0.052 3.200 0.050 1.41 0.49 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.60 0.59 0.64 — 0.58 1.06
(Avcı 1981) 0.052 3.200 0.100 1.41 0.60 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.09 0.65 0.69 0.79 — 0.78 1.08
0.052 3.200 0.150 1.41 0.72 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.68 0.76 0.89 — 0.90 1.11
a
Eq. (9).

interaction of the individual particle with other particles. The

writers therefore prefer to represent the settling velocity of a
solid particle in a mixture wm instead of in clear water w be-
Vc
兹gD
=f 冋 (s ⫺ 1), Cv,
␳f wm dn dn
␮f
,
D 册 (4)

cause of its appropriateness for the transport phenomenon and, for nonuniform particles

冋 册
herein studied.
Thus, (1) can be written Vc ␳f wm d50 d50
=f (s ⫺ 1), Cv, , (5)
兹gD ␮f D
Vc = f (␳s, ds, ␳f , ␮f , Cv, D, wm, g) (2)
Nondimensional grouping of (2) results in DETERMINATION OF SETTLING VELOCITY

冋 册
The main objective of this study is to obtain a functional
Vc ␳f wm ds ds
=f (s ⫺ 1), Cv, , (3) relationship between relevant nondimensional groups pre-
兹gD ␮f D sented in (4) and (5). For this reason, available data given in
Table 2 are analyzed considering (4) and (5) in which settling
where Vc /兹gD = Froude number F based on critical flow velocities of characteristic solid particles wm are needed in the
velocity; s = specific gravity of solid particles; (␳f wm ds)/␮f = computation of the particle Reynolds number R.
particle Reynolds number R based on the settling velocity of
a solid particle in the mixture; and ds /D = ratio of solid particle Measurement of Settling Velocity for Present Study
diameter to pipe diameter.
For uniform solid particles, ds can be replaced with dn, A transparent cylindrical settling column made of Plexiglas
where dn is the diameter of an equivalent sphere having the pipe, 0.30-m inner diameter and 2.95-m height, was used to
same volume with the related uniform solid particle. In addi- obtain the terminal settling velocity w of solid particles used
tion, for nonuniform solid particles, ds can be written as d50, in the experiments. The tests were conducted in clear and calm
where d50 is the solid size of which 50% is finer. Then, (3) water conditions. The settling velocity measurement region,
can be expressed, for uniform particles which is 0.75 m high, is selected in the lower half of the
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001 / 765

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:763-771.

 settling column. The vertical distance between the maximum
water level and the entrance section of the measurement sec-
tion is 1.70 m. A thermometer is fixed 1.45 m below the top
of the column to measure the temperature of the water during
experiments. The settling velocities of particles used in this
study are slow enough so that there is no need to use a pho-
tographic or any other method to measure them. Therefore, the
particles can be timed with a stopwatch over the settling ve-
locity measurement region and the results are presented in col-
umn 7a of Table 2.
Calculation of Settling Velocity for Referred Cases
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 06/08/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cheng (1997b) showed that the presence of other solid par-
ticles may modify the settling velocity of a single solid particle
because of mutual interference among particles. Two events
may be encountered, depending on the concentration distri-
bution of solid particles:
• A few closely spaced particles in a fluid fall faster than a
single particle.
• Uniform distribution of solid particles in fluid media de-
creases the settling velocity of the single particle (hin-
dered settling).
In this paper, because the data on solid particle settling ve-
locities used in the studies by Durand (1952), Yotsukura
(1961), Sinclair (1962), Wicks (1968), Graf et al. (1970), and
Avcı (1981) were not available, those values were approxi-
mated by using two methods proposed by Mitzmager et al.
(1964) and Cheng (1997b). Hence, particle Reynolds number
FIG. 1. Graphical Solution of Constant A [from Mitzmager et al.
(1964)]
766 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:763-771.
values are calculated based on these two methods of calcula-
tions and used in (4) or (5). A comparison of these two meth-
ods is then made in accordance with the applicability to the
determination of critical flow velocity.
The first method is a graphical method proposed by Mitz-
mager et al. (1964). According to this method, the density of
the mixture ␳m is obtained in terms of solid particle concen-
tration; ␳m = (␳s ⫺ 1)Cv ⫹ 1 (g/cm3). The density difference
between solid particles and the mixture is ⌬␳ = ␳s ⫺ ␳m. The
figures to be used in the application of this method are pre-
sented in Figs. 1–3. From Figs. 1 and 2, ␣ is found by laying
a straight edge connecting ␳m with ⌬␳ and mixture viscosity
␮m (poise) with ⌬␳, then two constants A and B can be deter-
mined by laying a straight edge connecting ␣ with ␮m and ␣
with ␳m, respectively. Thomas (1956) suggested an equation
for the viscosity of concentrated suspensions
␮m /␮f = 1 ⫹ 2.5Cv ⫹ 10.05C 2v ⫹ ⌿ exp(␤Cv) (6)
in which two coefficients ⌿ and ␤ have the following values:
⌿ = 0.00273 and ␤ = 16.6. Then, entering Fig. 3 using those
two constants A and B, settling velocity of a solid particle in
a mixture wm can be determined. Calculated wm values of the
materials used in this study are given in column 8b of Ta-
ble 2.
The second method was proposed by Cheng (1997a,b).
Cheng (1997a) first presents an explicit relationship for the
settling velocity of a single solid particle in clear water w. His
equation is in terms of the particle Reynolds number, wds /␯,
and a nondimensional particle diameter, d* = [(s ⫺ 1)g/
␯2]1/3ds. It is
FIG. 2. Graphical Solution of Constant B [from Mitzmager et al.
(1964)]
 In accordance with Cheng’s method (1997b), the drag co-
efficient of a solid particle CD in a concentrated medium is

冋冉 冊 册
1/1.5 1.5
32
CD = ⫹1 (9)
{兹25 ⫹ 1.2(d ⬘*)2 ⫺ 5}1.5

Then Cheng (1997b) proposed that the settling velocity of

a solid particle in a mixture wm of a constant concentration
could be given in terms of the settling velocity of the same
particle in clear water w

冉 冊
1.5
wm 2 ⫺ 2Cv 兹25 ⫹ 1.2(d ⬘*)2 ⫺ 5
= (10)
w 2 ⫺ 3Cv 兹25 ⫹ 1.2d 2* ⫺ 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 06/08/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The second event stated previously is considered by

FIG. 3. Graphical Solution of Ratio Settling Velocity, wm /B [from
Mitzmager et al. (1964)]
wds
= (兹25 ⫹ 1.2d *
2
⫺ 5)1.5
␯ method is used, the newly developed equation is able to pre-
The settling velocities of the materials used in this study in
clear water are determined from (7) and presented in column
7b of Table 2.
Cheng (1997b) derived another equation for settling veloc-
ity including, in this case, the effect of solid particle concen-
tration. For this case, the nondimensional particle diameter is
Cheng’s method (1997b) and, as is seen from the results pre-
sented in column 8b of Table 2, the settling velocity of solid
particles are, in most cases, less than those of the particles in
clear water. This instance is said to be nearly the case of ho-
mogeneous flow of solids in a pipe. However, the first event
considered by Mitzmager et al. (1964) is more suitable for the
heterogeneous flow of solids, which is dealt with in this paper.
To support this discussion, a comparison is made between
measured Vc and those calculated Vc values [from newly de-
veloped critical flow velocity equations in the form of (4) and
(5)] based on different settling velocities obtained from the
aforementioned methods. Results show that, if Mitzmager’s
(7)
dict all measured values within ⫾15%, whereas Cheng’s
method (1997b) gives ⫾19%. Therefore, the method proposed
by Mitzmager et al. (1964) is used in the following analysis
of critical flow velocity Vc in this study.
EXPERIMENTS
Experiment Setup

再 冎
(1 ⫺ Cv)(s ⫺ 1) 1/3
g The experiment setup used in this study was designed by
[1 ⫹ Cv(s ⫺ 1)]
⬘ =
d* ds (8a) Göğüş and Çıray (1990) and constructed at the Hydraulics
(␯⬘)2 Laboratory of Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Tur-
key. Fig. 4 is a plan view of the experiment setup, which is
where ␯⬘ is defined by Sha (1956) (Cheng 1997b) horizontally assembled on steel supports 0.60 m above the
ground level. The final section of the system is exposed to
2␯ atmosphere. The elements of the whole system can be divided
␯⬘ = (8b)
2 ⫺ 3Cv into three units: pipeline, flow division, and water jet pump.

FIG. 4. Schematic Diagram of Experiment Setup (cm)

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001 / 767

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:763-771.

 The pipeline unit consists of a steel pipe 26 m long and
0.15 m in diameter. It starts just after the water jet pump unit
and continues up to the transparent transition pipe of the
square cross section, whose dimensions are 0.15 ⫻ 0.15 m.
The transparent pipe, which is 1.0 m long and 0.15 m in di-
ameter and located close to the downstream end of the pipeline
unit, is used as an observation pipe during the experiments.
Solid particles are introduced to the system by means of a
loading funnel. There is a bottom outlet valve for unloading
the solid particles from the system.
The flow division unit is one of the most important and spe-
cially designed parts of the whole experiment setup and was
placed in the downstream part of the system. The straight por-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 06/08/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion of the pipeline has a bend in the unit, which is divided into
two branches of different radiuses of curvatures. Because of the
presence of the bend before branches, the incoming flow is
subjected to centrifugal forces, which creates secondary flow in
the region. Under the action of these forces, the particle carried
in the pipe along with water, which mainly moves on the bed,
has a tendency to move toward the inner surface of the bend
and then flows through the inner branch of the flow division
unit. Eventually, most of the solid particles pass through the
bypass while the smaller sediment leaves through the exit valve.
The three auxiliary parts of the flow division unit shown in
Fig. 4 are a pressure observation tank to control the system
pressure accurately, outlet valve to regulate the flow rate in
the pipeline and to adjust the pressure level inside the pressure
observation tank, and gate to unload the solid particles from
the system, which is placed at the other branch of the flow
division unit.
The water jet pump unit is placed between the 90⬚ bend and
the main pipeline unit. It can be divided into four main ele-
ments as a suction nozzle, mixing chamber, diffuser, and driv-
ing nozzle.
Experimental Procedure
To determine the critical velocities of various solid particles,
seven series of experiments were conducted (Kökpınar 1990).
Each empirical Vc value is obtained according to the definition
of critical velocity cited in the ‘‘Introduction’’ section. Gen-
erally, two experimental methods can be applied to determine
Vc: (1) by observing solid particle motion through an obser-
vation pipe located on the pipeline unit; (2) by plotting the
head loss versus velocity curve, in which minimum head loss
corresponds to Vc in the system. Both methods could even be
applied to determine empirical values of Vc; herein the method
of the observation pipe was followed because of its appropri-
ateness in getting precise predictions of particle motion at the
critical flow condition. For this reason, Vc was determined by
observing the motion of the solid particles through a 1.0-m-
long transparent observation pipe located on the longest pipe
of the test loop, as shown in Fig. 4. An enlarging mirror panel
(0.5 ⫻ 0.5 m) was set under the observation pipe to see clearly
the movement of particles at the bottom of the transparent
pipe. Additionally, to obtain the experimental value of Vc with
TABLE 3. Experimental Conditions of Data Used in Analysis
Vc Cv
Data source (m/s) (%)
Present study 1.06–3.00 1.1–9.1
Graf et al. (1970) 1.55–2.42 0.7–7.0
Durand (1952) 2.19–2.71 5.0–15.0
Avcı (1981) 0.27–1.58 5.0–30.0
Yotsukura (1961) 1.83–2.96 5.0–25.0
Wicks (1968) 0.46–0.79 1.0
Sinclair (1962) 0.32–0.52 3.0–18.0
a
Specific gravity value was not reported in reference (Wasp et al. 1979) and, because coal was also used in the present study, specific gravity of coal
is accepted as 1.74.
768 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:763-771.
sufficient accuracy, each test was repeated at least two or three
times by using the same amount of particles. A weighed amount
of solid particles were introduced into the system by means of
the loading funnel. The flow conveyed the solid particles
through the pipe. Then, the driving line valve was adjusted so
that the flow in the system would attain the critical velocity at
which no stationary solid deposition would occur at the bottom
portion of the pipeline system. This flow condition was ob-
served from the observation pipe located on the pipeline unit.
While the flow was passing through the system, a small
fraction of the solid particles introduced into the system was
withdrawn through the exit valve located at the end of the
system. When the critical velocity was attained in the pipeline,
the withdrawn amount of particles was reintroduced into the
system. Then, for a short period, approximately 4–5 min, the
experiment was conducted under the critical flow velocity con-
ditions. During experiments, it was observed that, along the
bend of the flow division unit, some portion of the solid par-
ticles introduced into the system was deposited. The volume
of this deposited solid was almost the same as that withdrawn
through the exit valve. Because there were two more bends in
the system, it was estimated that totally deposited solid par-
ticles, about three times that withdrawn through the exit valve,
was deposited in the pipeline system at the critical velocity
condition. The total volume of those deposited particles was a
maximum of 10% of the introduced volume.
At the end of each series of experiments, the withdrawn par-
ticles were weighed and four times that amount was subtracted
from the quantity initially introduced to find the weight of cir-
culated particles. From the known weight, the volume of the
circulated particles was determined, and then considering the
total water volume in the system, the volumetric concentration
Cv was calculated. The volumetric concentration values used in
the present study Cv are given in Table 2. At the stage of critical
flow, required measurements were recorded. The discharge of
mixture was measured by using a Venturi meter placed in the
pipeline unit. At high flow rates, it was estimated that fluctua-
tions in the water manometers connected to the Venturi meter
could easily result in a 2% error in the discharge, therefore
producing a corresponding error in the critical flow velocity.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Because the aim of this study is to derive a general rela-
tionship for the critical flow velocity in solid transporting hor-
izontal pipeline systems that will cover a very wide range of
particle, pipe, and slurry properties, the data having the above-
mentioned parameters in the literature are given in Table 2. In
addition, Table 3 shows the experimental conditions for each
data set used in the development of a new critical velocity
equation. The data obtained in this study and from Avcı (1981)
indicate that tests were conducted with various particle sizes,
particle densities, and volumetric concentration values in a
constant pipe diameter; i.e. D = 0.150 and 0.052 m, respec-
tively. Graf et al. (1970) used two pipe diameters but only
sand particles in the experiments. However, it is seen in Table
ds D Number of
(mm) (m) s data points
1.09–5.34 0.150 1.04–2.60 43
0.45–0.88 0.102–0.152 2.65 12
0.44–2.04 0.150 2.60 7
0.29–3.20 0.052 1.04–2.68 15
0.23–1.15 0.108 2.60 11
0.25 0.027–0.140 2.60 2
2.205 0.025 1.74a 11
 3 that other investigators conducted the experiments in more
limited conditions; for example, they used only one particle
density in a constant pipe diameter or at a fixed volumetric
concentration value.
The relationship between nondimensional groups given in
(4) or (5) can be analyzed using the data from this study and
those of investigators in Table 2. Various combinations of the
nondimensional parameters are plotted with respect to each
other on semilog papers and the following relation is found
the most suitable

冉 冊冉 冊 冋
Vc
兹gD
ds
D
= f1 Cv(s ⫺ 1) 冉 冊册
␳f wm ds
␮f
(11)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 06/08/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Regression analysis of the functional relationship given in

(11) leads to

冉 冊 冉冊 冋 冉 冊册
0.23 0.14
Vc ds ␳f wm ds
v (s ⫺ 1)
C 0.90 0.25
= f2 (12)
兹gD D ␮f
Fig. 5 shows the general trend for all data used in the anal-
ysis. The data are plotted on a semilog scale using (12). From
Fig. 5, it is evident that data of the different particles conform
to a narrow band. The general trend shown by the data implies
that they can be well represented by a single curve given by

冉冊 冉 冊
⫺0.60 0.30
Vc ds ␳f wm ds
v (s ⫺ 1)
C 0.27 0.07
= 0.055 (13) FIG. 6. Comparison between Experimentally Measured Critical Flow
兹gD D ␮f
Velocities and Those Determined by (13)
Eq. (13) is valid for the conditions under which the exper-
iments were conducted in this study and earlier studies; i.e., the most accurate prediction of Vc values, followed by Göğüş
0.23 mm ⱕ ds ⱕ 5.34 mm, 1.04 g/cm3 ⱕ ␥s ⱕ 2.68 g/cm3, and Kökpınar (1993), Durand (1953), Zandi and Gavatos
25.4 mm ⱕ D ⱕ 152.4 mm, and 0.0075 ⱕ Cv ⱕ 0.30. (1967), and Yufin (ASCE 1975). A detailed examination of
The basic parameter used to determine the accuracy of a results for each data set shows that (13) works well for the
formula is data of Sinclair’s coal, Yotsukura’s sand, Graf’s sand, Avcı’s
兩 calculated ⫺ measured兩 anthracite and PVC, and the present study’s coarse sand, coal,
% error = ⫻ 100 (14) fine tuff, and blue plastics. Besides, it works adequately for
measured
the data obtained by Durand (1952) for sand and for the sand
Eq. (13) has a correlation coefficient of 0.91 and average and coarse tuff used in the present study. However, it performs
value of relative error ⫾15%. poorly for Avcı’s sand and polystyrene, Wicks’s sand, and the
Table 2 compares (13) with other empirical expressions in present study’s black plastics. Also, (13) always overestimates
columns 9b–f. Because some of the parameters involved in the data from Durand (1952) whereas it underestimates the
the other equations are not reported, the critical flow velocity present sand data. This causes some scatter in the data for high
values calculated from those equations could not be included Vv values. The scatter may be due to the inconsistency in the
in Table 2. The relations utilized for this comparison are taken determination of the critical flow velocity.
from Göğüş and Kökpınar (1993), Durand (1953), Zandi and At this point it can also be pointed out that the empirical
Gavatos (1967), and Yufin (ASCE 1975). It seems from Table relationship for critical flow velocity proposed by Durand
2 and Figs. 6 and 7 that the proposed equation relatively gives (1953) underestimates his own data, as seen in Table 2. An

FIG. 5. Variation of (F)0.23 (d/D)0.14 with C 0.9

v (s ⫺ 1)0.25 R (CS = Coarse Sand; BLP = Blue Plastics; BCP = Black Plastics; FT = Fine Tuff; CT =
Coarse Tuff; ANT = Anthracite; POLY = Polystyrene)

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001 / 769

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:763-771.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 06/08/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 7. Comparison between Experimentally Measured Critical Flow
Velocities and Those Determined by Some Equations Listed in Table 1
advantage of the proposed equation is that it can be applied
to a wide range of pipe diameters, particle sizes, particle den-
sities, and volumetric concentrations. Because (13) has the
smallest value of relative average, as shown in Fig. 8, it can
be safely used in design problems of slurry transportation in
pipes to get quick and reliable values.
CONCLUSIONS
Coarse-particle transport in a Newtonian fluid was consid-
ered theoretically and experimentally. Seven series of experi-
ments were conducted in a test loop using uniform (blue and
black granular plastics) and nonuniform (sand, aggregate, coal,
fine tuff, and coarse tuff) solid particles to represent the test
particles. Eq. (13) is proposed for an empirical relationship
predicting critical flow velocity Vc based on the analysis of
data from the experiments as well as from the earlier studies.
The derivation of (13) involves four important parameters:
(1) specific gravity of the solid particle s; (2) volumetric con-
centration of solid particles Cv; (3) the particle Reynolds num-
ber in terms of settling velocity wm of the solid particle within
the concentrated medium, (␳f wm ds)/␮f ; and (4) the ratio of
FIG. 8. Accuracy of Equations Used in Comparison Analysis
770 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:763-771.
characteristic particle size to pipe diameter, ds /D. Two earlier
methods by Mitzmager et al. (1964) and by Cheng (1997a,b)
were applied in the calculation of wm. It was found that the
method proposed by Mitzmager et al. (1964) is more appro-
priate for slurry flow in heterogeneous and saltation regimes.
Therefore, the method proposed by Mitzmager et al. (1964)
was used in the development of (13). From Table 2, it can be
seen that the empirical relation proposed in this study gives
better approximations than other relationships for determining
critical flow velocity Vc . Because the proposed equation is de-
rived for a wide range of data (pipe diameter, flow condition,
and particle properties), it likely is more useful in slurry-pipe-
line design than the equations listed in Table 1.
REFERENCES
ASCE. (1975). Sedimentation engineering, Manuals and reports on en-
gineering practice, No. 54, V. A. Vanoni, ed.
Avcı, I. (1981). ‘‘Experimentally determination of critical flow velocity
in sediment carrying pipeline systems.’’ Tech. Rep., Technical Univer-
sity, Istanbul, Turkey (in Turkish).
Babcock, H. A. (1971). ‘‘Heterogeneous flow of heterogeneous solids.’’
Paper 8, Advances in solid-liquid flow in pipes and applications, I.
Zandin, ed., Pergamon, New York, 125–148.
Cheng, N. S. (1997a). ‘‘Simplified settling velocity formula for sediment
particle.’’ J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 123(2), 149–152.
Cheng, N. S. (1997b). ‘‘Effect of concentration on settling velocity of
sediment particles.’’ J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 123(8), 728–731.
Durand, R. (1952). ‘‘The hydraulic transportation of coal and other ma-
terials in pipes.’’ College of National Coal Board, London.
Durand, R. (1953). ‘‘Basic relationships of the transportation of solids in
pipes—Experimental research.’’ Proc., Minnesota Int. Hydr. Conf., 89–
103.
Göğüş, M., and Çıray, C. (1990). ‘‘Optimum design of water jet pumps
with application to solid transportation through pipeline systems.’’ Fi-
nal Rep., AFP Proj. No: 87-03-03, Vol. I and II, Civ. Engrg. Dept.,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Göğüş, M., and Kökpınar, M. A. (1993). ‘‘Determination of critical flow
velocity in slurry transporting pipeline systems.’’ Proc., 12th Int. Conf.
on Slurry Handling and Pipeline Transport, British Hydraulic Research
Group, Bedfordshire, England, 743–757.
Graf, W. H. (1971). Hydraulics of sediment transport, Series in water
resources and environmental engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Graf, W. H., Robinson, M. P., and Yücel, Ö. (1970). ‘‘Critical velocity
for solid-liquid mixtures.’’ The Lehigh Experiments, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, Pa.
Hungmark, G. A. (1961). ‘‘Aqueous transport of settling slurry.’’ Indus-
trial and Engrg. Chem., 53, 389–390.
Kökpınar, M. A. (1990). ‘‘Design criterion for water jet pumps and de-
termination of critical flow velocity in sediment carrying pipeline sys-
tems.’’ Master’s thesis in Civ. Engrg., Middle East Technical Univer-
sity, Ankara, Turkey.
Larsen, I. (1968). ‘‘Discussion of ‘Heterogeneous flow of solids in pipe-
lines. by I. Zandi and G. Gavatos.’’ Proc., ASCE, 94(1), 332–333.
 Matousek, V. (1996). ‘‘Solid transportation in a long pipeline connected Cv = concentration of solid materials by volume;
with a dredge.’’ Terra et Aqua, 62, 3–11. Cw = concentration of solid materials by weight;
Mitzmager et al. (1964). ‘‘Rapid computation of settling or rising velocity of D = pipe diameter;
spherical particles in fluid media.’’ British Chemical Engrg., 9, 314–315. d, ds = particle diameter of solid particle;
Rose, H. E., and Duckworth, R. A. (1969). ‘‘Transport of solid particles
in liquids and gases.’’ The Engr., London, 227, 478–483.
dn = nominal particle diameter of uniform solid materials;
Sha, Y. Q. (1956). ‘‘Basic principles of sediment transport.’’ J. Sediment d50 = sediment size of which 50% is finer;
Res., 1(2), 1–54. d85 = sediment size of which 85% is finer;
Sinclair, C. G. (1962). ‘‘The limit deposit-velocity of heterogeneous sus- d ⬘* = nondimensional particle diameter for mixture flow;
pensions.’’ Proc., 3rd Congr. of the Eur. Fedn. of Chemical Engrg., d* = nondimensional particle diameter for clear water;
Institute of Chemical Engineering, London, A68–A76. FD = coefficient, which is function of particle diameter, de-
Spells, K. E. (1955). ‘‘Correlation for use in transport of aqueous suspensions fined by Hungmark (1961);
of fine solids through pipes.’’ Trans., Inst. of Chemical Engrg., 33, 79–81. FL = coefficient, which is function of particle diameter, de-
Swamee, P. K. (1995). ‘‘Design of sediment-transporting pipeline.’’ J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 121(1), 72–76.
fined by Durand (1953);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 06/08/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Thomas, D. G. (1956). ‘‘Transport characteristics of suspensions: Part f, f1, f2 = function of;

VIII. A note on the viscosity of Newtonian suspensions of uniform g = gravitational acceleration;
spherical particles.’’ J. Colloid Sci., 20(1), 267–275. R = Reynolds number;
Wasp, E., Kenny, J., and Gandhi, R. (1979). Solid-liquid flow slurry pipe- r = correlation coefficient;
line transportation, Trans. Tech. Publications, Houston. SF = particle shape factor;
Wicks, M. (1968). ‘‘Transportation of solids at low concentrations in s = specific gravity;
horizontal pipes.’’ Proc., ASCE Int. Symp. on Solid-Liquid Flow in sm = specific gravity of solid-liquid mixture;
Pipes, ASCE, New York, 101–124.
V = mean flow velocity;
Wiendenroth, W. (1967). ‘‘Researches on the conveying of solid-liquid
mixtures through pipelines and centrifugal pumps.’’ Diss. Tech. Hochs- Vc = mean critical flow velocity of solid-liquid mixture;
chule Hannover, No 54. w = particle settling velocity in clear water;
Yotsukura, N. (1961). ‘‘Some effects of bentonite suspensions on sand wm = particle settling velocity in mixture flow;
transport in a smooth 4-inch pipe.’’ PhD dissertation, Colorado State ␣ = pivot axis;
University, Fort Collins, Colo. ␮f = dynamic viscosity of fluid;
Zandi, I., and Gavatos, G. (1967). ‘‘Heterogeneous flow of solids in pipe- ␮m = dynamic viscosity of mixture;
lines.’’ J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 93(3), 145–159. ␯⬘ = kinematic viscosity of mixture;
␯w = kinematic viscosity of water;
NOTATION ␳f = density of fluid;
The following symbols are used in this paper: ␳m = density of mixture;
␳s = density of solid particle;
A, B = constants; ␳w = density of water; and
CD = drag coefficient; ⌿, ␤ = coefficients.

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001 / 771

View publication stats J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:763-771.