CHAPTER

CASE STUDY 2
A COARSE MATERIAL
20
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 474
Dilute Phase Conveying of Magnesium Sulphate ..................................................................... 474
Conveying Data for Material................................................................................................... 475
Conveying Duty .................................................................................................................... 476
Conveying Capability............................................................................................................. 476
Summary .............................................................................................................................................476
Design Duty ......................................................................................................................... 476
Pipeline............................................................................................................................... 477
Capability ............................................................................................................................ 477
Determine............................................................................................................................ 477
Procedure............................................................................................................................................477
Operating Point .................................................................................................................... 477
Air-Only Pressure Drop Values ............................................................................................... 478
Test pipeline .............................................................................................................................479
Plant pipeline of 105 mm bore ..................................................................................................479
Plant pipeline of 250 mm bore ..................................................................................................480
Equivalent Lengths ............................................................................................................... 481
Test pipeline .............................................................................................................................481
Plant pipeline ............................................................................................................................481
Scaling................................................................................................................................ 481
Scaling for length ......................................................................................................................482
Scaling for bore .........................................................................................................................482
Air Requirements ................................................................................................................. 482
Airflow rate................................................................................................................................482
Power Required.................................................................................................................... 483
Specific Cost........................................................................................................................ 483
Solids Loading Ratio............................................................................................................. 483

Pneumatic Conveying Design Guide. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100649-8.00020-2

Copyright © 2016 David Mills. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
473
474 CHAPTER 20 CASE STUDY 2

INTRODUCTION
For this case study a material was chosen that had no natural dense phase conveying capability and so
could only be conveyed in dilute phase suspension flow in a conventional pneumatic conveying
system. The material chosen was magnesium sulphate, which had a mean particle size of about 225 mm
and so deaerated very rapidly. The bulk density of the material was about 1010 kg/m3 and the particle
density 2350 kg/m3. As with dense phase conveying, the minimum conveying air velocity for a ma-
terial is a critical design parameter, but unlike dense phase conveying, there is no significant change in
its value with solids loading ratio.
To check on the conveying capability of the material, it was conveyed through the 50 m long
pipeline used in the previous case study with the cement. Tests were carried out with conveying-line
pressure drop values up to 2 bar and so with a relatively short pipeline, the pressure gradient available
was sufficiently high to establish that the material was not capable of being conveyed in dense phase
and hence at low velocity. The conveying data, confirming this, is presented in Fig. 20.1 for
reference.
With reference to the cement, conveyed through this same 50 m long pipeline of 53 mm bore, and
presented in Fig. 19.1, which shows that with a conveying-line pressure drop of 2 bar, the cement
would have been conveyed at about 18 tonne/h. The data point is actually off the conveying charac-
teristics because it was not necessary to undertake tests with such a high pressure. This compares with
about 6 tonne/h, achieved as a maximum for the magnesium sulphate, with the same conveying-line
pressure drop. Taking into account the fact that the minimum conveying air velocity for the cement
was 3 m/s, compared with 14 m/s for the magnesium sulphate, the ratio of specific energies for the
conveying of these two very different materials is about 15:1. This reinforces the need for such data in
the designing of pneumatic conveying systems.

DILUTE PHASE CONVEYING OF MAGNESIUM SULPHATE

To illustrate the scaling process for system design with regard to dilute phase conveying, the mag-
nesium sulphate is used. Once again just a single point is selected for scaling, but the entire conveying
characteristics can be scaled if required.

8 Conveying line pressure

drop - bar Solids loading
2.0 15 ratio
1.6
4 1.2 10
0.8
5
0.4
0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Air Mass Flow Rate - kg/s

FIG. 20.1
Conveying characteristics for magnesium sulphate conveyed through the Fig. 19.2 pipeline
 INTRODUCTION 475

Receiving hopper
and filtration unit

Pipeline details:
95 m (310 ft) long
105 mm (4 in ) bore
9 bends (D/d = 12) High pressure
blow tank pipeline
feeding system

FIG. 20.2
Sketch of 4-inch nominal bore pipeline used for conveying the magnesium sulphate

CONVEYING DATA FOR MATERIAL

Because the material has no natural dense phase conveying capability, a low-pressure system was
considered to be appropriate. To provide more appropriate data for scaling, the material was conveyed
through a longer pipeline, of larger bore and over a reduced range of air supply pressures. A sketch of
the pipeline used is given in Fig. 20.2. The pipeline was 95 m long and almost entirely in the horizontal
plane. The pipeline incorporated nine 90-degree bends and they all had a D/d ratio of 12:1. The
pipeline was fed by a high-pressure top-discharge blow tank.
The magnesium sulphate was conveyed through this pipeline with air supply pressures up to 1 bar.
The conveying characteristics for the material in the Fig. 20.2 pipeline are presented in Fig. 20.3.

Conveying line
9 pressure drop - bar Solids loading
ratio
8 15 6 18
Limit of 1.0 5
7 conveying 21
6 0.8 4 Conveying line
NO GO inlet air velocity
5
3 - m/s
0.6
4 24
AREA
3 2
0.4
2
1
1 0.2
0
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Air Mass Flow Rate - kg/s

FIG. 20.3
Conveying characteristics for magnesium sulphate conveyed through the Fig. 20.2 pipeline
476 CHAPTER 20 CASE STUDY 2

FIG. 20.4 24

Equivalent length of bends 20

16

12

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Conveying Line Inlet Air Velocity - m/s

Figure 20.3 shows that the solids loading ratios were only up to a value of about 6 under these
conditions. With a longer pipeline and a reduced air supply pressure, the pressure gradient was
significantly lower, and so the material was clearly not capable of being conveyed at low velocity and
in dense phase flow. For reference, lines of constant conveying-line inlet air velocity have also been
added to the conveying data, in addition to the values of solids loading ratio. From this it shows that the
limit of conveying corresponded with a minimum conveying air velocity of about 14 m/s for the
material and this did not vary with either air pressure or solids loading ratio.

CONVEYING DUTY
It is suggested that a design should be considered for the conveying of the magnesium sulphate over a
horizontal distance of 300 m at a rate of 15 tonne/h and that a positive-displacement blower having a
1 bar gauge delivery pressure capability should be used. It is proposed that the design should be based
on a conveying-line pressure drop of 0.85 bar. The pipeline routing has a total vertical lift of 25 m and
incorporates seven 90-degree bends.

CONVEYING CAPABILITY
In dilute phase conveying, the pipeline bends can play a significant role and so data on the equivalent
length of bends, as used in the previous case study, is also required here. It is reproduced in Fig. 20.4
for reference. The minimum conveying air velocity for the magnesium sulphate in the conveying trials
with the material was identified as being about 14 m/s. The conveying-line inlet air velocity will be
based on a velocity approximately 20% higher than this as generally recommended.

SUMMARY
DESIGN DUTY
Material magnesium sulphate
Mean particle size 225 mm
Bulk density rb 1010 kg/m3
Particle density rp 2350 kg/m3
 PROCEDURE 477

PIPELINE
Horizontal h 300 m
Vertical v 25 m
Bends b 7
90 degrees

CAPABILITY
Material flow rate m_ p 40 tonne/h
Minimum air velocity Cmin 14 m/s
Air supply blower
Maximum delivery pressure p 1 bar gauge
Pipeline inlet pressure p1 0.85 bar gauge
Pipeline pressure drop Dp 0.85 bar
Pipeline inlet velocity C1 1.2
Cmin ¼ 17 m/s

DETERMINE
Pipeline bore d
Free air delivered V_ o
Power required P
Specific cost V per tonne conveyed

PROCEDURE
The location of the equivalent operating point on the conveying characteristics for the test pipeline
needs to be established first, taking account of the pressure and airflow rate requirements. Scaling is
conveniently carried out in two stages. In the first stage scaling is with respect to conveying distance,
and this includes both pipeline orientation and bends. In the second stage the scaling is with respect to
pipeline bore. Air-only pressure drop values need to be established and so this procedure is also
included.

OPERATING POINT
The operating point on the conveying characteristics for the test pipeline on Fig. 20.3 must first
be identified. Because the pressure drop line has been chosen as 0.85 bar and the conveying-line
inlet air velocity has been determined as 17 m/s, the appropriate air mass flow rate can be
calculated. This can be determined from Eqn. 13.1, reproduced here as Eqn. 20.1 for reference
and use:

2:74p1 d2 C1
m_ a ¼ kg=s ð20:1Þ
T1
478 CHAPTER 20 CASE STUDY 2

Where
m_ a ¼ air mass flow rate, kg/s
p1 ¼ conveying-line inlet air pressure, kN/m2 abs
¼ 185 kN/m2
d ¼ pipeline bore, m
¼ 0.105 m
C1 ¼ conveying-line inlet air velocity, m/s
¼ 17 m/s
T1 ¼ conveying-line inlet air temperature, K
¼ 288 K (15  C)
Substituting these values in Eqn. 20.1 gives
m_ a ¼ 0:330 Kg=s
This operating point is located on Fig. 20.5 as point (a) and shows that it is approximately 20%
inboard from the conveying limit. It is located at the correct value of conveying-line inlet air velocity
and the solids loading ratio is about 5.

AIR-ONLY PRESSURE DROP VALUES

The air-only pressure drop for a pipeline, Dpa , can be determined using Eqn. 10.14, reproduced here as
Eqn. 20.2.
2 !05 3
1  34jm_ a
2
Dpa ¼ 4 1  0 þ 4  1  05 bar ð20:2Þ
d
105

where j ¼ 4fL
d þ Sk from Eqn. 10.11

FIG. 20.5 Conveying line

9 pressure drop - bar Solids loading
Conveying characteristics for magnesium ratio
sulphate in Fig. 20.2 pipeline with operating 8 15 6 18
Limit of 1.0 5
point identified
7 conveying 21
6 0.8 a 4 Conveying line
NO GO inlet air velocity
5
3 - m/s
0.6
4 24
AREA
3 2
0.4
2
1
1 0.2
0
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Air Mass Flow Rate - kg/s
 PROCEDURE 479

Test pipeline
Taking the pipeline friction factor, f, to be 0.0045, the length of the test pipeline, L, as 95 m, the pipeline
bore, d, as 0.105 m, and the bend loss coefficient as 0.2 (see Fig. 10.6) for each of nine bends, gives:
4
0:0045
95
J¼ þ ð9
0:2Þ
0:105
¼ 18:1
Substituting this value, the airflow rate of 0.330 kg/s and the pipeline bore of 0.105 m into
Eqn. 20.2 gives:
Dpa ¼ 0:103 bar
This shows that the air-only pressure drop is quite significant for dilute phase flow. This value of
pressure drop is automatically included in the conveying characteristics in Fig. 20.5. A constant
pressure drop line of 0.103 bar, if included on the plot, would strike the horizontal axis at an airflow
rate of 0.330 kg/s. It also means that at the operating point only 0.850 – 0.103 ¼ 0.747 bar is available
and hence used for conveying material. This value will decrease with increase in pipeline length but
will decrease with pipeline bore in the scaling process, and hence in reality.

Plant pipeline of 105 mm bore

The actual length of the plant pipeline is 325 m and it is this length that needs to be used to evaluate the air-
only pressure drop for the plant pipeline having the same bore as the test pipeline, in the first instance.
Taking the pipeline friction factor, f, to be 0.0045, the length of the plant pipeline, L, as 325 m, the
pipeline bore, d, as 0.105 m, and the bend loss coefficient as 0.2 (see Fig. 10.6) for each of seven bends,
gives:
4
0:0045
325
J¼ þ ð7
0:2Þ
0:105
¼ 57:1
Substituting this value, the airflow rate of 0.330 kg/s and the pipeline bore of 0.105 m into Eqn.
20.2 gives:
Dpa ¼ 0:298 bar
This represents an increase in air-only pressure drop of 0.298  0.103 ¼ 0.195 bar. This means that
instead of having 0.747 bar for conveying material, it is now reduced to 0.747 – 0.195 ¼ 0.552 bar.
This represents a 26% reduction in available pressure drop and so this will have a significant effect on
the material flow rate that can be achieved. This is in addition to the reduction as a consequence of
scaling to a longer pipeline.
To achieve the 15 tonne/h in the plant pipeline, however, a much larger bore pipeline will be
required and this will improve the situation considerably. When the conveying characteristics are
scaled in total these features can be seen, as with Figs 16.2b, 16.5b and 16.6b. When only a single point
is used the intermediate stage of the data scaled to the plant pipeline, of the test pipeline bore, is not
available. This means that a value for the plant pipeline bore needs to be selected at this point. If the
value chosen does not meet the required duty, the calculation will have to return to this point with an
updated value. For 15 tonne/h, a bore of 250 mm will be selected.
480 CHAPTER 20 CASE STUDY 2

Limit of
9 Solids loading
Conveying line conveying
pressure drop ratio
8 6
- bar 1.0 5
7
NO GO
6 0.8 a 4
5.65 b
5
AREA 3
4 0.6

3 2
0.4
2
1
1 0.2
0.33
0
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Air Mass Flow Rate - kg/s

FIG. 20.6
Conveying data for magnesium sulphate in the Fig. 20.2 pipeline

Plant pipeline of 250 mm bore

Taking the pipeline friction factor, f, to be 0.0045, the length of the plant pipeline, L, as 325 m, the
pipeline bore, d, as 0.250 m, and the bend loss coefficient as 0.2 (see Fig. 10.6) for each of seven bends,
gives:
4
0:0045
325
J¼ þ ð7
0:2Þ
0:25
¼ 24:8
For the larger bore of pipeline, a new airflow rate will be required. This can either be determined by
using Eqn. 20.1, as for the test pipeline, or scaling the 0.330 kg/s for the test pipeline in proportion to
the larger pipe section area. Either way the new airflow rate will come to 1.87 kg/s.
Substituting the new value for J, the new airflow rate of 1.87 kg/s, and the pipeline bore of 0.250 m
into Eqn. 20.2 gives:
Dpa ¼ 0:139 bar
The original operating point on the material conveying characteristics on Fig. 20.5 was set at a
pressure drop of 0.85 bardpoint (a). For the plant pipeline the air-only pressure drop is 0.139 bar
whereas for the test pipeline it is 0.103 bar, which represents an increase of 0.036 bar. The operating
point on Fig. 20.5 therefore needs to be reduced by this amount for scaling purposes, to take account of
the difference in air-only pressure drop values. The new operating point (b) is therefore at a pressure
drop of 0.814 bar. This is shown on Fig. 20.6.
 PROCEDURE 481

Because the two operating points are very close, the lines of constant conveying-line inlet air
velocity have been removed to avoid confusion. Actual values of both material flow rate and airflow
rate corresponding to the new operating pointd(b)dare indicated for reference.

EQUIVALENT LENGTHS
The equivalent length of a pipeline for the conveying of material takes the length of horizontal pipeline
as the reference value. To this is added an equivalent length of straight horizontal pipeline, both for the
vertically up sections of pipeline and for the bends in the pipeline. These two elements were
considered in Chapter 16, “Pipeline Scaling Parameters.” This procedure was considered at this point
in the previous case study and an expression for the equivalent length, Le, of a pipeline was given with
Eqn. 19.3. This is reproduced here as Eqn. 20.3 for use in this case study:
Le ¼ h þ 2 v þ Nb m ð20:3Þ
Where
h ¼ total length of horizontal sections of pipeline
v ¼ total length of vertically up sections of pipeline
N ¼ total number of bends in pipeline
b ¼ equivalent length of each bend

Test pipeline
A sketch of the test pipeline is given in Fig. 20.2, which shows that the equivalent length of the test
pipeline, Le1, taking account of horizontal sections, vertical lift, and bends is:
Le1 ¼ 95 þ ð2
0Þ þ ð9
20Þ
¼ 275 m
As will be seen there is no significant vertical lift and there are nine bends in the test pipeline. With
a conveying-line inlet air velocity of 17 m/s, the equivalent length of the bends, from Fig. 20.4, is
about 20 m each. This shows that the bends can have a dominating effect in dilute phase conveying
systems.

Plant pipeline
The equivalent length of the plant pipeline, Le2, with 300 m of horizontal pipeline, 25 m of vertical
pipeline, and seven 90-degree bends is:

Le2 ¼ 300 þ ð2
25Þ þ ð7
20Þ

¼ 490 m

SCALING
The data for the test pipeline can now be scaled to that for the plant pipeline. The first stage is in terms
of equivalent length and the second is in terms of pipeline bore.
482 CHAPTER 20 CASE STUDY 2

Scaling for length

The scaling model for pipeline length is given in Eqn. 16.4 and is reproduced here in Eqn. 20.4:
Le1
m_ p2 ¼ m_ p1
Le2
275 ð20:4Þ
¼ 5:65

490
¼ 3:17 tonne=h
The two equivalent lengths were determined immediately earlier and the material flow rate for the
test pipeline of 5.65 tonne/h was obtained from the revised operating point on Fig. 20.6. If the pipeline
had the same bore as the test pipeline, 3.17 tonne/h is the material flow rate that would be expected for
the same conveying-line pressure drop and airflow rate.
Scaling for bore
A scaling model for pipeline bore is given in Eqn. 16.8. This is reproduced here as Eqn. 20.5 for
application in this case:
 2
d2
m_ p2 ¼ m_ p1
ð20:5Þ
d1
It is the 3.17 tonne/h that needs to be scaled here and substituting data into this equation gives:
 
250 2
¼ 3:17

105
¼ 18:0 tonne=h
This is greater than the 15 tonne/h required, but significantly less than 15 tonne/h would be ach-
ieved with a smaller 200 mm bore pipeline. A pressure greater than 1.0 bar would be needed if it was
required to use a 200 mm bore pipeline, but then it would not be possible to use a regular positive-
displacement blower.
With a conveying-line inlet air pressure of 0.85 bar gauge, the case for stepping the pipeline to a
larger bore is marginal. Little improvement in conveying performance would be achieved, but it would
certainly help if there was a need to reduce either erosive wear or particle degradation.

AIR REQUIREMENTS
An air supply pressure of 0.85 bar gauge was selected at the outset and so the free airflow rate and an
approximate value for the power supply are now required.

Airflow rate
The airflow rate will be evaluated for the 250 mm bore pipeline, assuming that the air supply pressure
will be about 0.85 bar gauge. The equations for evaluating airflow rate were developed in Chapter 9.
The design here is based on a conveying-line inlet air velocity of 17 m/s and Eqn. 9.10, reproduced
here as Eqn. 20.6 is appropriate:
d2 p1 C1 3 
V_ o ¼ 2:23 m s ð20:6Þ
T1
 PROCEDURE 483

0:2502
185
17
¼ 2:23

288

¼ 1:522 m s
3

This is the volumetric flow rate of the air at free air conditions, which are the reference conditions
required for the specification of a compressor.

POWER REQUIRED
An approximate value for the compressor drive power required was presented in Eqn. 6.5 and this is
reproduced here as Eqn. 20.7:
 
_ p4
P ¼ 203 V o ln kW
p3
 
185 ð20:7Þ
¼ 203
1:522 ln
100
¼ 190 kW

SPECIFIC COST
Pneumatic conveying, and particularly dilute phase conveying, does require high energy levels. The
cost of transporting material, therefore, is often taken into account when selecting a conveying system.
With an estimated value for power required, it is possible to evaluate conveying costs.
If the unit cost of electricity is taken as V 0.20 per kW h the specific cost can be evaluated as
follows:
190 kW h 20 c
Specific cost ¼


18 tonne kW h
¼ V2:11 per tonne conveyed

SOLIDS LOADING RATIO

The solids loading ratio, f, does not feature at all in these calculations. It is often quoted for reference
and so its value will be:
18
f¼
3:6
1:87
¼ 2:7
As can be seen, this is very dilute phase conveying, as expected, but is typical of low-pressure long-
distance conveying systems handling this type of material.