Professional Documents
Culture Documents
METHOD
Tanaji Mali, Andritz Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore, India
Vijay Khudabadi, Andritz Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore, India
Rana A.S, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India
Arihant Vijay, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India
Adarsh M.R, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India
Presented at SME Annual Meeting/Exhibit, February 24-26, 2014, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Abstract
Over the last many decades, a significant amount
of research has gone into the domain of slurry
transport. However, design engineers still face many
challenges with respect to prediction of pressure
drop, critical velocity and other design parameters as
a function of Solids % and Particle Size Distribution
(PSD). The industry requirement is to transfer the
slurry at the maximum concentration as possible
(above 30% (volume %)) to make slurry transport
more economically viable and to reduce water consumption. To facilitate the design and scale-up of
slurry transport in pipelines and in process plants,
there is a need for a correlation that can predict slurry pressure drops over a wide range of operating
conditions and physical properties of different slurries. The objective of this study is to overcome the
limited range of applicability and validity of existing
correlations and to develop a generalized but more
rigorous correlation applicable to a wider range of
slurry systems. The existing Wasp et al. (1977) method is based on multi-phase flow modeling approach.
This study attempts to modify this approach by considering material-specific values of Durands equation co-efficient and by defining flow regimes based
on particle Reynolds number. When compared with
experimental data, the modified Wasp method proposed in this study predicts the pressure drop for
slurry flows more accurately than other available
correlations. Also, the proposed method requires
minimal test/experimental data for a particular slurry
system and can be extended over different input conditions.
An iterative computer algorithm is developed to
calculate the critical settling velocity and pressure
drop in a pipe as a function of Solids % and PSD. The
solution method can easily be implemented in designing slurry pipes, design validation, and studying the
different slurry transport scenarios. The modified
method can also be extended to accurately predict
pressure drops in dynamic pressure flow networks
used in commercial process simulators.
www.andritz.com
Introduction
Slurry transport involves huge capital investment.
Therefore, at present many organizations throughout
the world are carrying out research and development
to abate these costs. Literature survey reveals that
studies on slurry transport have followed one of these
three major approaches:
(a) The empirical approach
(b) The rheological based continuum approach
(c) The multiphase flow modeling approach.
Amongst the above mentioned approaches, the
empirical approach is the simplest, and hence has
been widely used and applied. This has led to formulation of the correlations for prediction of pressure
drop and for delineation of flow regimes. The rheological approach is best applicable to slurries of ultrafine non-colloidal particles. The multiphase flow
modeling approach, which considers liquid, particle
and boundary interaction effects, requires significant
computational effort and is best suitable for describing heterogeneous solid-liquid mixture flows.
In this study, multiphase flow modeling approach
has been followed. It considers various important
design parameters such as particle size distribution,
volumetric concentration and pipe roughness in predicting the pressure drop.
Slurry Flow in Pipe
For a pure liquid, the pressure drop in a pipe depends on the flow velocity. The change of pressure
drop with respect to flow velocity is monotonic in
nature. However, in case of slurries, it is not monotonic (Vanoni 1975; Govier and Aziz 1977), as shown
in Figure 1. When the flow velocity is sufficiently
high, all solid particles are suspended with the parti-
1 of 13
www.andritz.com
2 of 13
Where
4.
Wasp Method
Wasp et al. (1977) method is the most widely used
method for slurry transport applications around the
world because it is applicable for all kinds of flow
regime and accurately predicts the pressure drop,
considering the PSD of the slurry which is an important parameter accounting for pressure drop calculation. Wasp method is an improvement of DurandCondolios approach which predicts pressure drop
accurately for both slurry systems in which particles
have narrow as well as wide size range.
Wasp method accounts for large particle size distributions and pressure drop by dividing the slurry
into homogenous (due to vehicle) and heterogeneous
(due to bed formation) fractions. The solids in the
homogenous fraction increase the density and viscosity of the equivalent liquid vehicle. Wasp method also
considers the effect of pipe diameter and pipe roughness on pressure drop in slurry pipes.
The iterative method proposed by Wasp et al.
(1977) is summarized as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Table 1. Pressure drop versus Speed in a 159mm ID Steel Pipe at a Weight Concentration of
26.3%
Velocity
Pressure drop
(m/s)
(Pa/m)
1.5
175
3
www.andritz.com
3 of 13
1.9
2.3
2.7
3.1
3.5
4.0
270
360
525
688
847
1046
V6
d cut = D
3
6
1.404
* [2 gD( S L ) / L ]
( 3.525 ) * C v
(1)
Where
Table 2. Particle Size versus Wt. % solids in the
slurry
Particle Size
(m)
Wt.
%
-450
-200
-95
-61
-44
1.88
2.2
1.65
1.17
93.1
v
D
Cv
dcut
www.andritz.com
4 of 13
The single particle settling velocity vt is calculated using the Stokes equation:
vt =
Case 3: Cut size - dcut lies between dRe max and dRe
min.
2D
(5)
Where
fD = Darcy friction factor.
v = Mean velocity of slurry (m/s).
m = Density of carrier fluid (kg/m3) (including
the particles less than dcut).
D = Inside diameter of pipe (m).
The Swain-Jain equation may be used in the range
of 5000 < Re < 107 to determine the friction coefficient of the homogeneous part of the mixture:
fD =
d g
4
* ( Re ) * ( S L / L ) (3)
3
cD
0.25
(6)
2
log[( /Di ) / 3.7 + 5.74 / Rem0.9 ]
Where
24
4
)+(
) + 0.4 (2)
Re
Re
www.andritz.com
5 of 13
Re m =
( mV m D )
(7)
m
= 1 + 2.5Cvf + 10.05Cvf2 +
l
(8)
0.00273 exp(16.6Cvf )
Where
Cvf = volumetric concentration of solids in homogeneous part of mixture
l = liquid viscosity
m = slurry viscosity
For this particular example, dcut, as determined in
step 2 is 152 micron. Therefore, from the PSD curve,
95% by weight solids are less than 152 micron;
hence, they contribute to the homogeneous losses.
Next, calculate the volumetric concentration Cvf of
solids in the homogeneous part of the mixture as
(Abulnaga, BE 2002):
Cv total = Cw*( m / s ) (9)
m
s
= slurry density
= solid density
= total volumetric concentration of sol-
Cv total
ids
Cw = total solids concentration by weight
ReP =
Vd P m
(10)
Where
dp = the average particle size of each size fraction.
To calculate the drag coefficient, CD, of a sphere,
the Turton equation is used:
CD = (( 24 )*(1+0.173*Rep0.657)) +
Re P
0.413
1 + 11630 * (Re P
1.09
(11)
www.andritz.com
6 of 13
Pbed
gD ( ) /
L
L
= 82 PL C vbed i s2
V CD
(12)
1.5
Where
log10 [
1.8Vt
C
]=
(13)
CA
K xU f
Where
= the ratio of volumetric concentration
C/CA
of solids at 0.08D from top to that at pipe axis,
= the dimensionless particle diffusivity and
is taken as 1.0
Kx = 0.4 and is defined as von Karman coefficient
Uf = the friction velocity calculated from the
pressure drop in first iteration
Vt = settling velocity of a particular size particle calculated using standard drag relationships.
4( S L )gd g
3 L C D
(14)
fN =
Ptotal Di
(16)
2V 2
To calculate Uf, the following Equation (Abulnaga,
BE 2002) is used:
Uf = V (fN /2) (17)
www.andritz.com
7 of 13
Solid particles can be moved upward when the fluid velocity (V) exceeds the hindered settling velocity
of the solids (wS).
V >> w S
Where
w S = v t ( 1 cV ) (18)
= Hindered settling velocity of particle
= constant.
vt = Single particle terminal velocity (from
equation 14)
wS
www.andritz.com
8 of 13
d
u cri = 3.525cv0.234 100
D
2 Dg
s L
L
(19)
Homogeneous or pseudo-homogenous flow regime occurs when mean slurry velocity (V) is greater
than the critical deposition velocity (ucri). At this condition there is almost no slip between particles and
fluid, therefore particle velocity is approximately
equal to mean slurry velocity. Pressure drop for the
vertical homogenous regime is calculated using the
following equation (20).
p = f D
m
2
V2
Lvert
+ m gLvert
D
(20)
Where
www.andritz.com
9 of 13
Average
Particle Size
(mm)
0.63
0.30
0.18
Total
Drag Coefficient
(Cd)
0.455
0.550
0.662
29.89
Average
Particle Size
(mm)
0.63
0.30
0.18
Total
Average
Particle Size
(mm)
Drag Coefficient
(Cd)
0.455
0.550
0.662
29.89
Drag Coefficient
(Cd)
0.63
0.30
0.18
Total
0.455
0.550
0.662
29.89
Iterated
Cv bed
(%)
0.125
0.157
0.068
Iterated
Pressure loss
(Pa/m)
11.94
13.03
4.92
Iterated
Cv bed
(%)
0.1248
0.1569
0.068
Iterated
Pressure loss
(Pa/m)
11.96
13.05
4.92
Iterated
Cv bed
(%)
Iterated
Pressure loss
(Pa/m)
0.201
0.127
0.089
-0.0837
-0.0528
-0.0368
0.824
0.886
0.919
0.1248
0.1569
0.068
11.96
13.05
4.92
Table 10. Pressure drop vs. speed in a 159-mm ID Steel pipe at a weight concentration of 26.3% at 20o C
Cv
VelociDi
ExperiCalculat- % Error
Flow
L
L
S
(%)
ty
(m)
mental
Loss
ed
Regime
3
(kg/m3) (kg/m ) (mP
(m/s)
(Pa/m)
Loss(Pa/
a.s)
m)
8
1.5
.159
4074
1000
1
175
195
11
Case 2
8
1.9
.159
4074
1000
1
270
268
-0.7
Case 3
8
2.3
.159
4074
1000
1
360
354
-1.6
Case 3
8
2.7
.159
4074
1000
1
525
472
-10
Case 4
8
3.1
.159
4074
1000
1
688
616
-10
Case 4
8
3.5
.159
4074
1000
1
847
779
-8
Case 4
8
Cv
(%)
4
4
4
4
4
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
12.8
4.0
Velocity
(m/s)
1.2
2.8
3.2
3.6
4
1.6
2
3.6
4
1.6
www.andritz.com
.159
Di
(m)
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
4074
1000
1046
1008
-3.6
Case 4
% Error
Flow
Regime
-1.81
-10.9
-11.4
-11.0
-10.1
-16.5
-19.5
-11.3
-10.4
-4.3
Case 3
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 3
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 3
10 of 13
12.8
12.8
19.1
19.1
19.1
26
26
26
26
3.6
4
2
3.6
4
2
3.2
3.6
4
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
.105
No
1
2
Pipe Dia
(m)
0.019-0.495
[1]
2820
2820
2820
2820
2820
2820
2820
2820
2820
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1953
2317
722
1962
2375
774
1703
2104
2529
1700
2092
638
1868
2298
741
1636
2059
2531
-12.9
-9.7
-11.6
-4.74
-3.22
-4.23
-3.98
-2.14
0.04
Case 4
Case 4
Case 3
Case 4
Case 4
Case 3
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
13
14
Ma (1987)
Shook et al.(1968)
15
Hsu (1987)
16
17
Ghanta (1996)
18
19
Schaan et al.(2000)
10
20
Table 13. Slurry system[1] and parameter range from the literature data
Particle Dia Liquid denSolids denLiquid
Velocity U
(micron)
sity
sity
viscosity
(m/s)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(mPa.s)
Solids Conc.
(fraction) f
38.3-13000
0.014-0.333
1000-1250
1370-2844
0.12-4
0.86-4.81
Cv
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Table 14. Results of data points collected from open literature having flow regime of case 4
VelociDi
ExperiCalcu%
Flow
L
L
S
ty
(m)
mental
lated
Error
Regime
3
3
(kg/m ) (kg/m ) (mPa.s) Loss (Pa/m)
(m/s)
Loss
(Pa/m)
3
0.0549
2470
1000
0.85
1990
2210
-11.1
Case 4
4
5
3
4
5
3
1.1
1.11
1.3
2.59
2.34
2.01
1.78
1.59
0.0549
0.0549
0.0549
0.0549
0.0549
0.0549
0.019
0.0526
0.0526
0.2085
0.2085
0.2085
0.2085
0.2085
2470
2470
2470
2470
2470
2470
2840
2330
2330
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3430
5350
2230
3790
6390
3410
1250
294
543
267
226
177
147
123
3726
5599
2706
4536
6786
3645
1114
321
609
318
263
196
158
129
-8.6
-4.7
-21.3
-19.7
-6.2
-6.9
10.9
-9.2
-12.2
-19.1
-16.4
-10.7
-7.5
-4.9
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
11
www.andritz.com
11 of 13
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.37
1.66
1.66
1.66
2.9
3.5
2.9
3.5
2.9
3.5
2.9
3.5
3.16
3.76
3.07
3.76
2.5
2.5
3
1.9
2.8
2.7
2.01
Cv
Velocity
(m/s)
0.2085
0.0515
0.0515
0.0515
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.263
0.495
0.495
0.495
0.495
0.1585
0.1585
0.1585
0.0507
0.04
0.04
0.04
Di(m)
1370
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2650
2270
2270
2270
S
(kg/m3)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1250
1250
1250
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.3
1.3
0.12
1
4
4
4
99
666
900
1136
261
334
305
382
355
453
414
526
143
186
157
254
475
630
648
1175
3926
3580
2217
98
671
791
930
272
392
313
443
353
505
392
560
151
211
161
271
421
532
526
1140
4022
3487
1939
WASP
modified
loss
(Pa/m)
222
1.8
-0.8
12.1
18.1
-4.0
-17.4
-2.4
-15.9
0.5
-11.4
5.2
-6.4
-5.7
-13.6
-2.5
-6.4
11.4
15.6
18.9
3.0
-2.4
2.6
12.5
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
Case 4
%
Error
Flow
Regime
14.9
Case 4
9.4
0.0549
2470
1000
261
10.06
0.0549
2470
1000
847
781
7.7
Case 4
10.41
0.0549
2470
1000
1754
1642
6.3
Case 4
10.44
0.0549
2470
1000
2868
2783
3.0
Case 4
10.93
0.0549
2470
1000
4153
4230
-1.9
Case 4
19.22
0.0549
2470
1000
341
263
22.6
Case 4
20.48
0.0549
2470
1000
1051
932
11.3
Case 4
20.4
0.0549
2470
1000
1981
1937
2.2
Case 4
19.52
0.0549
2470
1000
3263
3225
1.1
Case 4
20.45
0.0549
2470
1000
4666
4927
-5.6
Case 4
30.3
0.0549
2470
1000
373
323
13.4
Case 4
30.02
0.0549
2470
1000
1037
1101
-6.2
Case 4
31.19
0.0549
2470
1000
2037
2330
-14.4
Case 4
30.75
0.0549
2470
1000
3291
3889
-18.2
Case 4
30.24
0.0549
2470
1000
4851
5783
-19.2
Case 4
38.95
0.0549
2470
1000
2420
2731
-12.9
Case 4
40.64
0.0549
2470
1000
3865
4760
-23.2
Case 4
39.56
0.0549
2470
1000
5761
6933
-20.0
Case 4
51.7
0.0549
2470
1000
2099
2002
4.6
Case 4
12
www.andritz.com
12 of 13
49.24
0.0549
2470
1000
3082
1 t
V
+ 4 c vtotal
Case 4
vt
V
(21)
-19.7
i.
V vt
cV =
1+
2Vt V
3689
ii.
iii.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
13
www.andritz.com
13 of 13