Ahp Topic

15
System Design Using Conveying Data
INTRODUCTION
The design of pneumatic conveying systems is still very much based on the scaling of conveying data. Such data is generally obtained from a purpose built test facility, similar to the data presented in the previous five chapters. It is not practical, of course, that the plant pipeline should be replicated for test purposes. For convenience of testing different materials, the reception point at the end of the pipeline is generally located above the material feeding device to provide a convenient loop, so that material can be re-circulated, where possible. As a consequence the test loop is likely to be mostly in the horizontal plane and may contain a disproportionate number of bends. 1.1 The Use of Scaling Parameters
Scaling parameters, however, are available, as considered in Chapters 7 and 8, that will enable data obtained from one pipeline to be scaled to that for another pipeline. In Chapter 7 scaling parameters were presented that will allow for differences in pipeline bore and conveying distance to be taken into account, between that of the test facility and that of the plant pipeline to be designed. In Chapter 8 similar consideration was given to the influence of pipeline bends, both in terms of number and geometry, and to pipeline orientation, including vertically up and vertically down routings. The influence of pipeline material was also considered. It is
Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
414
Chapter 15
for these reasons that full details of all pipelines have been given, for which conveying data has been presented in this Handbook. 1.2 Manufacturers'Approach
Most manufacturers of pneumatic conveying systems have built such test facilities in order to obtain data for design purposes. They will generally ask for a representative sample of the material to be conveyed and demonstrate the conveying of the material to the client. This, of course, provides an element of protection for the vendor, should the client manufacture or source a slightly different grade of material when the system comes into use. Manufacturers, however, are unlikely to derive entire performance maps for a material, such as those presented here. The cost of running and maintaining such a test facility is very high, and most companies will generally advertise the fact that they will undertake conveying tests at 'no charge'. Only a couple of tests are likely to be undertaken, therefore, in order to establish the conveyability of the material. The vendor will know what type of system it intends to offer a client and so only limited data will be required. 1.2.1 Previous Experience Alternatively data obtained from previous experience of designing and building a system may be used, provided that the data relates to exactly the same material. Extreme caution must be exercised here, for different grades of exactly the same material can have very different conveying characteristics. It is also important to note that data should never be scaled either to lower values of conveying air velocity, or to higher values of solids loading ratios, than have previously been achieved with the material. 1.3 Cases Considered
Since the geometry of the test facility, or a previous system installed, is unlikely to be the same as that of the plant pipeline to be built, scaling parameters are used. Account may additionally have to be taken of changes in solids loading ratio, and hence conveying line inlet air velocity, particularly if the scaling is to a longer pipeline. A review of appropriate scaling parameters is presented, and these are illustrated with two case studies. One is for a material conveyed in dilute phase, suspension flow. Another is for a material capable of being conveyed in dense phase, non suspension flow. 1.4 The Future
For single phase fluids, as is well known, the problem of analyzing the flow was ultimately solved empirically by the use of a friction coefficient in conjunction with Reynolds number and pipe wall roughness. The parallel problem with twophase, gas-solid flows will no doubt be solved one day, and it is also likely to be
Design Using Conveying Data
415
an empirical solution, but that day is not yet in sight. Meanwhile companies that manufacture pneumatic conveying systems are reluctant to publish any data that they have because it is of too high a commercial value, and there are very few research groups around the world that are working in this area f I]. 2 SCALING PARAMETERS
Scaling parameters for system design can be split into two main groups and the scaling process can be undertaken in two stages. The first stage relates to horizontal conveying distance. This is expressed in terms of an equivalent length and incorporates pipeline bends, pipeline orientation and pipeline material. The second stage relates to pipeline bore. In each case allowance must be made for the difference in air only pressure drop for the given pipeline. This is because the scaling parameters relate only to the conveying of the material in the air. Scaling relates to individual test points or data. If a complete set of conveying characteristics require to be scaled, a considerable number of data points will need to be scaled and so it is a time consuming process. The best way of doing this is to place a grid on the conveying characteristics and scale for every grid point. The most convenient grid for this purpose is probably one based on lines of constant conveying line inlet air velocity and lines of constant conveying line pressure drop, at regular increments of each. Both equivalent length and pipeline bore can have a very significant influence on material flow rate through a pipeline. It must be recalled, however, that any required material flow rate can generally be achieved, over any given conveying distance, with an appropriate combination of pipeline bore and air supply pressure or vacuum. The limitation, for any extreme value of either material flow rate or conveying distance, is generally power requirement. 2.1 Equivalent Length
The equivalent length of a pipeline, as mentioned above, incorporates straight pipeline sections and pipeline bends. The scaling parameter for equivalent length is an inverse law model. This was presented earlier in Chapter 7 and is reproduced here for reference. mp <x
1
L'
lb/h
- - - - - - - - - -
(i)
or alternatively: rhp}Lc] = mp2Lc2 = Const. - - - - - - - (2)
416
Chapter 15
For a constant air flow rate and pressure drop due to the conveyed material. where m = mass flow rate of material and Le = equivalent length of pipeline
The working form of this scaling model is:
m ,
= m , x ^-
Ib/h
(3)
where subscripts I and 2 relate to the appropriate lengths of the two pipelines 2.1.1 Conveying Capability A graphical representation of this model is given in Figure 15.1 in order to illustrate the very significant influence that equivalent length, and hence conveying distance and pipeline bends, can have on material flow rate. Figure 15.1 is drawn for a coarse granular material conveyed through a 2 inch bore pipeline. It relates, therefore, to dilute phase suspension flow. A 2 inch bore pipeline over the long distances considered, of course, is not realistic. It is simply extended that far to illustrate the nature of the model.
120
o o o
80
Conveying Line Pressure Drop - lbf/in 2
40
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Equivalent Length of Pipeline - feet Figure 15.1 Influence of equivalent length and pressure drop on material flow rate through pipeline.
417
2.1.1.1 Conveying Options With this being an inverse law relationship it means that if the equivalent length is doubled, the material flow rate will be halved. The actual situation, however, is slightly worse than this, for as the conveying distance increases, the air only pressure drop also increases. As the air only pressure drop increases, less pressure is available to convey material. Thus if 60,000 Ib/h can be conveyed over an equivalent length of 200 feet, slightly less than 30,000 Ib/h will be conveyed over a distance of 400 feet. This halving of the material flow rate for a doubling of equivalent length must be appreciated in order to gain a full appreciation of the capability of pneumatic conveying systems. For the material represented in Figure 15.1 a conveying line inlet air velocity of about 3000 ft/min would be required. With a conveying line pressure drop of 40 lbf/in 2 , for example, equation 5.10 gives a free air flow rate of 243 ft'Ymin for these conditions. Then equation 3.6 gives a power requirement of about 41 hp. This means that every point on the 40 lbf/in 2 pressure drop line on Figure 15.1 will require 41 hp. Thus with 41 hp either 120,000 Ib/h can be conveyed through the pipeline with an equivalent length of 100 feet, or 11,000 Ib/h with an equivalent length of 1200 feet. If a pipeline is extended to a longer distance, and the same material flow rate is required, an increase in power will be required. If the conveying plant is already operating at maximum capability over the existing distance, it will not be possible to convey at the same rate over the longer distance unless major modifications to the conveying system are made. If modifications are not made, then a lower material flow rate will have to be accepted, and the feeder will have to be adjusted to give a lower flow rate for the longer distance. 2.1.1.2 Air Pressure The influence of conveying distance on the air only pressure drop was considered earlier with Figure 7.20. For long distance conveying the use of a small bore pipeline is not likely to be appropriate, unless that material flow rate required is very low. In the case considered in Figure 15.1, the air only pressure drop for a 1500 ft long pipeline will be of the order of 10 lbf/in". The influence of pipeline bore on the air only pressure drop was considered in Chapter 7 with Figure 7.15. The influence of conveying line pressure drop is additionally shown in Figure 15.1. An increase in air supply pressure vvill always result in an increase in material flow rate, provided that the required value of conveying air velocity is maintained. Increasing the pressure to increase material flow rate, however, may not be the best means of achieving an increased material flow rate. The alternative is to increase the pipeline bore. It must always be remembered that a wide combination of conveying line pressure drop values and pipeline bores are generally capable of meeting any conveying duty. This point was considered earlier with Figures 7.18 and 19. Although in the majority of cases scaling from existing data is generally to longer pipelines, sometimes the scaling is to a shorter pipeline. In these cases the
418
Chapter 15
air only pressure drop is likely to be lower and it will be possible to achieve a higher material flow rate for the same conveying conditions. Figure 15.1 can be used in either direction. 2.1.1.3 Dense Phase Conveying Figure 15.1, as mentioned above, was specifically drawn for dilute phase conveying. Although a similar situation will exist for dense phase conveying, particular attention has to be paid when the conveying distances are such that the transition from dense phase to dilute phase conveying occurs. In many cases, when scaling to longer distances, there is little scope for increasing the air supply pressure. Thus when the distance increases, the pressure gradient decreases, and low velocity dense phase conveying requires a relatively high pressure gradient. The transition from dilute to dense phase conveying was considered in Chapter 13 at section 2.1.1. It was suggested that to convey a material such as cement at a solids loading ratio of about 100 typically requires a pressure gradient of about 10 lbf/in 2 per 100 ft, and that the transition from dilute to dense phase starts to occur at a pressure gradient of about 2'/a lbf/in" per 100 ft. As the equivalent distance increases for a given air supply pressure, therefore, the pressure gradient decreases. In dense phase the m i n i m u m conveying air velocity may be only 600 ft/min, but in dilute phase this can increase to 2000 ft/min. As a consequence the air flow rate may need to be increased. In dilute phase conveying the conveying air velocity does not change, and so the air flow rate does not need to change either, unless the air supply pressure is increased. An increase in air flow rate will mean that the air only pressure drop will increase, and for many materials it will also mean a reduction in material flow rate. The net effect of this is that the reduction in material flow with increase in equivalent length can be much greater than that predicted by the inverse law model given in Equation 3 and illustrated in Figure 15.1. These effects were shown earlier in Figures 7.27 and 28. 2.7.2 Horizontal Pipeline For the design of pneumatic conveying systems based on the use of conveying data and scaling parameters, horizontal pipeline is generally taken as the reference dimension for the process. The scaling parameter for horizontal pipeline, therefore, is unity. Thus for horizontal pipeline the equivalent length, Lc, is simply given by: Le = Lh ft . - . - . - - - . . . (4)
where L/, = sum total of all horizontal pipeline sections 2.1.3 Vertical Pipelines
The pressure drop in vertical pipelines is very different from that in horizontal lines and so they have to be treated separately. There are also significant differ-
419
ences in performance and pressure gradients between flow vertically up and flow vertically down, as illustrated earlier with Figure 8.4. 2.1.3.1 Flow Vertically Up Most pipelines will contain an element of vertical lift, generally because of the need to deliver material to the top of a silo or other elevated reception point. Results from a comprehensive program of conveying trials with vertical and horizontal pipelines was presented in Chapter 8. Conveying characteristics with pressure data in terms of pressure gradients were presented for a number of materials. Such data for barite conveyed through two inch nominal bore pipeline is presented in Figures 15.2. The two sets of data for barite conveyed through two inch nominal bore pipeline are presented together for direct comparison, with the data for horizontal flow in Figure 15.2a and the data for flow vertically up in Figure 15.2b. From this it will be seen that the pressure gradient for conveying a material vertically up is very much greater than that for conveying the same material horizontally, and under exactly the same conveying conditions. This is much as would be expected, since additional energy is required to overcome the gravitational force. Pressure Gradient
lbf/in2
per 100ft
50
140
120 100 80
Pressure Gradient Ibf/in 2 120 100 per 100 ft
80
240
30
20
10
Solids Loading Ratio
0 50 100 150
10
50
100
150
(a)
Free Air Flow Rate - ftVinin
(b)
Free Air Flow Rate - ftVmin
Figure 15.2 (a) Horizontal and (b) vertically up pressure gradient dala for barite conveyed through two inch nominal bore pipeline.
420
Chapter 15
From this it will be seen that a scaling parameter is required to take this into account. In Chapter 8 a comparison of these two sets of data was presented. A grid was superimposed on each set of data and the ratio of the pressure gradients was evaluated for every grid point. The result was presented in Figure 8.7a. In Figure 8.7b the result of a similar analysis carried out with fly ash was presented. In each case the ratio was close to a value of two, and this was reasonably constant over the entire range of conveying conditions examined. It is suggested, therefore, that the scaling parameter for vertically upward sections of pipeline is 2-0. Thus for vertical pipeline, in which the flow is vertically up, the equivalent length, Le, of straight horizontal pipeline, is simply given by:
Le = 2 x Lv
ft
(5)
where Lv = sum total length of all vertically upward sections in pipeline 2.1.3.2 Flow Vertically Down Similar pressure gradient data to that given in Figures 15.2a and b, for barite conveyed in two inch nominal bore pipe, is presented in Figure 15.3. This is for barite conveyed vertically down.
60
o o o
140
120
100
Pressure Gradient Ibf/in 2 per 100ft
T40
20 20
-4
50 100
150
Free Air Flow Rate - ft'Vmin Figure 15.3 Pressure gradient data for vertically downward flow of barite in two inch nominal bore pipeline.
421
With both pressure loss and pressure recovery occurring over the potential range of conveying conditions, this is clearly not going to produce a straightforward scaling parameter. From a number of different materials tested, however, there was consistency in that the line of zero pressure gradient occurred at a solids loading ratio of about 35 in each case [2. 3]. Thus for dilute phase conveying there will generally be a pressure drop in conveying vertically downwards and for dense phase conveying there will generally be a pressure recovery. As mentioned in Chapter 8, in the majority of pneumatic conveying systems, flow vertically down usually occurs only when the pipeline is routed over some obstruction such as a road or railway line. In these cases the influence of the vertically downward section is generally so small that it can be disregarded. The additional bends required, however, must be included in the total number of bends in the pipeline. If it is considered that the vertically downward section of pipeline should be included in the pipeline analysis it would be recommended that for dilute phase flow the downward sections of pipeline should be treated as straight horizontal pipeline. For dense phase flow the length of pipeline involved could well be neglected. For long distance transport vertically down it is clearly essential that data such as that presented in Figure 15.3 should be used. Dense phase conveying in such a situation is an obvious advantage, for the pressure generated in the vertically downward section of pipeline could well be sufficient to convey the material several thousand feet horizontally at the bottom. Care must be taken with conveying air velocity, and hence pipeline bore sizes, in this type of conveying situation, as considered in Chapter 9 with Figures 20 and 21. 2.1.4 Pipeline Bends Pipeline bends are an essential element of any pipeline since they provide the flexibility in pipeline routing to allow any required geometry between the supply and reception points. There is, however, a penalty to pay for this flexibility, for although they add essentially nothing to the actual conveying length, they can add significantly to the equivalent length of the pipeline. It is the equivalent length of the pipeline that dictates the conveying capability of a pipeline, as will be seen from Equation 1. The nature of the problem, with respect to pipeline bends, was considered in Chapter 8 with Figures 10 and 11. A detailed analysis was included of the influence of bends and data in terms of an equivalent length for ninety degree bends was presented in Figure 8.14. As this is a crucial element in the overall scaling process for pipelines this data is reproduced here as Figure 15.4 for reference purposes. The scaling parameter is in terms of the equivalent length of straight horizontal pipeline. Conveniently the loss is in terms of a single parameter, which is the conveying line inlet air velocity.
422
Chapter 15
1000
2000
3000
4000
Conveying Line Inlet Air Velocity - ft/min
Figure 15.4
Equivalent horizontal length of bends for 90 radius bends.
This means that the total equivalent length for the bends in a pipeline is simply given by the appropriate equivalent length from Figure 15.4 multiplied by the total number of bends in the pipeline. Thus for bends in a pipeline the equivalent length, LL,, of straight horizontal pipeline, is simply given by:
Le =
ft
(6)
where A' = sum total of all bends in pipeline and LL,f, = equivalent length for bends From Figure 15.4 it will be seen that bends in a pipeline can have a very significant influence, particularly for dilute phase conveying. With a conveying line inlet air velocity of 3000 ft/min, for example, the equivalent length of just six bends is approximately 300 feet. A definite recommendation, therefore, is that the number of bends in any pipeline should be kept to an absolute m i n i m u m . The same recommendation also applies to dense phase conveying, for although the equivalent length for a bend may only be about five feet with a conveying line inlet air velocity of 600 ft/min, the corresponding pressure gradient in the pipeline is significantly higher. This is why the range of pressure drop values for bends, in terms of lbf/in 2 presented in Figure 8.15, is over such a very much narrower range than that of equivalent length in Figure 15.4. 2.1.4.1 Position of Bends in Pipeline It will be noted that the equivalent length of all bends in a pipeline would appear to be the same. While this is certainly a convenient parameter for scaling, it might
423
be expected that the equivalent length would change with location, particularly as the conveying air velocity increases along the length of a pipeline in a single bore line. This, however, is the result of a comprehensive program of research work and analysis carried out [4J and although a change with location was expected it was not observed. Since the energy loss is associated with the re-acceleration of the conveyed particles after the bend, it is possible that the reduction in velocity of the particles across a bend does not vary. This is yet another area where more research work needs to be undertaken. 2.1.4.2 Proximity of Bends In undertaking research work on bend losses it is generally standard practice to ensure that there is sufficient length of straight pipeline before the test bend to ensure that the particles have fully accelerated to their terminal velocity. In practice, of course, some bends may have to be located relatively close to one another. A general recommendation is that bends should be spaced a sufficient distance apart to allow particles to reach their terminal velocity. This is particularly the case for the first bend in a pipeline, for this follows the material feed into the pipeline where the material velocity is essentially zero. If this bend is too close a higher conveying line inlet air velocity will have to be employed and this will generally have the effect of reducing the conveying capacity of the pipeline. Similarly, if bends are too closely spaced along the length of a pipeline it may be necessary to increase the conveying air velocity to prevent pipeline blockage. The position in the pipeline also needs to be taken into account here, for with bends located close to the end of the pipeline, where the conveying air velocity is very much higher, it is not likely to be such a problem. In a program of work carried out with the test facility associated with the Figure 4.15 pipeline two of the authors investigated this problem [5]. Silica sand with a mean particle size of about 230 micron was used. Conveying characteristics for the sand conveyed through the Figure 4.15 pipeline are presented in Figure 15.5 for reference. This is dilute phase suspension flow since the test facility was limited to low pressure conveying, and with the material being granular it had little air retention capability. The Figure 4.15 pipeline was then modified by the addition of four extra bends. For convenience of support and examination these additional bends were located in the second half of the pipeline. A sketch of this part of the pipeline is given in Figure 15.6 for reference. This increased the number of the bends in the pipeline to twelve but the conveying distance remained at 115 ft. All twelve bends had a bend diameter, D, to pipe bore, d, ratio of about 5:1. Thus two pipelines were available with the number of bends being the only difference. A further purpose of adding these bends to the pipeline, and locating them close together, was to undertake an investigation into acceleration length for the conveyed material [6J.
424
Chapter 15
Solids Loading Ratio Pipeline: Length = 115 ft Bends D/d

a _ oi 3
_o
12x90 = 5
Conveying Line Pressure Drop - Ibf/in 2 4
I 'H
0
50
100
Free Air Flow Rate - ft'/min Figure 15.5 Conveying characteristics for sand in figure 4.15 pipeline. Figure 15.6 Modification to end of figure 4.15 pipeline.
Silica sand is an extremely erosive material and so an assessment of acceleration length could be made by measuring the wear on the bends following each straight length of horizontal pipeline. This is why the pipeline incorporated a wide range of straight pipeline lengths before the various bends. Erosive wear increases exponentially with increase in velocity and so provides a very simple yet sensitive means of assessing the velocity of the particles on impact with a bend. From analysis of the various bends in the pipeline it was found that the acceleration length for the 230 micron sand was about five feet. Conveying characteristics for the same sand conveyed through the Figure 15.6 pipeline are presented in Figure 15.7a. An additional loop was also added to the Figure 4.15 pipeline and this is the Figure 14.8 pipeline. Thus the Figure 15.6 and Figure 14.8 pipelines both have the same number of bends and it is the length of pipeline that differs. Conveying characteristics for this same silica sand conveyed through the Figure 14.8 pipeline are presented in Figure 15.7b. If the conveying characteristics for the sand in Figures 15.5 and 15.7a are compared it will be seen that there is a very significant reduction in performance and this is due entirely to the fact that the sand represented in Figure 15.7a was conveyed through four additional bends. An analysis of these two sets of data gave an equivalent length of the bends in the pipelines as about 32 feet. Although this is a little lower than might be expected, the acceleration length for many of the additional bends was less than five feet.
425
o 5 o
o
* 3
Conveying Line Pressure Drop 6 - Ibf/iir
_o
Conveying Line Pressure Drop - lbf/in 2
50
100
(a)
Free Air Flow Rate - ft'/min
(b)
50 100 Free Air Flow Rate - ftVmin
150
Figure 15.7 Conveying characteristics for 230 micron sand in (a) pipeline shown in figure 15.6 and (b) pipeline shown in figure 14.8, both pipelines having twelve 90 bends.
If the conveying characteristics for the sand in Figures 15.7a and 7b are compared it will be seen that there is a further reduction in performance and this is due to the difference in length between the two pipelines of about 110 feet. 2.1.4.3 Bend Geometry In all the data presented above for the sand conveyed in dilute phase, every bend in each of the pipelines had a D/d ratio of about 5:1. In the analysis undertaken to produce the data presented in Figure 15.4, all the bends tested had a D/d ratio of approximately 24:1. Bend geometry was considered in some detail in section 5.3 of Chapter 8. Tests were undertaken with a fine grade of fly ash and were carried out with bends ranging from long radius, through short radius to blind tees. It was found that bend radius had little influence on pipeline performance over a very wide range of values. It was only with very short radius bends, and particularly blind tee bends that their effect on pressure loss was significant. It is suggested that the equivalent lengths for bends presented in Figure 15.4 will be appropriate for all radiused bends down to a D/d ratio of about 3:1. Blind tee bends would not be recommended for use unless specifically required for the handling of abrasive materials. In this case it would be suggested that the equivalent lengths presented in Figure 15.4 be doubled.
426
Chapter 15
2.1.4.4 Bend Angle Not all bends are 90 and a variety of other angles are used and are available as standard pipeline fittings. There is a distinct lack of information on the performance of such bends, possibly because their numbers are relatively small in comparison. The energy loss associated with any bend is due to the retardation of the particles as a result of impact and the consequent re-acceleration in the high velocity conveying air flow. As a worst case it is suggested that all bends are simply treated as standard 90 bends. With short angle bends it is possible that the particles could pass through the bend with just a glancing blow, little more than a particle impacting against the straight pipeline wall while being conveyed. In this case the influence of the coefficient of restitution of the particles will play an important part, as discussed in section 5.2.1.1 of Chapter 8. Once again this is another topic in pneumatic conveying that still requires a lot of research work to be undertaken. 2.1.5 Pipeline Wall Material The scaling parameters and conveying data presented so far relate to steel pipeline. Pipeline material was considered in Chapter 8 at section 6 and specific data on the conveying performance of hose material was presented. With rubber hose it was found that there was a significant increase in pipeline pressure drop, particularly for high velocity dilute phase flow. Once again it is suggested that this relates to coefficient of restitution between particles and surface. It is suggested that if a conveying system does include a proportion of rubber hose line, the equivalent length of that section of pipeline could be increased. The data presented in Figure 8.22 could be used by way of guidance in this respect. 2. 1. 6 Material Feeding Although material feeding will be common to both pipelines in the scaling process, an element for material feeding should be included as it will influence the proportionality. A term is required here that will account for the energy required to accelerate the conveyed material from rest to its terminal velocity. This relates essentially to the kinetic energy required to accelerate the material and so it can be a significant term for some systems. From the steady flow energy equation the element for kinetic energy is given by: lbf/in 2
Apacc
2 gcx 3600x144
- - - - -
(7
where
p = density of conveyed material - lb/ft' C = velocity of conveyed material - tt/min
427
and
gc = gravitational constant - 32-2 ftlb/lbfs2
The density term is that of the conveyed material and this is most conveniently considered in terms of the solids loading ratio, 0, for the conveyed material. The energy term relates to the end of the pipeline and so in positive pressure conveying systems, where the air density can be taken as the free air value of 0-0765 lb/ft', the suspension density or the density of the conveyed material is approximately:
p = 0-0765 <t> lb/ft3
(8)
The velocity term is that at the end of the pipeline, but it is the velocity of the particles and not the velocity of the air. This is an important consideration since it is the square of the velocity in this equation. Particles are typically conveyed at about 80% of the conveying air velocity in horizontal flow and so it does have a significant effect on the energy term. Particle velocity, Cp, is generally expressed in terms of a slip ratio, which is the ratio of the velocity of the particle to the velocity of the conveying air, Ca. The value of slip ratio will depend upon the particle size, shape and density, as well as pipeline orientation. Typical data for spherical particles in horizontal flow is presented in Figure 15.8 [7J.
1-0
Particle Density - lb/lt 3
0-8
^o
C3
0-7
oi J5- 0-6
0-5
0-4 -
20
40
60
100
200
500
1000
Particle Diameter - micron Figure 15.8 Influence of particle size and density on slip ratio.
428
Chapter 15
In terms of equivalent length the simplest way of taking particle acceleration pressure drop into account is to treat it in terms of two additional bends. In a blind tee the material has to be accelerated from near zero velocity, which is almost like feeding the material into the pipeline once again. The pressure drop across a blind tee is about double that for a radiused bend and the recommendation above for blind tee bends was that the data in Figure 15.5 should be doubled. 2.1.7 Total Pipeline
The equivalent length of a pipeline, Le, is derived by simple addition of all the elements that need to be taken into account. Considering horizontal and vertically up sections of pipeline, together with pipeline feeding and bends gives:
Le = Lh + 2LV + (N+2)Leb
2.2 Pipeline Bore
ft
- - - -
(9)
The second element in the scaling process is to take account of differences in pipeline bore. For a given pipeline layout this is the major means of increasing material flow rate. The scaling parameter for pipeline bore relates to pipe section area. This was presented earlier in Chapter 7 and is reproduced here for reference: ril <x A oc d1 . . . . . . . . . (10)
where mi = mass flow rate of material - Ib/h d or alternatively:

m
= pipeline bore
- in
'
n\
= ' =
,,2
Const.
- . . . . - - - -
(ll)
For the same conveying air velocity and pressure drop due to the conveyed material The working form of this scaling model is:
\2
-M
lb/h
- - - - - - -
(12)
Where subscripts 1 and 2 relate to the appropriate pipe bores of the two pipelines
429
2.3
Air Only Pressure Drop
In both scaling parameters (Equations 2 and 11), for conveying distance and pipeline bore, reference was made to the fact that the scaling relates only to the pressure drop due to the conveyed material. This, of course, is generally the major element of the total system pressure drop. The pressure drop due to the air alone in the pipeline has to be added separately to give the total pressure drop required for conveying. Air only pressure drop values for pipelines were considered in Chapter 6. Typical data for pipeline length was presented earlier in Figures 6.4 and 7.20. With increase in length there is an increase in the air only pressure drop value and so this means that when scaling to longer pipelines less pressure will be available for conveying material. Typical data for pipeline bore was presented in Figures 6.5 and 7.15. With increase in pipe bore there is a decrease in the air only pressure drop value and so this means that when scaling to larger bore pipelines more pressure will be available for conveying material. 3 CASE STUDIES
The influence of scaling with respect to conveying distance was considered in detail in section 4 of Chapter 7. Two different materials were considered, a magnesium sulfate that could only be conveyed in dilute phase, and a dicalcium phosphate that could be conveyed in dense phase. The influence of increasing conveying distance was considered in each case, with the transition from dense phase to dilute phase conveying being highlighted for the dicalcium phosphate. The influence of scaling with respect to pipeline bore was considered in detail in section 3 of Chapter 7. The above two materials were considered once again, but since the scaling parameter for material flow rate is the same as that for air flow rate there is little change in solids loading ratio values, and so there is no change in the transition from dense to dilute phase conveying. With the scaling covering both pipeline bore and air supply pressure, an analysis of the relative influences of these two parameters on system power requirements was also considered. Two further cases will be considered here to illustrate in more detail the use of the scaling parameters in pipeline design and system specification. The first is for a low pressure dilute phase conveying system, for a material that can not be conveyed in dense phase, and the material considered is granular coal. The second is for a high pressure dense phase conveying system and the material considered is ordinary portland cement. The conveying data to be used for these two materials was obtained from conveying trials undertaken with the Figure 7.13 pipeline. For convenience of reference a sketch of this pipeline is given in Figure 15.9.
430
Chapter 15
Pipeline: length bore bends D/d
= = = =
3lOft 3 in nominal 9 x 90 16
Figure 15.9
Sketch of figure 7.13 pipeline.
A sketch of the plant pipeline to which the data for coal is to be scaled is presented in Figure 15.10.
Delivery Silo "
Transfer Hopper
40ft-
Figure 15.10
Details of plant pipeline for conveying coal.
431
For convenience the test pipeline is used in both cases. Since the conveying conditions in the two cases will be very different, equivalent lengths will also be very different. 3.1 Low Pressure Conveying of Coal
Conveying characteristics for granular coal conveyed through the Figure 7.13 pipeline are presented in Figure 15.11. 3.1.1 Air Supply Pressure Although the conveying data in Figure 15.11 is available up to conveying line inlet air pressures of 24 psig a low pressure system will be considered since the material can only be conveyed in dilute phase suspension flow. A positive pressure displacement blower would be an ideal compressor for the duty but as these typically have a maximum operating pressure of about 15 psig, the pneumatic conveying system will be designed on a conveying line pressure drop of 12 lbf/in 2 . Thus the conveying line inlet air pressure, /?/, will be 12 lbf/in" gauge or (for calculation purposes) 26-7 lbf/in 2 abs, assuming that the plant is located at or near to sea level. A compressor with a 15 psig pressure capability would be specified in order to provide to provide a safety margin on air supply pressure. Solids Loading | Ratio
40
o o o
Conveying Line ^ Inlet Air Velocity - ft/min
fL> 03
Conveying Line Pressure Drop - Ibf/itr

20
Conveying Limit
%
_o
"rt
10
100
200
300
400
500
600
Free Air Flow Rate - fWmin Figure 15.11 Conveying characteristics for granular coal conveyed through the pipeline shown in figure 7.13.
432
Chapter 15
3.1.2 Conveying Une Inlet Air Velocity From Figure 1 5 . 1 1 it will be seen that the m i n i m u m conveying air velocity for the material is about 2600 ft/min. A safety margin of about 20% on this for conveying line inlet air velocity would be recommended. This gives 1-2 * 2600 = ^ 3 1 2 0 ft/min. This will be the conveying line inlet air velocity, C/, for the plant pipeline. The flow rate of the granular coal, achieved in the three inch bore test pipeline, can be obtained from the vertical axis of Figure 15.11, and this is about 13,500 Ib/h. This is ril ^ which will be required in the scaling process. The solids loading ratio at which the coal is conveyed under these conditions is about 1 1 , and the free air flow rate about 278 ft'Ymin. 3.1.3 Equivalent Lengths In the scaling process equivalent lengths are required for both the test facility from which the data is available, and the plant pipeline that requires to be designed. Now that the conveying line inlet air velocity has been established these can be determined. The relationship for the equivalent length of a pipeline was given with Equation 9:
Le = Lh + 2LV + (N+2}Leb
ft
- - - -
(9)
Assuming that radiused bends will be used throughout, the value of the equivalent lengths of all the bends can be obtained from Figure 15.4 since the conveying line inlet air velocity has been established as 3120 ft/min. The equivalent length is about 57 feet. This applies to both the pipeline from which the data was obtained and to the plant pipeline to which it will be applied. Thus for the test pipeline:
Lgi = 310 + 0 + [(9 + 2) x 57] = 937 feet

And for the plant pipeline:
Le2 = 570 + (2 x 80) + [(8 + 2) x 57] = 1300 feet

3.1.4 Air Only Pressure Drop
Equations for evaluating the air only pressure drop were considered in Chapter 6. There are two possible approaches for this, depending upon the degree of accuracy required. For a quick approximation Equation 6.3b can be used for the pipeline and Equation 6.8b can be used for the bends and fittings.
433
Estimated mean values over the length of the pipeline for both air density, p, and air velocity, C, can be used. A representative value of 0-005 can be used for pipeline friction factor, /,' and a value of 0-2 for each bend in the bend loss coefficient, k. For a more accurate analysis Equation 6.14 is probably the most convenient of those presented. This combines pipeline and bend losses in the one equation. This is in terms of the air mass flow rate, ma , and this can be evaluated by using Equation 6.15 or alternatively, if the free air flow rate, VQ , is used:
tha = 0-0765 x Vn Ib/min

= = 0-0765 x 278 21-3 Ib/min
- - - - - - -
(13)
for the point being scaled on the Figure 7. 1 3 pipeline
Pipeline friction and bend losses are included in Equation 6 . 1 1 :
f L -9-375 d
Z k -450
(dimensionless)
Substituting appropriate values for the Figure 7.13 three inch bore test pipeline gives:
0-005x310 9-375x3 = 0-059
9x0-2 450
and similarly for the plant pipeline of three inch bore:

(7
/ 3P =
0-119
Equation 6.14 for the air only pressure drop for a pipeline is as follows:
d4
Ibf/irr
and substituting values for the data point being scaled on the Figure 7.13 three inch bore test pipeline gives:
434
Chapter 15
,0-5
216-1 +
V
= 1-84 lbf/in-
174x0-059x21-3"
-14-7
lbf/in 2
This means that the pressure drop for conveying material for the data point being considered is 12 - 1-84 = 10-16 Ibf/in 2 . Substituting values for the plant pipeline of three inch bore gives: Apa3p = 3-52 Ibf/in 2
This means that with an air supply pressure of 12 Ibf/in 2 for the plant pipeline, the pressure drop for conveying material, for the data point being considered, will be 12-3-52 = 8-48 Ibf/in 2 . 13,500 Ib/h was achieved in the test pipeline with an effective pressure drop of 10-16 Ibf/in 2 , but in the plant pipeline of the same bore only 8-48 Ibf/in 2 is available and so fh ,( must be scaled in proportion to provide a modified value:
8-48
= 10-16 11,270 Ib/h
3.1.5 Material Flow Rales With all the necessary data evaluated for the test pipeline, the first stage in the scaling process is to scale to the plant pipeline. The first stage is in terms of equivalent length only and so there is no change in pipeline bore. This scaling model was presented earlier at Equation 3:
Ib/h
and substituting values gives:

937
= 11,270 x
=
8,120
1300 Ib/h
435
The second stage is in terms of pipeline bore. This scaling model was presented earlier at Equation 12. Re-arranging the equation to make the diameter of the plant pipeline the subject of the equation gives:
d?
d,
(14)
In normal circumstances the material flow rate required for the plant pipeline will be known. Let us suppose that this is 60,000 Ib/h. Substituting values in Equation 14 gives:
60.000
-15 in
3.1.6 Pipeline Bores
The above pipeline bore is not the final result. The calculation was necessary in order to establish an approximate value, because an allowance has to be made for the air only pressure drop. This is, in effect, an iterative process. The air only pressure drop for the plant pipeline having a bore of 8 in can be evaluated from Equation 6.14 with the appropriate values: The first of these values is that for the pipeline friction and bend losses for the 8 in bore pipeline from Equation 6.11: _
P
0-005x650 9-375x8 0-047
8x0-2 450
Substituting this, the new pipeline bore and a new air flow rate value, scaled on pipe section area, into Equation 6.14 gives:
1 74 x 0 - 047 x
216-1 +
_ - iJ ,
8
4
2i 3
f8f~
-14-7
Ibf/in 2
48
Ibf/in 2
436
Chapter 15
This means that with an air supply pressure of 12 Ibf/irf for the plant pipeline, the pressure drop for conveying material, for the data point being considered, will be 12- 148 = 10-52 lbf/in 2 . 8,120 Ib/h was achieved in the plant pipeline, having a three inch bore, with an effective pressure drop of 8.48 lbf/in 2 , but in the plant pipeline of eight inch bore 10-52 lbf/in 2 is now available and so m provide a modified value:
3
must be scaled in proportion to
"'"" '
=
8J2
10-52
* -^
10,070 Ib/h
Equation 15.12 can now be used to scale from the plant pipeline having a three inch bore to a plant pipeline having an eight inch bore:
9
mp&p
= 10,070 x I VJ = 71,600 Ib/h
The problem here is in selecting a standard pipeline bore. Six inch bore would be too small, seven inch is probably not available and so eight inch would be required. Six inch bore would only be a possibility if a higher air supply pressure could be used and so this alternative could be explored if required. The capability of an eight inch bore pipeline is almost 20% greater than required. It will, of course, allow for future expansion and in the meantime the system could operate with a lower air supply pressure. 3.1. 7 Summary
The scaling process may appear a little convoluted but it is an iterative process in part. This is particularly the case when scaling a single data point. If the entire conveying characteristics in Figure 15.13 were to be scaled this would not be necessary, as an intermediate set of conveying characteristics for the three inch bore plant pipeline would be constructed, but the scaling process would take very much longer. The notation employed here has been as follows: Symbols d Pipeline bore in L Pipeline length ft Ap Pressure difference lbf/in y Pipeline loss coefficients -
437
Subscripts a m p t 3, 8
air conveyed material modified conveyed product or material plant pipeline test pipeline pipeline bore in inches
A summary of the results at the different stages is as follows:

Pipeline Bore Length in ft Test 3 310 > Plant 3 650
ma (// Apa Apm mp
Ib/min
21-3
21-3
_+.
Ibf/in Ibf/in Ib/h

2
0-059 1-84 10-16 13,500 11,270 >
0-119 3-52 8-48
8,120
I 10.070
>71,600
3.2
High Pressure Conveying of Cement
Conveying characteristics for cement conveyed through the Figure 7.13 pipeline are presented in Figure 15.12. This is the same pipeline that was used for the granular coal presented in Figure 15.11. A comparison of the two sets of data will show the vast difference in conveying capability between the two materials. With the cement being capable of low velocity dense phase conveying, very much lower air flow rates have been employed for conveying the material, and it has been possible to use very much high conveying line inlet air pressures. The conveying limit for the cement is about 600 ft/min for dense phase conveying and 2000 ft/min for dilute phase conveying, compared with a single value of 2600 ft/min for the coal as it had no dense phase conveying capability. With the cement, however, dense phase can only be maintained provided that the pressure gradient is high enough.
438
Chapter 15
120
o o o
Conveying Lini Pressure Drop - Ibf/in 2
Conveying Line Inlet Air Velocity - ft/min
"600
140
Solids Loading Ratio \

100
_o u.
Conveying Limit
1 40
40
80 120 160 Free Air Flow Rale - ft'/min
200
15.12 Conveying characteristics for ordinary portland cement in the pipeline shown in figure 7.13.
3.2.1 Air Supply Pressure Conveying data in Figure 15.12 is available up to conveying line inlet air pressures of 60 psig and a high pressure system would generally be recommended for this material. For this case study, however, a conveying line inlet pressure of 20 psig will be considered since it will incorporate the problems of the transition from dense phase to dilute phase conveying of the material in the study. Thus the conveying line inlet air pressure, pt, will be 20 Ibf/in" gauge or (for calculation purposes) 34-7 Ibf/in 2 abs, assuming that the plant is located at or near to seal level. 3.2.2 Conveying Line Inlet A Ir Velocity From Figure 15.3 it will be seen that the m i n i m u m conveying air velocity for the material is about 600 ft/min. A safety margin of about 20% on this for conveying line inlet air velocity would be recommended. This gives 1-2 x 600 = 720 ft/min. Since the conveying line inlet air velocity, C/, depends upon the value of solids loading ratio, as presented in Figure 13.3 for this material, this value may not be appropriate for the plant pipeline. This part of the scaling process is exploratory in nature, and if it is found that a conveying line inlet air velocity of 720 ft/min is not possible for the plant pipeline, the process will have to start all over again. This is essentially a trial and error solution and is an iterative process. From the result obtained a closer approximation should be possible and convergence should occur quite quickly.
439
The flow rate of the ordinary Portland cement, achieved in the three inch bore test pipeline, can be obtained from the vertical axis of Figure 15.12, and this is about 38,000 Ib/h. This is ril
v
which w i l l be required in the scaling process.
The solids loading ratio at which the cement is conveyed under these conditions is about 87, and the free air flow rate about 95 ftYmin. 3.2.3 Equivalent Lengths
In the scaling process equivalent lengths are required for both the test facility from which the data is available, and the plant pipeline that requires to be designed. Now that the conveying line inlet air velocity has been established these can be determined. The relationship for the equivalent length of a pipeline was given with Equation 9:
Le = Lh + 2LV + (N+T)Leb
ft
(9)
A sketch of the plant pipeline to be used for the conveying of ordinary Portland cement is presented in Figure 15.13 for reference. This w i l l also need to be assessed in terms of an equivalent length for scaling purposes.
Reception Silo
Transfer Hopper
Figure 15.13
Details of plant pipeline for conveying cement.
440
Chapter 15
Assuming that radiused bends will be used throughout, the value of the equivalent lengths of all the bends can be obtained from Figure 15.4 since the conveying line inlet air velocity has been established as 720 ft/min. The equivalent length is about 8 feet. This applies to both the pipeline from which the data was obtained and to the plant pipeline to which it will be applied. Thus for the test pipeline: Lei = 310 + 0 + [(9 + 2) x 8] = 398 feet And for the plant pipeline:
Le-2 = =
660 + (2 x 140) + [(8 + 2) x g] 1020 feet
3.2.4 Air Only Pressure Drop Equations for evaluating the air only pressure drop were considered in the previous case study and Equation 6.14 will be used here also. The air mass flow rate, ma , is required and this can be evaluated by using Equation 15.13:
ma = 0-0765 x VH
= 0-0765 x 95
Ib/min
- - - - - - -
(13)
7-27
Ib/min
for the point being scaled on the Figure 7.13 pipeline
Pipeline friction and bend losses for the test pipeline will be exactly the same as those evaluated above, and so: !?3t = 0-059
and similarly for the plant pipeline of three inch bore: ,r/ 0 005 x 800 8x0-2 450
9-375x3 0-146
Equation 6.14 for the air only pressure drop for a pipeline is as follows:
216-1 +
174 ;/ m2 V'5
j^k
_ 14.7
M/in 2
441
and substituting values for the data point being scaled on the Figure 7.13 three inch bore test pipeline gives:
,0-5
216-1
174x0-059x7-27"
34
-14-7
Ibf/in 2
0-23 Ibf/iir
It will be noted that this compares with a value of 1 -84 Ibf/in in the previous case study for dilute phase conveying. In a high pressure, dense phase conveying system, therefore, the allowance for and incorporation of air only pressure drop is not so critical. In this case it means that the pressure drop for conveying material for the data point being considered is 20 - 0-23 = 19-77 Ibf/in 2 , which is only a marginal difference. Substituting values for the plant pipeline of three inch bore gives: Apa3p = 0-55 Ibf/in 2
This means that with an air supply pressure of 20 Ibf/in 2 for the plant pipeline, the pressure drop for conveying material, for the data point being considered, will be 20-0-55 = 19-45 Ibf/in 2 . A modification of the material flow rate, due to this difference in pressure drop values, as carried out above for the dilute phase conveying of the coal, reduces the material flow rate of the cement from 38,000 Ib/h to about 37,380 Ib/h. For low velocity dense phase conveying, therefore, this element of the analysis could well be omitted and particularly so with higher air supply pressures. 3.2.5 Material Flow Rates With all the necessary data evaluated for the test pipeline, the first stage in the scaling process is to scale to the plant pipeline. The first stage is in terms of equivalent length only and so there is no change in pipeline bore. This scaling model was presented earlier at Equation 15.3:
m.
and substituting values gives: mp3p = 37,380 x = 14,585
L.
lb/h
398
1020 lb/h
442
Chapter 15
The second stage is in terms of pipeline bore. This scaling model was presented earlier at Equation 15.14. Once again, in normal circumstances, the material flow rate required for the plant pipeline will be known. Let us suppose in this case that it is 140,000 Ib/h. Substituting values in Equation 15.14 gives:
, xO-5 [140,000]
V 14,585 j
d-, 142
jxi
"?
-.'
i Y)
in
9-3
in
3.2.6 Pipeline Bores From the above analysis it is clear that a ten inch bore pipeline would be required, and this might be capable of conveying 140,000 Ib/h of cement through the Figure 15.13 pipeline with an air supply pressure of 20 psig. The diameter came to just over nine inches and the modification of the pressure drop was not taken into account. However, a check needs to be made on whether this is a possibility before proceeding further. 3.2. 7 Solids Loading Ratio The volumetric flow rate of free air required for this pipeline can be obtained from Equation 5.10:
V,, = 0.1925 x- ftYmin
P\
and substituting values for the ten inch bore pipeline:
34-7xl02x720 , K, = 0-1925 x - f t / m i n 520 = 925 fVVmin From ma = = = 0-0765 V{} 0-0765 x 925 70-8 Ib/min Ib/min
Solids loading ratio
(p
rh
(dimensionless)
443
Substituting values gives: 140,000
7 0 - 8 x 60
=
33
The influence of solids loading ratio on the minimum conveying air velocity that can be employed was first introduced in Chapter 4, and specific data for cement was presented in Figure 13.3. This is reproduced here in Figure 15.14 for reference. From Figure 15.14 it will be seen that a conveying line inlet air velocity of 720 ft/min and a solids loading ratio of 33 is not a possible combination for conveying. At a solids loading ratio of 33 the minimum conveying air velocity will be about 860 ft/min, and then the 20% margin required makes the corresponding conveying line inlet air velocity about 1030 ft/min. 1030 ft/min is a 43% increase on 720 ft/min and so a corresponding increase in air flow rate would be required. A 43% increase in air flow rate, however, will mean a corresponding reduction in solids loading ratio to about 23. Because of the slope of the curve on Figure 15.14, the minimum conveying air velocity at a solids loading ratio of 23 is 1360 ft/min, making the conveying line inlet air velocity about 1630 ft/min. These points are illustrated on Figure 15.14 for reference.
2400 .
h
2000
^ 'o
1600 >
1630 < 1360*
\ \ A
<
o > c
toJJ 1200
>~l
1030
sno ouu
860
; \
23
.
\^_
720
U p
720
400
2
0 20
33
. 1 , 1
87 | + ,
40
60
80
100

Figure 15.14 Influence of solids loading ratio on m i n i m u m conveying air velocity for ordinary portland cement.
444
Chapter 15
1630 ft/min is an almost 60% increase on 1030 ft/min and so it will be seen that with an air supply pressure of 20 psig convergence will only come when the cement is conveyed in dilute phase with a conveying line inlet air velocity of 2000 ft/min and this will be dilute phase suspension flow. The slope of the curve on Figure 15.14, particularly between solids loading ratios of about 40 and 10, is such that conveying velocities must be at least 20% above the line otherwise the flow could become unstable, particularly if the material flow rate should reduce for some reason. The data point of 20 psig and 2000 ft/min does not appear on the conveying characteristics in Figure 15.12. It will be seen, however, that the data point will be at a very much lower value of material flow rate and so a very much larger bore of pipeline will be required to convey 140,000 Ib/h. The increase in air flow rate will be even greater because this will increase with both the increased conveying line inlet air velocity and the increased pipeline bore. 3.2.8 Other Possibilities The pipeline bore in the above case was evaluated to be about 9-3 inches. With a standard ten inch bore pipeline it would be possible to convey about 15% more material. The air flow rate was calculated for a 10 in pipe and so this means that the solids loading ratio would increase by the same percentage, from 33 to about 38. This is now marginal but it could not be recommended. Increasing the air supply pressure to 30 psig is another possibility. The operating point on Figure 15.12 gives an increase in material flow rate to about 56,000 Ib/h, and although the air flow rate increases, there is an increase in solids loading ratio. With the increase in pressure the 140,000 Ib/h can be conveyed through an eight inch bore pipeline. The solids loading ratio is now over forty and so the system should operate satisfactorily. A further increase in air supply pressure to 40 psig results in further increases in conveying parameters. The pipeline bore required to convey the 140,000 Ib/h is now down to seven inches. If seven inch pipeline was available this would be an ideal solution. If eight inch bore pipe had to be used, however, the material flow rate would have to be increased in order to maintain the necessary value of solids loading ratio. Selection of pipeline bore can be a major problem and so it is always worth investigating the options in this way. 3.2.8.1 Stepped Pipelines With most high pressure conveying systems the use of a stepped bore pipeline would generally be recommended. This will usually result in an improvement in performance. Although the case considered above, with an air supply pressure of 20 psig, proved to be marginal in terms of operation, the use of a stepped pipeline could well change the situation. The procedure for designing or checking stepped pipeline systems is exactly the same as that outlined above for single bore pipelines. Each section of pipeline, of a different bore, must be considered as a completely separate pipeline. A pipe-
445
line having two steps, and hence three sections of pipeline of different bore, is shown diagrammatically below:
Flow
-^
Direction Length Pressure
d,.2
d3.4
d5.6
Le/-2
p\ Ap/_ ^ C/
P2-3
Lej-j
P4-5
Les^
P6
dp 5.6
Pressure drop Air Velocity
Ap3-4
C2-3
C4.5
When checking a system design, individual pipeline lengths will be specified. When designing a system, however, these will have to be calculated. In either case it will be necessary to evaluate the conveying air velocities at the two steps, C2-3 and C/-J, to make sure that the velocity does not fall below the minimum conveying air velocity value. The air flow rate, V0 , and the conveying line inlet, p,, and outlet, p6, air pressures will all be specified and so the air mass flow rate, ma , conveying line pressure drop, Apj_6, and conveying line inlet, C/, and exit, C6, air velocities can all be calculated directly, as illustrated above. These values will all be specified, even if they are estimated values in the first place in order to start the calculation procedure. The pressure at the pipeline steps, p2.3 and/^.j, the individual pipeline pressure drops, dp 1.2, dp3_4 and dps.6, and the material flow rate, / , will all be unknown. Thus six equations will be needed to solve for the six unknown values. The scaling parameters applied to each pipeline section will provide three of the equations, the continuity equation can be applied twice, and the fact that Ap,_6 = dpi_2 + dp 3.4 + dp5.6 provides the sixth equation. These can be solved simultaneously in the usual way. As with the single bore pipeline solution presented above, if a balance is not achieved between the initial estimate made for solids loading ratio, <p, and the value of conveying line inlet air velocity, C/, the procedure will need to be repeated until convergence is achieved. REFERENCES 1. D. Mills. Measuring pressure on pneumatic-conveying systems. Chemical Engineering. Vol 108. No 10. pp 84-89. September 2001.
446
Chapter 15
2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
D. Mills. J.S. Mason, and P. Marjanovic. The influence of product type on dense phase pneumatic conveying in vertical pipelines. Proc Pneumalech 2. pp 193-210. Canterbury. UK. Sept 1984. P. Marjanovic. An investigation of the behavior of gas-solid mixture flow properties for vertical pneumatic conveying in pipelines. PhD Thesis. Thames Polytechnic (now The University of Greenwich) London. 1984. P. Marjanovic and D. Mills. The influence of bends on the performance of a pneumatic conveying system. Proc 15th Powder & Bulk Solids Conf. pp 391-399. Chicago. June 1990.' D. Mills, J.S. Mason, and V.K. Agarwal. An analysis of the dilute phase pneumatic conveying of sand. Proc Pneumatech 2. pp 258-278. Canterbury, UK. Sept 1984. D. Mills, J.S. Mason, and V.K. Agarwal. An assessment of acceleration lengths through erosive wear measurements. Proc 10lh Powder & Bulk Solids Conf. pp 215-228. Chicago. May 1985. M. Leva. Fluidization. McGraw Hill. 1959.

Ahp Topic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ahp Topic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15

System Design Using Conveying Data

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data

or alternatively: rhp}Lc] = mp2Lc2 = Const. - - - - - - - (2)

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The working form of this scaling model is:

Conveying Line Pressure Drop - lbf/in 2

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data

Pressure Gradient Ibf/in 2 120 100 per 100 ft

Solids Loading Ratio

Free Air Flow Rate - ftVinin

Free Air Flow Rate - ftVmin

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Pressure Gradient Ibf/in 2 per 100ft

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Conveying Line Inlet Air Velocity - ft/min

Equivalent horizontal length of bends for 90 radius bends.

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Solids Loading Ratio Pipeline: Length = 115 ft Bends D/d

Conveying Line Pressure Drop - Ibf/in 2 4

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data

Solids Loading Ratio

Solids Loading Ratio

Conveying Line Pressure Drop 6 - Ibf/iir

Conveying Line Pressure Drop - lbf/in 2

Free Air Flow Rate - ft'/min

50 100 Free Air Flow Rate - ftVmin

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

p = density of conveyed material - lb/ft' C = velocity of conveyed material - tt/min

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data

gc = gravitational constant - 32-2 ftlb/lbfs2

p = 0-0765 <t> lb/ft3

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

where mi = mass flow rate of material - Ib/h d or alternatively:

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data

Air Only Pressure Drop

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Pipeline: length bore bends D/d

Sketch of figure 7.13 pipeline.

Delivery Silo "

Details of plant pipeline for conveying coal.

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data

Conveying Line ^ Inlet Air Velocity - ft/min

Conveying Line Pressure Drop - Ibf/itr

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Lgi = 310 + 0 + [(9 + 2) x 57] = 937 feet

Le2 = 570 + (2 x 80) + [(8 + 2) x 57] = 1300 feet

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Design Using Conveying Data