Pneumatic Conveying of Bulk Solids PDF

University of Wollongong
Research Online
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection
University of Wollongong Thesis Collections
1989
Pneumatic conveying of bulk solids

P. W. Wypych
University of Wollongong
Recommended Citation
Wypych, P. W., Pneumatic conveying of bulk solids, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Wollongong, 1989. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1590
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the

University of Wollongong. For further information contact Manager
Repository Services: morgan@uow.edu.au.
PNEUMATIC CONVEYING OF BULK SOLIDS
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
D O C T O R O F PHILOSOPHY
from
llum
, UNIVERSITY OF
'WOLLONGONG
LIBRARY
THE UNIVERSITY OF W O L L O N G O N G
by
P. W. W Y P Y C H , BE, MIEAust.
Department of Mechanical Engineering

1989
This is to certify that this work has not been submitted for a degree
to any other university or institution
Peter W. Wypych
Dedicated to my wife, Linda, and my children, David, Emma

for their love, support and patience.
and
Amanda
i
SUMMARY
T h e pneumatic conveying of bulk solids through pipelines has been used in

industry for several decades. With the introduction in recent years of n e w
techniques and more efficient hardware, there has been a considerable increase in
the use of this method of transport (e.g. dense-phase, low-velocity and longdistance conveying). Unfortunately, the technology available to assess the relative
merits of the large number of commercial systems that n o w compete for a particular
application is lacking sadly, especially w h e n efficient and reliable dense-phase or
long-distance transportation is required. T h e main objective of this thesis is to
provide industry with s o m e of this technology in relation to fine powders (e.g.
pulverised coal, fly ash, P V C powder, fly ash/cement mix) and s o m e coarser
products (e.g. screened coke, crushed bath, granulated aluminate).
A convenient method for presenting the variation of major steady-state conveying
parameters is needed for efficient design, system evaluation and optimisation. O n e
technique based on other work and extended to include saltation and minimum
transport behaviour is established. A standardised-test procedure comprising three
different types of pneumatic conveying experiment also is developed to generate
efficiently the data required for this purpose.
The method of scaling up test rig data to full-scale installations, previously use
quite extensively in the design of pneumatic conveying systems, is investigated and
found to be inadequate in particular applications. T w o popular forms of definition
and three existing empirical correlations for the solids pressure drop are modified to
demonstrate the possible extent of this inadequacy. Steady-state pipeline
conveying characteristics of three products are used in the development of an
improved scale-up procedure. Methods to predict the air-only pressure drop for both
single- and stepped-diameter pipelines and to generalise the conveying
characteristics of a particular material (applicable to other combinations of length
and diameter) also are formulated and verified.
Pulverised coal conveyed over 25 m and fly ash over 943 and 293 m (utilising three
different configurations of blow tank) are used to investigate the effect of blow tank
air injection on the performance of a pneumatic conveying system. The addition of
supplementary conveying-air to a blow tank incorporating a top-air supply and
transporting a good dense-phase material (pulverised coal) is shown to achieve
higher values of mass flow ratio and/or conveying rate and also provide smoother
and more consistent transportation. The installation of a fluidising discharge cone to
the outlet of a blow tank conveying a cohesive fly ash is found to improve the
discharge characteristics of the blow tank, as well as decrease pressure and flow
rate fluctuations.
The method of air injection also is found to have a significant impact on the plug
phase m o d e of conveying. Experiments on three different products are carried out
to demonstrate the advantages of this method of transport (i.e. to handle
conventionally difficult dense-phase materials, such as crushed bath) but also its
sensitivity to changes in material property (viz. particle size). However, it is shown
further that this m a y be compensated to s o m e extent by selecting a different method
of air injection.
ii
T w o powder classification techniques based on physical properties are evaluated

and found useful in explaining and indicating the minimum transport (dense-phase)
behaviour for a wide range of materials. The steady-state pipeline conveying
characteristics (dilute- and dense-phase) and the fluidisation behaviour of ten
products are compared for this purpose.
Various mathematical models utilising numerical integration and analytical
approximations are formulated to predict blow tank performance characteristics.
Despite the lack of good accurate data for the experimental verification of these
models (i.e. due to certain difficulties in measurement technique), preliminary
results still are obtained and presented in graphical format. Five existing pipeline
theories also are investigated and reviewed. O n e particular model is found useful in
predicting the dense-phase conveying parameters of fine powders, and a worked
example is presented.
The applicability of generalised solids friction factor correlations to the design of
pneumatic conveying systems is reviewed. The resulting degree of uncertainty is
considered too great for applications involving relatively high operating pressures
(e.g. long-distance and/or large-throughput conveying). Test rig data obtained from
pulverised coal, a fly ash/cement mix and various fly ash samples are used to
identify certain areas of improvement. Based on this work, a test-design procedure
is developed to determine an accurate solids friction factor correlation (i.e. for a
given material and a wide range of diameters). Results from recent investigations
into the long-distance pneumatic conveying of pulverised coal are used to
demonstrate the good accuracy and reliability of this improved approach.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the guidance, continuous support and
encouragement of his supervisor Professor P. C. Arnold throughout the course of
this work.
The support provided by the following colleagues during the various stages of this
work also are acknowledged sincerely by the author.
Mr O. C. Kennedy for his assistance with the laboratory test work and
the processing of s o m e of the experimental results
and figures.
Mr D. M. Cook for his patience and assistance with the pneumatic
conveying test work, construction and installation of
the experimental apparatus.
The author particularly acknowledges the assistance provided by the staff of the
Maintenance Workshop for the construction and installation of the various test rigs
and equipment.
The financial support provided by the National Energy Research Development and
Demonstration Council, the Australian Electrical Research Board and T h e
University of Wollongong is acknowledged gratefully by the author.
The contributions made by Ramsey Engineering and Keystone Valve (A/Asia) Pty.
Ltd. for the donation/supply of Clarkson knife-gate and butterfly valves respectively
for the various test rigs also are acknowledged.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
NOMENCLATURE
i
iii
iv
vii
xiii
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2
PNEUMATIC
2.1
TEST RIG A
2.2
TEST RIG B
2.3
2.4
TEST RIG C
TEST RIG D
2.5
2.6
2.7
TEST RIG E
TEST RIG F
2.8
CHAPTER 3
CONVEYING TEST RIGS

6
7
14
15
AIR SUPPLY A N D F L O W RATE M E A S U R E M E N T

DATA ACQUISITION
PNEUMATIC
CONVEYING
CHARACTERISTICS
18
21
24
26
27
3.1
PULVERISED COAL
31
3.2
3.3
DEFINITION O F DENSE-PHASE
FLY ASH
35
36
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.4
3.4.1
Introduction
Test Rig Description
Test Results
STANDARDISED-TEST P R O C E D U R E
Experiments
36
37
39
45
46
3.4.1.1
3.4.1.2
Test 1 - Standard Batch Cycle

46
Test 2 - Increase of Apt for Approximately Constant mf 48
3.4.1.3
3.4.2
Test 3 - Decrease of mf at Steady-State Conditions

Results
48
3.4.3
Minimum Transport Behaviour
53
3.4.4
Test Procedure Applications and Limitations
55
48
CHAPTER 4
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
CHAPTER 5
BLOW TANK CONFIGURATION & AIR INJECTION
PULVERISED COAL
62
FLY ASH
66
Introduction
66
Test Results
68
PLUG-PHASE CONVEYING
72
Screened & Unscreened Granulated Aluminate (SGA & UGA) 72
Bone Char
77
Crushed Bath
80
Summary
82
POWDER
CHARACTERISATION
5.1
INTRODUCTION
5.2
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Definitions of Particle Size
5.2.1
5.3
FLUIDISATION
5.3.1
Experimental Apparatus
5.4
PIPELINE CONVEYING CHARACTERISTICS
5.5
POWDER CLASSIFICATION TECHNIQUES
5.5.1
Fluidisation
5.5.2
Slugging
5.5.2.1
Slugging Diagram Modifications
5.5.2.2 Results
CHAPTER 6
6.1
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.4
6.5
60
SCALE-UP CONVEYING
CHARACTERISTICS
INTRODUCTION
SCALING RELATIONSHIPS
Definitions for Aps
Empirical Relationships
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Fly Ash / Cement Mix
Screened Coke
PVC Powder
SCALE-UP OF Apt
SUMMARY
86
87
87
87
90
90
95
95
97
100
100
102
109
110
113
113
115
117
117
120
122
126
1
VI
6.6
GENERALISED PIPELINE CONV. CHARACTERISTICS
130
CHAPTER 7
THEORETICAL
133
7.1
INTRODUCTION
INVESTIGATIONS
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.1.1
B L O W TANK DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS

Approximate Analytical Solution
Results
7.2.1.2
Discussion
7.2.2
7.2.2.1
Numerical Analysis
Results
7.3
7.3.1
7.3.1.1
DENSE-PHASE PIPELINE CONV. CHARACTERISTICS

Pressure Loss Predictions by Muschelknautz &
Krambrock [59]
Theory
7.3.1.2
7.3.1.3
Calculation Procedure
Worked Example
7.4
CORRELATION ANALYSIS A N D STEPPED-DIAMETER

PIPELINES
134
134
136
137
138
139
142
144
144
145
146
149
151
152
159
7.4.1
7.4.2
7.4.2.1
Generalised Correlation for Solids Friction Factor

Design of Stepped-Diameter Pipelines
Stepping Pipe Criteria
7.4.3
Test-Design Procedure
160
162
CONCLUSIONS
174
8.1
FURTHER WORK
177
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
179
APPENDIX A
Compilation of Particle Size Data (Samples 1 to 11,
CHAPTER 8
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
Table 5.1)
186
Modified Slugging Diagram based on Dixon [23,39] and

Cliftefa/. [41]
191
Compilation of Operating Conditions for Correlation Analysis

(Samples 1 to 11, 12 and 13, Table 7.2)
APPENDIX D
197
Summary of Solids Friction Factor Calculations for Pulverised

Brown Coal (Test-Design Procedure, Section 7.4.3)
203
Vll
LIST O F
FIGURES
Chapter 2 Page
Figure 2.1 Configuration of the original 0.425 m3 blow tank (Test Rig A). 6
Figure 2.2 General arrangement of the original pneumatic conveying
8
Test Rig A.
3
9
Figure 2.3 Configuration of the final 0.425 m blow tank (Test Rig B).
Figure 2.4 Exploded view of a typical pipeline air pressure tapping
location.
11
Figure 2.5 Full-sectional view of a 50 m m N.B. 90 blinded-tee bend.
12
Figure 2.6 General arrangement of Test Rig B.
13
Figure 2.7 Configuration of the original 0.9 m 3 blow tank (Test Rig C).
14
Figure 2.8 General arrangement of Test Rig C.
16
3
Figure 2.9 Configuration of the original tandem 0.9 m blow tank feeding
17
system (Test Rig D).
3
Figure 2.10 Configuration of the final tandem 0.9 m blow tank feeding
19
system (Test Rig E).
Figure 2.11 General arrangement of Test Rig E1 (refer to Figure 2.8 for
arrangement of pipe loops).
20
3
22
Figure 2.12 Configuration of the 0.113 m plug-phase blow tank.
23
Figure 2.13 General arrangement of Test Rig F.
25
Figure 2.14 General arrangement of compressed air supply.
Figure 2.15 HP-85B plot of a typical uncalibrated pipeline air pressure
transducer response.
26
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 General form of steady-state pneumatic conveying
characteristics for a given material and pipeline configuration.
Figure 3.2 Alternative form of pneumatic conveying characteristics.
Figure 3.3 The Rizk [7] two-phase flow diagram for pneumatic conveying
in horizontal pipes.
Figure 3.4 Pneumatic conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for
Test Rig A1 (L = 25 m & D = 52 m m ) , displaying lines of
constant Apj.
29
29
30
31
VIII
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.8
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.10
Figure 3.11
Figure 3.12
Figure 3.13
Figure 3.14
Figure 3.15
Figure 3.16
Figure 3.17
Figure 3.18
Figure 3.19
Figure 3.20
Figure 3.21
Pneumatic conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for

constant m s .
Test Rig A1 (L = 25 m & D = 52 m m ) displaying lines of
constant, steady-state m s (Apj ordinate).
constant, steady-state m s (Apt ordinate).
Schematic layout of the pneumatic conveying Test Rig B1
used during the fly ash test program.
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Eraring fly ash for L = 71
m & D = 52 m m (Test RigB1).
m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Tallawarra fly ash for L =
71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Munmorah fly ash for L =
71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Vales Point fly ash for L =
71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Gladstone fly ash for L =
71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Wallerawang fly ash for L
= 71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Liddell fly ash for L = 71
m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
Transient plots of major conveying parameters for Eraring fly
ash demonstrating Test 1 (Test Rig B1, Exp. No. 236).
Pipeline air pressure drop (Test Rig B1, Exp. No. 236).
m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1) demonstrating Tests 1, 2 and 3.
32
33
34
38
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
47
49
50
51
53
IX
Figure 3.22 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for Eraring fly
ash demonstrating blockage condition using Test 3 (Test Rig
B1, Exp. No. 232).
Figure 3.23 Pipeline conveying characteristics of P V C powder [21] for L =
71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
Figure 3.24 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for P V C
powder demonstrating plugging condition using Test 2 (Test
Rig B1, Exp. No. 387).
Figure 3.25 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for P V C
powder demonstrating plugging condition using Test 3 (Test
Rig B1, Exp. No. 414).
54
56
57
58
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 0.425 m3 Sturtevant blow tank and air supply arrangement. 62
Figure 4.2 Transient plots of major conveying parameters from Exp. Nos.
21, 23 and 35 for pulverised coal conveyed over 25 m (Test
RigA1).
63
Figure 4.3 Transient plots of major conveying parameters from Exp. Nos.
61 and 62 for pulverised coal conveyed over 25 m (Test Rig
A1).
65
Figure 4.4 Configuration of bottom-discharge blow tank demonstrating
incomplete discharge of material due to rat-holing.
67
Figure 4.5 Configuration of top-discharge blow tank demonstrating
incomplete discharge of material due bad channelling and ratholing.
68
Figure 4.6 Blow tank comparison using fly ash and Test Rig D 2 (L = 940
m & D = 60/69/81/105 m m ) .
70
Figure 4.7 Blow tank comparison using transient plots of major conveying
71
parameters for fly ash conveyed over 293 m (Test Rig D1).
Figure 4.8 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for S G A (Exp.
No. 1274, Test Rig F2).
74
Figure 4.9 Particle size distributions of S G A and U G A .
75
Figure 4.10 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for U G A (Exp.
No. 1356, Test Rig F2).
76
Figure 4.11 Transient plots of blow tank and pipeline air pressure for bone
79
char (Exp. Nos. 1227 & 1235, Test Rig F2).
x
Figure 4.12 Transient plots of blow tank and pipeline air pressure for bone
char (Exp. Nos. 1237 & 1245, Test Rig F2).
Figure 4.13 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for crushed
bath (Exp. No. 108-12, orifice-air only, Test Rig F3).
Figure 4.14 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for crushed
bath (Exp. No. 108-16, orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air,
Test Rig F3).
81
83
84
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Schematic layout of the fluidisation test facility. 92
Figure 5.2 Comparison of fluidisation curves for pulverised coal (Sample
1) and fly ash (Samples 2 to 8).
Figure 5.3 Fluidisation curves of P V C powder (Sample 9) and screened
coke (Sample 10).
Figure 5.4 Comparison of pipeline conveying characteristics for fly ash
(Samples 2 to 8, Test Rig B1).
Figure 5.5 The Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram.
Figure 5.6 The Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram showing the location of
Samples 1 to 11.
Figure 5.7 The Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 50 m m pipe diameter
system.
Figure 5.8 The Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 100 m m pipe diameter
system.
Figure 5.9 The modified Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 50 m m pipe
diameter system showing the classification of Samples 1 to 11
listed in Table 5.1.
Figure 5.10 Transient plots of major conveying parameters demonstrating
flow irregularities for Sample 6 (Exp. No. 662, Test Rig B1).
Figure 5.11 Pipeline conveying characteristics of screened coke [14,16,26]
for L = 25 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig A1).
93
94
96
97
99
101
101
103
104
106
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Pipeline conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for L|
= 162 m & Di = 0.060 m (Test Rig C1).
118
Figure 6.2 Pipeline conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for L|
= 1 6 2 m & D i =0.105 m (Test Rig C3).
118
xi
Figure 6.3
Scale-up conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for L2

= 162 m & D 2 = 0.105 m based Figure 6.1 and Equation (6.6).
Figure 6.4 Scale-up conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for L2
= 162 m & D 2 = 0.105 m based on Figure 6.1 and Equation
(6.28) with rj = 2.8.
Figure 6.5 Scale-up conveying characteristics of screened coke for L2 =
71 m & D 2 = 0.052 m (based on Figure 5.11 and Equations
(6.5) to (6.7)) with four experimental data points from Test Rig
A 2 (L-i = 71 m & Di = 0.052 m ) .
Figure 6.6 Pipeline conveying characteristics of P V C powder for Li = 162
m & Di = 0.105 m (Test Rig C3).
Figure 6.7 Scale-up conveying characteristics of P V C powder for L2 =
162 m & D2 = 0.105 m, based on Figure 3.23 and Equation
(6.29).
Figure 6.8 Scale-up conveying characteristics of P V C powder for L2 =
162 m & D2 = 0.105 m, based on Figure 3.23 and Equation
(6.30).
Figure 6.9 Variation of Apt according to Equation (6.37) with experimental
data points obtained from six different pipeline configurations.
Figure 6.10 Generalised pipeline conveying characteristics of fly
ash/cement mix based on Test Rig C1 results (L|' = 162 m &
D i = 0.060 m).
Figure 6.11 Generalised pipeline conveying characteristics of fly
ash/cement mix based on Test Rig C 3 results (L-|' = 162 m &
D i = 0.105 m).
119
120
121
122
123
124
127
131
131
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 The Enstad [62] element of a converging flow channel. 135
Figure 7.2 Example of blow tank model results (approximate analytical
solution).
Figure 7.3 Example of blow tank model results (numerical solution).
Figure 7.4 Full-bore plug transport system.
Figure 7.5 Variation of velocity ratio [59].
Figure 7.6 Variation of particle free settling velocity based on the Clift et
al. [41] drag correlations.
Figure 7.7 Correlation of pipe friction coefficient d u e to solids according
to Stegmaier [68].
140
143
145
147
148
153
xii
Figure 7.8
Figure 7.9
Figure 7.10
Figure 7.11
Figure 7.12
Figure 7.13
C o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n experimental data a n d the Stegmaier

[68] correlation.
Improved correlation of pipe friction coefficient d u e to solids.
E x a m p l e s of air pressure drop for the Dj = 0.060 m section of
pipe, showing the location of the three 1 m radius x 9 0
bends.
Relationship between Xs and Fr m showing actual values of
m*.
Relationship between Xs and X = Fr m p f m 0 2 showing
experimental values of m* and predicted curves, based on
Equation (7.48).
Relationship between Y and X, where Y = Xs (m*) 0 - 5 and X =
Frmpfm0-2.
Figure 7.14 Comparison between actual and predicted values of Xs, based
on Equation (7.48).
Figure 7.15 Pipeline conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for L =
947 m and D = .060/.069/.081/.105 m (Test Rig E1), showing
experimental data points and predicted curves, based on
Equation (7.48).
155
157
164
166
168
169
170
171
Appendix B
Figure B.1 The modified Dixon [39] slugging diagram for a 52 mm pipe
diameter system.
Figure B.2 T h e modified Dixon [39] slugging diagram for a 7 8 m m
diameter system.
Figure B.3 T h e modified Dixon [39] slugging diagram for a 1 0 2 m m
diameter system.
diameter system.
diameter system.
192
pipe
193
pipe
194
pipe
195
pipe
196
xiii
LIST O F T A B L E S
Chapter 2
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Page
Pipeline details for Test Rigs A1 & A2.
Pipeline details for Test Rig B1.
Pipeline details for Test Rigs C1, C2, C 3 & C4.
Pipeline details for Test Rigs D1 & D2.
Pipeline details for Test Rigs E1.
Pipeline details for Test Rigs F1.
Orifice plate details.
7
10
15
18
19
21
24
Chapter 3
Table 3.1 List of power station fly ash samples. 36
Table 3.2 Chronology of the fly ash test program.
Table 3.3
Summary of experiments and data points for Eraring fly ash.
Table 3.4 Steady-state operating conditions obtained from Exp. Nos.
236, 240 and 249.
39
52
52
Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Physical properties of test materials. 61
Table 4.2
Set-up conditions for the blow tank air injection experiments.
Table 4.3
Conveying parameters of fly ash for L = 293 m & D = 69 m m
(Test Rig D1).
Table 4.4 Cumulative % mass passing through sieve size (for orificeand ring-air).
Table 4.5
Cumulative % mass passing through sieve size (for orifice-,
ring- and supplementary-air).
Table 4.6
Summary of plug-phase conveying parameters for crushed
bath (Test Rig F3, L = 160 m & D = 105 m m ) .
64
69
78
80
82
Chapter 5
Table 5.1
List of samples and physical properties.
90
Chapter 6
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Physical properties of test materials.

Comparison of predicted and actual values of m s for mf > 0.3
kg s'1 (i.e. based on Figures 6.2 and 6.3).
Summary of screened coke results for Test Rig A 2 (Li = 71 m
& D 2 = 0.052 m).
Empirical expressions for Apt.
Long-distance pneumatic conveying pipeline (Test Rig D2).
Comparison of experimental and theoretical values of Apt for
the long-distance pneumatic conveying stepped diameter
pipeline (Test Rig D2).
117
119
121
128
129
129
Chapter 7
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Summary of results obtained from Steps 4, 5, 6 and 7.

S u m m a r y of products and experimental data for correlation
analyses.
Pipeline configuration for Test Rig E1.
Steady-state operating conditions for the 947 m Test Rig E1
pipeline.
Predicted values of pressure drop for the test rig pipeline,
based on Equation (7.48).
Comparison between experiment and predicted values of Apt.
Suggested pipeline configurations and predicted operating
conditions for pulverised brown coal conveyed at 241 rr1 over
L = 1800 m.
150
154
163
164
170
171
172
Appendix A
Table A.1
Table A.2
Table A.3
Table A.4
M a s s percentage frequency distribution for Tallawarra

pulverised coal (Sample 1), using the Coulter Counter.
Mass percentage frequency distribution for Tallawarra fly ash
(Sample 2), using the Coulter Counter.
Mass percentage frequency distribution for Eraring fly ash
Mass percentage frequency distribution for Munmorah fly ash,
187
187
187
188
XV
Table A.5
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Mass percentage frequency distribution for Vales Point fly ash

A.6 Mass percentage frequency distribution for Gladstone fly ash
A.7 Mass percentage frequency distribution for Wallerawang fly
ash (Sample 7), using the Coulter Counter.
A.8 Mass percentage frequency distribution for Liddell fly ash
A.9 Mass percentage frequency distribution for P V C powder
(Sample 9), using the sieve test.
A. 10 Mass percentage frequency distribution for screened coke
(Sample 10), using the sieve test.
A. 11 Mass percentage frequency distribution for coarse fly ash
(Sample 11), using the Malvern analyser.
188
188
189
189
189
1 go
190
Appendix C
Table C.1
Table C.2
Table C.3
Table C.4
Table C.5
Table C.6
Table C.7
Table C.8
Steady-state operating conditions of pulverised coal (Sample

1) for Test Rigs A1 (L = 25 m & D = .052 m ) and A3 (L = 96 m &
D = .052m).
198
Steady-state operating conditions of Tallawarra fly ash
198
(Sample 2) for Test Rig B1 (L = 71 m & D = .052 m).
Steady-state operating conditions of Eraring fly ash (Sample
3) for Test Rig B1 (L = 71 m & D = .052 m).
199
Steady-state operating conditions of Munmorah fly ash
199
Steady-state operating conditions of Vales Point fly ash
200
Steady-state operating conditions of Gladstone fly ash
(Sample 6) for Test Rigs B1 (L = 71 m & D = .052 m ) and C 3 (L
= 162 m & D = .105 m).
200
Steady-state operating conditions of Wallerawang fly ash
201
Steady-state operating conditions of Liddell fly ash (Sample 8)
for Test Rig B1 (L = 71 m & D = .052 m).
201
xvi
Table C.9
Steady-state operating conditions of fly ash/cement mix

(Sample 12) for Test Rigs C1 (L = 162 m & D = .060 m ) and C 3
(L = 162 m & D = .105 m).
Table C.10 Steady-state operating conditions of fly ash [59] (Sample 13)
for L = 1200 m & D = .200 m.
202
202
Appendix D
Table D.1
Table D.2
Table D.3
Table D.4
Solids friction factor calculations for pipe

0.105 m & ALi = 150.0 m).
0.081 m & A L 2 = 261.0 m).
0.069 m & AL3 = 390.0 m).
0.060 m & AL4 = 146.0 m).
section No. 1 (Di =

204
section No. 2 (D2 =
204
section No. 3 (D3 =
205
section No. 4 (D4 =
205
NOMENCLATURE
a
A
A1.A2.A3
As
b
c
Co
Cp
CV
c
d
50
dp
dp50
dpm
dpwm
dsv
dsvm
dv
dV50
dvm
dvwm
dpg/dL
D
Dj
DP
Do
DT
e
E
E
kEv
f
Fr
Exponent in permeability Equation (7.10)

Cross-sectional area of pipe, A = 0.25 TC D'2
Variables in velocity Equation (7.7)
Surface area of Enstad [62] element
Exponent in compressibility Equations (7.9) and (7.18)
Permeability coefficient of bulk solid, Equation (7.4)
Value of c when 01 = a-|0
Value of c when 01 = o i p
Volumetric concentration of solids, Equation (6.13)
Constant relating o 0 with dynamic head at outlet, Equation (7.13)
Drag coefficient, Equation (7.26)
Particle diameter
Median particle diameter
Arithmetic m e a n of adjacent sieve sizes
Value of dso based on a sieve size distribution
M e a n particle size from a standard sieve analysis, Equation (5.1)
Weighted m e a n diameter based on a sieve analysis, Equation (5.2)
Diameter of a sphere with the s a m e surface area to volume ratio as
the particle
Mean surface volume diameter, Equation (5.3)
Diameter of a sphere with the s a m e volume as the particle
Value of dso based on a volume diameter distribution
M e a n equivalent volume diameter, Equation (5.4)
Volume weighted m e a n diameter, Equation (5.5)
Pipeline air pressure gradient due to solids
Internal diameter of pipe
Value of D for pipe section No. i
Differential pressure
Outlet diameter of blow tank
Diameter of blow tank at transition
Exponent used in the equation X = F r m (pf m ) e , Section 7.4.3
Constant in Equation (7.39)
Variables used in the Ergun [64] Equation (7.17)
Exponent used in the equation Y = kg (m*)f, Section 7.4.3
Froude No., Equation (7.24)
xviii
Fr-i, Fr2
Frm
Frmin
Frs
g
Gi
hD
i
k
K
K1
L
L'
Lh
Lv
mt
rrifm
ms
ms'
mso
m*
Mbt
Ms
n
Nb
NB
p
Pbt
Pbt.i
PA1
PAi.i
PC4
Value of Fr at upstream and downstream end of test or pipe section

M e a n value of Fr based on Equation (7.38)
Minimum reliable value of Fr
Particle Froude No., Equation (7.25)
Acceleration due to gravity, g 9.81 m s _1
Constant used in Equations (7.11) and (7.12) and to define A 2
Height of bed of material in a fluidisation test chamber
Numbering system used to designate different sections of pipe or
different ranges of particle size
Ratio of vertical to horizontal pipeline air pressure gradient,
Equation (6.33)
Constant in Equation (7.45), K-| = 10 - <
Total effective [9] length of pipeline
Value of L modified to allow for bends
Value of L for all horizontal pipe sections
Value of L for all vertical pipe sections
Air m a s s flow rate
M a x i m u m value of mf
Solids m a s s flow rate
Value of m s modified to allow for bends
Value of m s at outlet of blow tank
Material to m a s s flow rate ratio, m * = m s m f 1
M a s s of solids loaded into blow tank
M a s s of conveyed solids
M a x i m u m number of different sections of pipe in a stepped-diameter
pipeline
N u m b e r of bends
Nominal bore of pipe
G a u g e air pressure inside blow tank
Blow tank top-air pressure gauge
Initial value of pbt
Blow tank top-air pressure gauge (transducer location A 1 , Figure
3.8)
Initial value of P A I
Pipeline air pressure gauge (transducer location C 4 , Test Rig D 1 ,
78.3 m from blow tank outlet)
xix
PG1
Pipeline air pressure gauge (transducer location G 1 , Test Rig B1,

15.7 m from blow tank outlet, Figure 3.8)
PG2
Pipeline air pressure gauge (transducer location G 2 , Test Rig B1,
= 17.8 m from blow tank outlet, Figure 3.8)
Po
Value of p at blow tank outlet
PT
Value of p at blow tank transition
P
Absolute air pressure inside blow tank, P = p + P a t m
Patm
Atmospheric air pressure, P a tm 1010 hPa or 101 kPa abs
Pfi
Initial (or upstream) absolute air pressure of a pipeline section
Pf2
Final (or downstream) absolute air pressure of a pipeline section
Pfm
M e a n absolute air pressure of test or pipe section
Qf
Volumetric flow rate of air
r
Radial distance from vertex of flow channel
r0
Value of r to blow tank outlet
rr
Value of r to blow tank transition
r'
Radius of Enstad [62] element, Figure 7.1
R
G a s constant for air, R = 287.1 N m kg-1 K*1
Res
Particle Reynolds No. defined by Equation (7.27)
t
Cycle time
tc
Conveying cycle time
T
Absolute air temperature
"h, T2, T3, T 4 Variables used to define A-(, A 2 and A 3
u
Interstitial air velocity inside blow tank
vs
Solids velocity
vso
Value of v s at blow tank outlet
vsj
Value of v s at blow tank transition
vTO
Vf
Vfi, Vf2
Vf m
VfS
Vf S 0
Vf.min
Vp
Terminal velocity or free settling velocity of particle

Superficial air velocity
Value of Vf at upstream and downstream end of test or pipe section
M e a n value of Vf based on pf m , V f m = 4 mf (% ptm D 2 )" 1
Value of Vf that almost produces saltation of a material under load
conditions
Value of Vf that almost produces saltation of a single particle
Minimum superficial conveying air velocity (at minimum or reliable
transport limit)
Velocity of a full-bore plug, Figure 7.4
XX
Wi
x
X
Xi
y
Y
Yi, Y Y 1
Z-|
a
p
y
8
e
H
0
X\
Xf
Xu
Xs
Xs\
Lif
Pb
Pbc
Pbi
pb 0
Pt
pf.atm
pf.max
pfm
ps
p*
a
o0
Variable used to define A-j

Abscissa variable used in correlation analysis, X = F r m (pf m ) e
Variable used in Enstad [62] theory and to define Ai, A 2 and A3
Exponent in Equation (6.9)
Ordinate variable used in correlation analysis, Y = Xs (m*)f
Variables used in Enstad [62] theory and to define A 3 and G1
Variable used to define A 2 and A 3
Half angle of converging flow channel
Angle between major principal stress and normal to hopper wall for
flow conditions
Material coefficient, Equation (7.21)
Effective angle of internal friction of a bulk solid
Power index for air density ratio in Equation (6.20)
Power index for pipeline length ratio in Equation (6.20)
Power index for pipe diameter ratio in Equations (6.20) and (6.28)
Exponent in Equation (6.31)
Overall friction factor for test section No. i, X\ = Xi\ + m* Xs\
Air-only friction factor
Value of Xf for test section No. i
Pipe friction coefficient due to solids
Value of ^s for test section No. i
Absolute or dynamic air viscosity
Variable defined by Equation (7.23)
Bulk density of bulk solid
Value of pb w h e n 01 = a i c
Loose-poured bulk density of bulk solid
Value of pb w h e n 01 = 010
Air density
Value of pf at atmospheric conditions
Value of pf at m a x i m u m operating pressure
M e a n value of air density based on Equation (7.37)
Solids density
Density ratio defined by Equation (7.22)
M e a n consolidation stress
Value of o at blow tank outlet
XXI
a-|
o-jc
010
aip
oj
x,v
<j>
X , co
\|r
r
Ad P i
Ad V j
AL
ALj
AM
AMj
Ap
Api
Apb
Apbt
Apt
Aps
Ap s *
ApF
Ap t
Apu
Apj
Major consolidation stress

Reference value of 01 to define pb, Equation (7.9)
Value of 01 at blow tank outlet
Reference value of G-\ to define c, Equation (7.10)
Value of o at blow tank transition
Exponents in Equation (7.39)
Kinematic angle of friction between a bulk solid and a hopper wall
Exponents in Equation (7.45)
Particle sphericity, Equation (5.6)
Porosity or voidage of a bulk solid, r = 1 - (pb ps"1)
Size range No. i for sieve size distribution
Size range No. i for volume diameter distribution
Length of test section
Value of A L for test section No. i
M a s s percent of material contained in a given size range
Value of A M for size range No. i
Air pressure drop for test section of length A L
Value of A p for Dj and ALj (i.e. test section No. i)
Air pressure drop across bed of material in a fluidisation chamber
Air pressure drop across material in a blow tank
Air-only pipeline pressure drop
Pipeline air pressure drop due to solids
Value of A p s modified according to Equation (6.34)
Air pressure drop across receiving hopper filter
Total pipeline air pressure drop, Apt = Apt + A p s
Value of Apt for Dj and ALj (i.e. for pipe section No. i)
Total system pressure loss (including feeder)
Subscripts
1 Experimental
2
f
h
i
s
v
data pertaining to a test rig

Scale-up data pertaining to an actual or proposed system
Fluid or air
Horizontal
Pipe or test section number
Solids or particles
Vertical
CHAPTER 1
2
1. INTRODUCTION
The pneumatic transportation of bulk solids is continuing to gain popularity for a
wide range of applications, especially as more efficient hardware and techniques
are introduced onto the market (e.g. long-distance [1] and low-velocity [2]
conveying). Subsequently, there has been a substantial increase in the number of
commercial systems available to industry. The main features that m a k e this method
of transport attractive to the designer of materials handling plants are listed below.
The relative ease of routing the conveying pipeline (e.g. verticals, bends,
inclines) adds flexibility to the design or upgrading of a plant.
The physical size of a pneumatic conveying pipeline is small compared to
an equivalent conveyor-belt/bucket-elevator system (especially for the
dense-phase m o d e of transport which requires usually relatively small
sizes of pipe).
Atmospheric contamination is avoided due to the completely enclosed
nature of the transport system (e.g. dusty, hygroscopic and even toxic
products are able to be conveyed safely and hygienically).
New technology allows friable products to be transported at low-velocity
and with either extremely low or undetectable levels of product
degradation or d a m a g e [3]. A s a consequence, air consumption and
hence running costs are reduced significantly. Also, erosion of the system
(e.g. bends, conveying pipeline) is minimised.
The use of a pipeline can offer increased security as opposed to an openbelt conveyor system (e.g. for diamond recovery plants).
With improved hardware (e.g. blow tanks) and techniques (e.g. solids
metering [1], air injection [4], stepped-diameter pipelines [5,6]), several
materials such as pulverised coal, cement and fly ash are able to be
transported efficiently at large conveying rates (e.g. 100 to 200 t Ir1)
and/or over long distances (e.g. 1 to 3 km).
Unfortunately, the technology available to assess for a given application the rela
merits of the competing systems is lacking sadly, particularly w h e n dense-phase [7]
or long-distance conveying is considered. Although Flain [4] and more recently
Klintworth and Marcus [2] have provided a general overview of several of the more
c o m m o n types of commercial system and also have indicated their fields of
application, the potential user of such equipment usually is faced still with the
difficult problem of selecting the most appropriate configuration (i.e. in terms of cost
and, more importantly, operational efficiency and reliability). Furthermore, w h e n
attempting to design or optimise a pneumatic conveying system, the following
additional difficulties need to be overcome.
3
(a) Establishing a standardised-test procedure to determine sufficient
information on the material (e.g. from a test rig) and also deciding on
what data are relevant for a particular requirement (e.g. plant
specification). Also, it is necessary to present this information in an
efficient and workable form.
(b) Scaling-up the test rig data to the full-scale system.
(c) Determining minimum transport behaviour to optimise the operating
conditions (e.g. for the dilute- [7] or dense-phase m o d e of conveying).
(d) Choosing between dilute-, dense-, pulse-phase [8] or low-velocity
conveying as the most suitable method of transport for a given material
and specification. Also, the most efficient feeder (e.g. blow tank, rotary
valve, screw feeder) and method of air injection [4] need to be selected in
terms of reliability, running costs, product conditioning requirements and
maintaining a constant and reliable feed rate of product into the pipeline.
(e) Determining an optimal size of pipe for a proposed pipeline route (over
short and long distances) and also predicting operating conditions (e.g.
pressure drop for a given air flow and product conveying rate). Also, a
stepped-diameter pipeline [5] m a y need to be considered for longdistance conveying applications.
(f) Predicting operating conditions for existing or working installations (e.g.
for the requirements of troubleshooting or uprating system capacity).
(g) Establishing the feasibility of transporting a certain material in the densephase m o d e or over long distances (e.g. up to 3 km).
(h) Minimising hardware problems and improving the reliability of system
instrumentation and control (e.g. level indicators, discharge and vent
valves, bend/pipe erosion).
The main aim of this thesis is to provide industry with some of the technology that
needed in relation to Items (a) to (g) above. Particular research objectives include
determining and presenting pneumatic conveying characteristics for
the purposes of system comparison, optimisation of operating
conditions and general design,
investigating the effect of blow tank configuration and method of air
injection on pneumatic conveying performance,
assessing the influence of material properties on conveying
characteristics and minimum transport behaviour,
evaluating existing and developing improved techniques to scaleup test rig data to a full scale installation,
improving/developing mathematical models and computer software
to predict system design parameters (viz. for the blow tank and
pipeline) and verifying these predictions by experiment.
This thesis investigates m a n y aspects of pneumatic conveying and does result in

significant improvements to the procedures for designing and/or selecting
pneumatic transport systems. Note that due to the wide ranging nature of this thesis,
the literature appropriate to each chapter is reviewed in the relevant section(s) of
work.
A total of fourteen different test rigs comprising six configurations of blow ta
employed throughout the test work program and are described in the following
sections (i.e. Chapter 2). Note that the majority of the experimental work and
investigations undertaken in this thesis were limited mainly to
bottom-discharge blow tank feeders, which were available in the
Bulk Solids Handling Laboratory at The University of Wollongong,
fine powders (e.g. pulverised coal, fly ash, fly ash/cement mix, PVC
powder) and s o m e coarser products (e.g. crushed bath, bone char,
screened coke).
Chapter 3 is concerned with the development of a technique to represent test rig
data efficiently for the purpose of general design. Referred to as pipeline conveying
characteristics, this representation of data includes the dilute- and dense-phase
regimes, minimum transport boundaries and the air-only component of pressure
drop.
Investigations into the effect of blow tank air injection on the performance of
pneumatic conveying systems are considered in Chapter 4. This is followed by an
evaluation of powder classification techniques in Chapter 5 to determine for a given
material the suitability of dense-phase transportation (i.e. based on bench-type
experiments).
Chapter 6 is concerned with the scale-up of test rig data and the development of
improved technique based on experimental data. The generalisation of pipeline
conveying characteristics also is included as an alternative method.
The problem of estimating blow tank discharge characteristics and pipeline
operating conditions is considered in Chapter 7. Also, the development of a new
technique (based on correlation analysis) to predict total pipeline air pressure drop
(for single- or stepped-diameter pipelines, as well as short- or long-distance
conveying) is included.
Finally, concluding remarks and suggestions for further work based on the
investigations and results presented in this thesis are contained in Chapter 8.
CHAPTER 2
6
2.
PNEUMATIC CONVEYING TEST RIGS
A total of ten test rigs incorporating six different configurations of blow tank
method of air injection were used to obtain all the data necessary for the various
aspects of this thesis project. The test rigs were developed at different stages over a
period of approximately six years. A general description of the overall test facility
and five case studies to emphasise the need for large-scale product testing prior to
design, have been presented recently by Wypych and Arnold [10]. T h e main
purpose of this section is to provide a description of each test rig configuration and,
where necessary, a brief explanation, as appropriate, of s o m e of the more important
features, modifications and/or improvements. Note that a system of letters and
numbers is employed to label each test rig configuration. A letter is used to refer to
a particular blow tank feeding system (including its method of air injection) and
numbers are used to designate different pipeline layouts fed by the s a m e blow tank.
For example, Test Rigs A1 and A 2 refer to different conveying pipelines (viz. L = 25
and 96 m , respectively) fed by the s a m e blow tank.
2.1 Test Rig A
In 1980, the Electricity Commission of N.S.W. provided funds to the University o
Wollongong for the purchase of a Sturtevant Pulse-Phase Powder Conveyor. This
original test rig w a s installed as part of an undergraduate thesis project during 1980
and consisted of the following major components.
Material
Inlet
Vent
Filter
Top Air
Fluidising
Ring Air
Original
Discharge
Valve
Figure 2.1
Configuration of the original 0.425 m 3 blow

tank (Test Rig A).
7
A 0.425 m 3 capacity blow tank with a m a x i m u m safe working pressure
(S.W.P.) of 350 kPag (see Figure 2.1) and fitted with a 50 m m N.B.
discharge valve (viz. a stainless steel ball valve).
A n electro-pneumatic control cabinet housing all the necessary control
equipment for conveyor operation (e.g. pressure regulators).
A 0.5 m 3 receiving hopper supported by tension load cells to monitor the
delivered mass of solids.
A D C E Model U M A 70V venting dust control unit mounted on top of the
0.5 m 3 receiving hopper and fitted with polypropylene filter bags.
Four horizontal loops of mild steel pipeline with change-over sections to
provide effective [9] conveying distances of 25, 48, 71 or 96 m. A general
arrangement of the original test rig and the 25 m pipe loop is presented
in Figure 2.2. Only three different configurations of pipeline were used in
this thesis project and are summarised in Table 2.1.
D (m) L v ( m )
Test Rig
L (m)
A1
25
.052
A2
71
A3
96
Lh (m)
No. & Type of Bends
3.6
21.4
5 x 1 m radius 90 bends
.052
3.6
67.4
.052
3.6
92.4
Table 2.1 Pipeline details for Test Rigs A1 & A2.

2.2 Test Rig B
Operating principles of the original Sturtevant blow tank (i.e. as shown in Figu
2.1) were based on the pulse-phase concept [8] and were found to have
considerable limitations. Several modifications to the blow tank and its operating
sequence were necessary to allow sufficient versatility for testing purposes (e.g.
extending the range of air flow) and to fulfil the requirements of the thesis project in
general (e.g. investigating different methods of air injection, determining pipeline
conveying characteristics of various products). The following list summarises the
major modifications and improvements that were carried out to Test Rig A.
The vent filter, which is shown in Figure 2.1 and is used to remove the
displaced air during the filling cycle of the blow tank, w a s found to be
ineffective for fine powders such as pulverised coal and w a s replaced by
a 2 5 m m N.B. ball valve and pipe connected directly to the 0.5 m 3
receiving hopper.
T h e blow tank outlet w a s modified to provide additional air for
transportation (viz. conveying-air). Also, the existing discharge valve,
which proved unsuitable for fly ash (e.g. the stainless steel ball valve
seized frequently), w a s replaced by a Figure 990 Keystone butterfly valve
and positioner. Note that this valve w a s bolted directly to the outlet flange
of the blow tank. Refer to Figure 2.3 for the final configuration of the
0.425 m 3 blow tank.
25m of 52mm I.D.

Mild Steel Pipeline
Ring
Air
\
Original
DischargeValve
Knife
Air
Figure 2.2 General arrangement of the original

pneumatic conveying Test Rig A.
Material
Inlet
Vent Air
Top Air
Fluidising
Ring Air
Discharge
Valve
Conveying Air
Figure 2.3 Configuration of the final 0.425 m 3

blow tank (Test Rig B).
10
Shear-beam-type load cells were installed on the blow tank to monitor
the supplied mass of solids.
A n accurate weighing-scale system w a s introduced to calibrate the load
cells mounted on both the receiving hopper and blow tank.
Three orifice plate assemblies with D and D/2 pressure tappings and
designed according to B.S. 1042: Part 1:1964 were installed to measure
the amount of air being used in various sections of the test rig (viz.
conveying-air, blow tank top- and ring-air).
Numerous pressure tappings were installed along the pipeline, so that air
pressure gradients could be recorded. Refer to Figure 2.4 for an
exploded view of a typical pressure tapping location.
A n efficient pipeline unblocking technique (using an in-line backpressure valve) w a s installed at the end of the pipeline to minimise the
amount of stoppage time due to blockages. This valve w a s used also to
pressurise the pipeline and blow tank, so that all pressure transducers
could be calibrated accurately at selected pressures.
The two 1 m radius 90 bends, which were connected to the vertical pipe
in Test Rig A, were replaced by two 90 blinded-tee bends (see Figure
2.5) and connecting spool pieces. This w a s carried out for the main
purpose of increasing the actual length of vertical pipe to provide more
accurate measurements of the vertical pipeline air pressure gradient.
Note that despite these modifications, the effective conveying distances
of Test Rig A essentially remained unchanged. Figure 2.6 presents a
general arrangement of Test Rig B showing the four horizontal pipe
loops, which provided a total effective conveying distance of 96 m. Table
2.2 provides details on the 71 m pipeline, which w a s the only
configuration
used inDthis
project.
(m)thesis
L(m)
No. & Type of Bends
Test Rig
L v (m)
Lh (m)
B1
71
.052
Table 2.2
3.6
67.4
and
2 x 90 blinded-tee bends
Pipeline details for Test Rig B1.
The air knife (see Figure 2.1) w a s removed from the pipeline (mainly due
to its ineffectiveness on materials such as pulverised coal, see Section
4.1).
All other components used on Test Rig A (e.g. the control cabinet,
receiving hopper and venting dust control unit) essentially remained
unchanged for Test Rig B. However, during the test program on fly ash,
which is discussed later in Section 3.3, the polypropylene filter bags of
the dust control unit were replaced with epitropic Goretex bags (due to
an excessive build up of material, see Section 3.3.3).
11
j^L
Pressure
Transducer"
Quick-Connect
Coupling
1/4" BSPT
Thread
Retaining
Screw
Porex
Disc
TM
O-Ring
1/4" BSP
Socket
52mm I.D.
Pipeline
Figure 2.4 Exploded view of a typical pipeline

air pressure tapping location.
12
"TT
50mm N.B.
Table E Flanges
L.
///////
/
/
/
-.
/
/
/
/
77-7 A
Direction
of
Flow
/////////.
>; ;/;;//;///;;//;;//
r-ry
52mm I.D. Mild

Steel Pipeline ~
Figure 2.5 Full-sectional view of a 50 m m N.B. 90 blinded-tee bend.
13
CQ
g>
DC
w
CD
h-
Wl
CT
CD
LT) CD
O
CD
ac
t
-D i
(0 i
O OJ
14
2.3 Test Rig C
In 1982, NEI John Thompson (Aust) formed a consortium with Kloeckner-Becorit
Industrietechnik-KBI G m b H and then negotiated with the University of Wollongong
to install a pneumatic conveying test rig in the Bulk Solids Handling Laboratory. A
blow tank fitted with a cone dosing valve, which is a solids metering device
designed primarily for long distance transportation, w a s imported from West
Germany and installed initially with 162 m of 65 m m N.B. Schedule 80 (i.e. 60 m m
I.D.) mild steel pipe. However, after preliminary test work, the length and size of the
pipeline w a s found to be inadequate (i.e. for the needs of Australian industry) and
additional pipework w a s installed. T h e following list summarises the major
components of the test rig, which was used in this thesis project.
A 0.9 m3 capacity blow tank with a maximum S.W.P. of 700 kPag and
fitted with a cone dosing valve and a 100 m m N.B. discharge Argus ball
valve (see Figure 2.7). Also, the blow tank is supported by shear-beamtype load cells. A pneumatic PI controller with an adjustable set point (i.e.
maximum operating pressure) is used to control the stroke and oscillation
frequency of the cone dosing valve. The measured air pressure signal is
taken upstream of the blow tank discharge valve. However, during the
major part of the test program for this thesis project, the cone dosing
valve w a s .not used and w a s either removed physically or raised in a
position not to interfere with the normal operation of the blow tank. Note,
the cone dosing valve was required only for recent investigations into the
long-distance pneumatic conveying of pulverised brown coal (refer to
Section 7.4.3).
Vent
' Line
Conveying
Air
Pipeline
Figure 2.7 Configuration of the original 0.9 m 3 blow tank (Test Rig C).
15
A 5 m 3 receiving silo supported by t w o load blocks to monitor the
delivered mass of solids. However, due to possible eccentric loading
effects, the conveying rate during an experiment is determined from the
response of the blow tank load cells.
A D C E Model D L M V8/7B reverse jet insertable vent filter mounted on top
of the 5 m 3 receiving silo and fitted with polypropylene filter bags.
An NEI John Thompson (Aust) standard mini-pot [3] to transfer conveyed
material to the blow tank (see Figure 2.8).
Horizontal loops of mild steel pipeline with change-over sections to
provide effective [9] conveying distances from 42 to 940 m. Figure 2.8
presents a general arrangement of Test Rig C and the 940 m pipeline
(containing 60, 69, 81 and 105 m m I.D. sections of pipe). However, only
four different pipeline configurations were used in this thesis project and
these are summarised in Table 2.3.
D (m) Lv(m) Lh (m)
Test Rig
L(m)
C1
162
.060
4.4
157.6
C2
59
.105
4.5
54.5
C3
162
.105
4.5
157.5
C4
553
.069
4.4
548.6
No. & Type of Bends
Table 2.3 Pipeline details for Test Rigs C1, C2, C 3 & C4.
2.4 Test Rig D
During investigations into long-distance pneumatic transportation on Test Rig
capacity of the 0.9 m 3 blow tank (i.e. refer to Figure 2.7) w a s found to be insufficient
for the establishment of steady-state flow conditions (i.e. during the conveying
cycle). T o overcome this deficiency and other problems (e.g. overpressurisation of
the 5 m 3 silo due to material build up on the polypropylene filter bags - similar to the
problem described in Section 2.2), the following improvements and modifications
were carried out to Test Rig C.
A second 0.9 m3 blow tank with a max. S.W.P. of 700 kPag was
manufactured by NEI John Thompson (Aust) and installed alongside the
original KBI G m b H blow tank (see Figure 2.9). D u e to occasional feeding
problems from the original blow tank (e.g. rat-holing which is discussed
later in Section 4.2), the n e w blow tank w a s fitted with a fluidising
discharge cone. Also, an improved cone dosing valve and actuator w a s
installed.
16
c
03
O
D) .
ir
i_ 9-
o co
Sg
CD V
2 a)
h a.
CO Q .
_ CD
2
2E
00 CD
N
0)
3
O
17
Material
Inlet
Material
Inlet
Aeration
Air
Fluidising
Discharge Cone
Conveying
Air
Figure 2.9 Configuration of the original tandem 0.9 m 3 blow tank

feeding system (Test Rig D).
The 0.7 m long polypropylene bags of the D L M V8/7B insertable vent
filter were replaced by 1.5 m long epitropic Goretex bags. This
effectively converted the filter unit to a Model D L M V8/15B.
Apart from the above-mentioned modifications to the filter, the rest of t

5 m 3 silo, as described previously for Test Rig C, remained unchanged.
The pipeline installations for Test Rig C were not modified. Throughout
the thesis project, only two pipeline configurations were fed by the blow
tank system shown in Figure 2.9, and these are summarised in Table 2.4.
Note that Test Rig D 2 employs a stepped-diameter pipeline, which is
used primarily to minimise pressure drop and conveying velocity (i.e.
mainly for long-distance pneumatic conveying applications [4,5]).
18
Test Rig
L(m)
D (m)
L v (m)
Lh (m)
No. & Type of Bends
D1
293
.069
4.4
288.6
4.5
146.0
390.0
261.0
138.5
D2
940
146
390
261
143
.060
.069
.081
.105
3x1m
13 x 1 m
8x1m
5x1m
radius 90
radius 90
radius 90
radius 90
bends
bends
bends
bends
Table 2.4 Pipeline details for Test Rigs D1 & D2.

2.5 Test Rig E
After carrying out several experiments on Test Rig D and also analysing the
transient plots of major conveying parameters, the following disadvantages were
realised.
(a) The method of air injection used on Blow Tank No. 1 (see Figure 2.9) was
inferior to the one used on Blow Tank No. 2 (e.g. refer to Section 4.2 for
s o m e typical results on fly ash). This prevented proper tandem operation
of the blow tanks (i.e. discharging one blow tank after another and
achieving the s a m e steady-state flow conditions).
(b) Despite the problems referred to in (a), the duration of discharge of the
two 0.9 m 3 blow tanks, during the high-pressure (i.e. large conveying
rate) experiments, w a s insufficient to maintain steady-state operating
conditions.
(c) The mini-pot [3] filling system for the blow tanks was slow and tedious
and allowed only a limited number of experiments to be carried out
during one day of testing.
As a result of these deficiencies, the following modifications and improvement

were carried out to Test Rig D.
Blow Tank No. 1 was replaced with one of similar design to Blow Tank
No. 2 (Le. see Figure 2.10).
A 3 m3 receiving silo was designed, manufactured and installed on top of
the tandem blow tank system to provide gravity discharge and also
enable continuous transportation (viz. in conjunction with a Programable
Logic Controller, which w a s contained inside the original control panel of
Test Rig C). Refer to Figure 2.11 for a general arrangement of Test Rig E
and the pipe loops providing a total possible conveying distance of 947
m (see Table 2.5). Note that a D C E Model D L M V12/7B reverse jet
insertable vent filter (complete with epitropic Goretex filter bags, antistatic provisions, horizontal upstand, polypropylene explosion panels
and a pressure relief flap valve) w a s mounted on top of the receiving silo.
19
The pipeline configurations of Test Rig D were extended slightly to
connect the existing pipework to the new 3 m 3 silo. However, during this
thesis project, only one configuration of pipeline w a s used (i.e. refer to
Table 2.5).
Test Rig
E1
L(m)
146
390
261
150
947
D (m)
.060
.069
.081
.105
Lv (m)
L h (m)
7.0
146.0
390.0
261.0
143.0
No. & Type of Bends
3x1m
13 x 1 m
8x1m
5x1m
radius 90
radius 90
radius 90
radius 90
bends
bends
bends
bends
Table 2.5 Pipeline details for Test Rigs E1.
Material
Inlet
Vent
Conveying Air
Figure 2.10 Configuration of the final tandem 0.9 m 3 blow tank

feeding system (Test Rig E).
20
UJ
ir
co
CD
CD
0)
c
a
a.
CD
CD :=
co
CO
T3
CD
ed
OL
Q.
CO
CD
CD <CD
CD
T-
CM
CD
CD
o
c
D) CO
cii CD
>
m
>
5
> >
.
r
CD
r- CM
C)
Cfl
CO
> h
CD
^
CVJ
s_
*- 5
o O >
>- o o fi
< z z. 3
z z
-V O)
.* ^ -o
_r*:
c J2
<o- c rCO 10
c
H H CD H H J"
* J -> 5 5 1o o r
n o o
CO CO O m CD
to
> ,_ CM
< > >
m m O O Q
(Nl
1- H
t_
CO
<D
u.
CO
CO
21
2.6 Test Rig F
Some coarse materials such as crushed coal and petroleum coke can be conveyed
more efficiently in the plug-phase m o d e (i.e. where a limited amount of material,
usually in the form of a plug, is conveyed through the pipeline per cycle). Note this
method of transport is similar to the pulse-phase m o d e [8], except that instead of
conveying numerous plugs or slugs of material through the pipeline, only one plug
of material is transferred during each cycle. Also, note that a discharge valve is not
required usually for a plug-phase blow tank. NEI John Thompson (Aust), as a part of
their development program to design and market a plug-phase conveying system,
supplied to the University of Wollongong a 0.113 m 3 blow tank, which w a s
connected to the existing 105 m m I.D. pipeline of Test Rig C. Additional changeover sections were installed to provide intermediate conveying distances of 41, 58,
80 and 100 m. This test rig consisted of the following major components.
A 0.113 m3 capacity plug-phase blow tank with a maximum S.W.P. of 700
kPag (see Figure 2.12).
A 5 m3 receiving silo supported by two load blocks to monitor the
delivered m a s s of solids. However, due to possible eccentric loading
effects (see Section 2.3), the batch conveying rate during an experiment
is determined by dividing the actual m a s s of conveyed solids (removed
from the silo and weighed on a load platform) by the conveying time (i.e.
m s = M S V 1 ) - The overall conveying rate is determined by allowing for
transient effects such as blow tank fill time, tf, and total valve switching
time ,tv (i.e. overall m s = M s (tc + tf + tv)"1). Note that this 5 m 3 silo and its
vent filter are identical to those described for Test Rig D (i.e. in Section
2.4).
Of the five different possible configurations of pipeline, only three were
used for this thesis project. Table 2.6 provides a summary of the relevant
details. Also, refer to Figure 2.13 for a general arrangement of Test Rig F.
Test Rig
L(m)
D (m)
Lv (m)
Lh (m)
No. & Type of Bends
F1
41
.105
4.5
36.5
F2
58
.105
4.5
53.5
F3
161
.105
4.5
156.5
Table 2.6 Pipeline details for Test Rigs F1.
22
Material
Inlet
Orifice
Air
Figure 2.12 Configuration of the 0.113 m 3 plug-phase blow tank.
23
Figure 2.13 General arrangement of Test Rig F.
24
2.7 Air Supply and Flow Rate Measurement
Air at a maximum pressure head of 800 kPag is supplied from any combination
the three following rotary screw compressors.
Atlas Copco electric-powered Model GA-308, 3.1 m3 min-1 free air
delivery.
Ingersoll Rand diesel-powered Model P375-WP, 10.6 m3 min"1 free air
delivery.
Ingersoll Rand diesel-powered Model P850-WGM, 24.1 m3 min-1 free air
delivery.
The compressors are connected to an aftercooler, two refrigerated air dryers
two air receivers (1.75 and 6.0 m 3 capacity). Various filters and separators are
installed in series with these compressors to ensure a dry and oil-free air supply.
Figure 2.14 provides a general arrangement of the air supply system.
Depending on the test rig and desired rangeability of flow rate, one of the f
plates listed in Table 2.7 (with D and D/2 pressure tappings and designed
according to B.S. 1042 : Part 1 : 1964 ) is selected to monitor the conveying air
usage.
No.
Orifice
Dia. (mm)
Pipe
Dia. (mm)
1
2
4
5
6
14.73
9.98
20.65
33.08
44.55
26.64
25.30
78.10
78.10
78.10
Orifice Plate
+
++
Min. mf+
(kg s-1)
Max. m f + +
(kg s-1)
Test
.085
.037
.155
.410
.775
A&B
A&B
CtoF
CtoF
CtoF
.027
.012
.050
.130
.250
Based on a DP of = 381 m m H2O @ 600 kPag & 20 C.

Based an a DP of - 3810 m m H2O @ 600 kPag & 20 C.
Table 2.7
Orifice plate details.
Rig
-{04-
P850-WGM
24.1
m '/min
Ingersoll Rand Compressors
To Test Rig
Pressure
Regulator
Filters'
Aflercooler
4>-V-4>
o
Atlas Copco Compressor
D and 0/2 tapping*
t/iiiiMYSir>/i'/V.
Z%4m >?>>>>i//rrm
Dryer
OHfle. plol..
uzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziV. fr T7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZZ
HXr-B) <J>-
* ORIFICE PLATE DETAIL
Figure 2.14 General arrangement of compressed air supply.
26
2.8 Data Acquisition
During the early stages of this thesis project, priority was given to developing
necessary software to capture the voltages of up to 20 analogue channels using a
portable Hewlett-Packard 3054A Data Acquisition System. Major components of the
system included a HP-85B desk-top computer, a HP-3497A scanning control unit
and a transducer signal-conditioning unit.
Typical transducer channels, which were recorded with respect to cycle time,
included : blow tank top-air pressure; pipeline air pressure; upstream pipeline and
differential air pressures for the orifice plate assemblies; the mass of material
entering the receiving hopper and/or leaving the blow tank. After storing these
responses on either the HP-85B computer or a Tektronix 4923 digital tape recorder,
the data are then transferred to the University's Univac mainframe computer for
final processing and graphical output. On-site graphics also were developed on the
HP-85B computer, so that plots of raw data also could be achieved easily after the
completion of any experiment. A n example of a typical pipeline air pressure
response copied from the HP-85B C R T screen is presented in Figure 2.15.
Throughout the course of this project, the software of all major programs w a s
updated and improved continually as required. For example, memory capacity and
scanning speed were increased recently to accommodate a m a x i m u m number of
64 channels for the investigations into long-distance pneumatic conveying.
Plot
10
of C h.
14
>
\
c
o
Q.
VI
m
A
CD
<\J
Scan
Figure 2.15
Number
HP-85B plot of a typical uncalibrated pipeline air

pressure transducer response.
27
CHAPTER 3
28
3. PNEUMATIC CONVEYING
CHARACTERISTICS
If a pneumatic conveying system is to be designed or upgraded to ensure

satisfactory and efficient operation, it is suggested that as m u c h information as
possible be obtained on the bulk solid to be handled (e.g. physical properties,
conveying performance). Also, any possible operational problems should be
investigated (e.g. material cohesion causing incomplete discharge of a blow tank,
or unusual physical properties producing unforeseen blockage phenomena). It is
important for efficient and reliable design, that any conveying performance data be
summarised in a convenient and workable form. Several methods were
investigated and the technique [11] that w a s selected finally is shown in Figure 3.1,
which displays the variation of steady-state m s (the solids m a s s flow rate, kg s_1)
with respect to mt (the supplied air m a s s flow rate, kgs-1) and Apt (the total pipeline
air pressure drop, kPa). A n alternative form is presented in Figure 3.2, on which
straight lines of constant m a s s flow ratio (m* = m s m f 1 ) are superimposed easily.
Note that m * is adopted frequently by researchers to define the dense-phase m o d e
of transport and compare the efficiencies of commercial systems. However, there
are certain inadequacies with this form of definition and these are discussed further
in Section 3.2. These two methods of data presentation were selected for the
following reasons.
(a) The data represent steady-state operating conditions and are accurate
for the selected configuration of pipeline. Hence, they usually are referred
to as steady-state pipeline conveying characteristics of a given product.
This information also can be applied to other pipelines of similar
configuration and with different types of feeder (e.g. blow tanks, rotary
valves, screw feeders) as long as the feed rate is consistent and steadystate.
(b) The use of air velocity instead of mf to represent operating conditions can
be confusing and often leads to calculation error due to
the frequent lack of proper definition to distinguish
between pick-up, average and exit velocity, as well as
actual and superficial air velocity,
the functional dependency of air velocity on pressure and
hence, pipeline length.
(c) Under steady-state conditions, mt is constant at any point along the
pipeline (for both positive and negative pressure systems). Hence, the
superficial velocity Vf m a y be calculated easily using the continuity
equation Vf = mf (pf A)* 1 .
(d) the use of pressure gradient instead of actual pipeline air pressure drop
can be misleading and often tempts the user to apply the data to vastly
extrapolated lengths of pipeline. It is Important to be aware of the
particular pipeline configuration that actually w a s used to generate the
data.
^ > ^
APt
(kPa)
mf (kgs~:)
Figure 3.1 General form of steady-state pneumatic conveying

characteristics for a given material and pipeline configuration.
m<
(kgs-1)
mf (kgs -1 )
Figure 3.2
Alternative form of pneumatic conveying characteristics.
Logarithmic scales often are used on the abscissa and ordinate axes to
represent the variation in conveying rate. However, the generation or
utilisation of such graphs is far more tedious than the simpler linear scale
representations, as shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Also, note that the main
reason for selecting log scales is to linearise the m s curves with respect
to say velocity and pressure gradient, as shown in Figure 3.3.
Unfortunately, such simplifications do not always occur especially for
materials of wide particle size range and realistic pipelines containing
bends and vertical sections.
dense phase
dilute phase
pressurized flow vacuum and pressurized flow

steady stale
unsteady statel steady state
; plug-dune | layer-disperse
1
<
S
Vmin
lag (average air velocity)
State Diagram for Horizontal Conveying

Product
Styropor -3
Particle size
dp = 2,385mm
Density
pp =1050 kg/m3
Pipe diameter
d
=52,6mm
Pipe material
stainless steel
Average pipe watt roughness R
~ 6 r 10 \im
Figure 3.3 The Rizk [7] two-phase flow diagram for pneumatic
conveying in horizontal pipes.
31
3.1 Pulverised Coal
During the first two years of this thesis project, pulverised coal (obtained
Electricity Commission of N.S.W. from the Tallawarra Power Station) was used as
the test material. The first attempt to determine the pneumatic conveying
characteristics of this material resulted in a series of experiments being carried out
on the original test rig (i.e. Test Rig A1) with the following specification.
0.425 m3 blow tank with top-air only (refer to Figure 2.1).
25 m of 52 m m I.D. pipeline (refer to Figure 2.2).
Five 1 m radius, 90 bends.
270, 240, 200, 165 and 135 kPag initial blow tank air pressures.
From the conveying parameters recorded for each experiment, values of mf, ms an
A p j (total system pressure loss) were extracted at selected increments of the
conveying cycle and plotted on a graph similar to that shown in Figure 3.2 (except
for the use of A p j instead of Apt). Lines of constant A p j w e r e then drawn through
the data to provide a family of curves at intervals of 10 kPa, as shown in Figure 3.4.
With mf representing the abscissa axis and m s the ordinate axis, straight lines of
material to air m a s s flow rate ratio, m*, also were drawn on Figure 3.4. The
alternative method of presenting this information is shown in Figure 3.5 (adopting
the form given in Figure 3.1). These methods of data presentation are similar to
those presented by Mason etal. [11].
.004
.006
.008
.010
-1
m f (kgs )
.012
.014

Test Rig A1 (L = 25 m & D = 52 m m ) , displaying lines of constant Apj.
32
140
120
100
Ap T
(kPa)
80
60
.004
.006
.008
.010
.012
.014
mf (kgs-1)
Test Rig A1 (L = 25 m & D = 52 m m ) , displaying lines of constant m s .
It must be emphasised that such information is relevant only to the
conveyed material (viz. pulverised coal),
blow tank (Sturtevant, 0.425 m 3 capacity),
pipeline/bend configuration (L = 25 m, D = 52 m m , five 1 m radius 90
bends),
method of air injection (viz. top-air)
that were used for this particular set of experiments. However, if one of the
conditions were to be varied with respect to the other three, then the technique
would provide a very useful design tool. For example, the relative conveyability of
different materials, the effects of pipeline length on conveying performance and a
comparison of the various conveying modes m a y be summarised and evaluated
easily on such plots.
Note that the above values of mf, ms and Apr were extracted at certain increm
of the conveying cycle and, hence, actually represented instantaneous values.
Furthermore, note that
A p j = Apbt + Apt + ApF
where
and
(3.1)
Apj is the total system pressure loss (kPa),

Apbt is the pressure drop across the blow tank (kPa),
Apt is the total pipeline air pressure drop (kPa),
ApF is the pressure drop across the receiving hopper filter unit (kPa).
33
Assuming that A p F - 0 and noting that the final pressure of the system essentially is
atmospheric, the value of A p T w a s taken to be numerically equal to the air pressure
on top of the material in the blow tank. That is,
APT = (Pbt + Patm) - Patm = Pbt (3.2)
where pbt is the blow tank top-air pressure (usually transducer location A1),
Patm is atmospheric pressure (usually = 101000 P a abs).
During later work on fly ash (and especially in relation to the development of t
standardised-test procedure, described in Section 3.4), it w a s decided to consider
only steady-state conveying parameters and plot Apt instead of Ap T . The reasons
were : s o m e doubt existed over the accuracy of the instantaneous curves drawn in
Figures 3.4 and 3.5 (due to the pipeline creating a time-delay in the system); a
graph displaying lines of constant Ap t would be more applicable to other pipelines
(of similar configuration) fed by different types of feeder (e.g. rotary valve) and blow
tank configuration (e.g. top-discharge). T o explore these matters further, steadystate values of mt, m s , Ap t and A p j were obtained from the original conveying
parameter plots and the resulting family of m s curves were plotted, as shown in
Figures 3.6 and 3.7 (the former representing A p j and the latter Apt).
After comparing the trends displayed in Figures 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7, it can be seen
although s o m e similarities do exist, the m s contour lines displayed in Figures 3.6
and 3.7 are significantly flatter. W h e n these discrepancies were realised during the
latter stages of the thesis (viz. during the fly ash test program), it w a s intended to
apply the standardised-test procedure (described in Section 3.4) to the s a m e
pulverised coal sample (i.e. to determine more accurate conveying characteristics).
140
120
(kPa)
100
80
60
.004
.006
.008
.010
.012
.014
mf (kgs-1)
Figure 3.6 Pneumatic conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for Test Rig A
(L = 25 m & D = 52 mm) displaying lines of constant, steady-state ms (Apj ordina
140
120
100
80
Ap t
(kPa)
60
.004
.006
.008
.010
.012
.014
-1
mf (kgs )
Figure 3.7 Pneumatic conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for Test Rig A1
(L = 25 m & D = 52 m m ) , displaying lines of constant, steady-state m s (Apt ordinate).
Unfortunately, due to the following reasons, this work w a s not able to be completed
during the normal course of this project.
The original four 200 litre drum samples were no longer available.
T h e d e m a n d s of the fly ash test program (including powder
characterisation, long-distance conveying) reduced the emphasis on the
investigations involving pulverised coal.
During the initial experiments on fly ash, significant sparking w a s
observed along a perspex sight tube installed at the end of the pipeline
(i.e. on the original Test Rig A1). This w a s considered as a possible
problem for pulverised coal, and the acquisition and testing of further
material had to be postponed.
In fact, the latter prompted further investigations into possible sources of igni
in all test rigs) and methods of explosion prevention and relief. The most applicable
w a s found to be sparking caused by electrostatic charging of the conveying
pipeline (due to inadequate earthing) and the filter bag surfaces (i.e. inside the
venting dust control unit). Earthing of the perspex surface w a s attempted, but the
tube w a s replaced eventually by a section of mild steel pipe to provide improved
earthing of the pipeline and hence, eliminate any possibility of sparking.
Electrostatic charging of the filter bag surfaces w a s still considered to be a problem
and an extensive investigation resulted in the request to purchase (via University
funds) a reverse-jet air filter comprising
epitropic Goretex filter bags earthed to the filter housing,
a horizontal upstand fitted with an explosion relief panel,
an exhaust fan to provide additional vacuum in the receiving hopper and
the filter housing, and
35
a discharge duct to provide venting of any explosion directly to
atmosphere.
The funding for this equipment was forthcoming and a DCE Model DLM V7/7F1 was
purchased in April, 1985. The installation w a s postponed until July/August, 1985
due to the priority of completing the fly ash testing program. Note that the
polypropylene filter bags which were used in the original D C E Model U M A 70V
venting dust control unit were replaced with Goretex bags in August, 1984 to
eliminate the dust emission problems that were being experienced with Vales Point
fly ash. This aspect is discussed further in Section 3.3.3.
Although accurate conveying characteristics were not able to be determined for
pulverised coal, the results that were obtained from the initial test work still were
considered sufficient for the other requirements of this thesis (viz. blow tank air
injection, powder characterisation and mathematical model verification). O n e other
important aspect which stemmed from this initial work on pulverised coal w a s the
need to clarify the definition for dense-phase.
3.2 Definition of Dense-Phase
Several researchers have adopted material to air mass flow rate ratio (viz. m*)
the basis of definition for dense-phase. For example, Mason et al. [12] have
suggested that dense-phase conveyors operate normally with m * > 40; Duckworth
[13] has indicated that for dense-phase suspensions, m * typically is greater than
100. However, as reported by Wypych and Arnold [14], this form of definition seems
to be inadequate. The main reasons are
m* is dependent on pipeline length for a given condition of flow, as
indicated by the scale-up criteria used by Mills et al. [15], and
a material m a y display dense-phase pneumatic conveying characteristics
at relatively low values of mass flow ratio (or dilute-phase performance at
relatively high values of m*).
Such aspects particularly are important if long-distance transport is consider
a theoretical prediction of pressure drop is required. S o m e researchers, for
example, have compared discrete experimental pressure drop data with dilutephase mathematical model predictions without verifying whether dilute- or densephase conditions actually are prevalent.
It would be more convenient to use a definition based on actual flow character
and it is suggested that dense-phase should refer generally to the condition of nonsuspension flow, whether it occurs in the form of unstable dunes [16], discrete fullbore plugs [17], sliding beds [18] or as an extruded condition [19]. Saltation is
defined therefore, as the transition from dilute- to dense-phase (or suspension to
non-suspension) pneumatic transport in horizontal pipes. Rizk [7] has provided a
similar form of definition by using a phase diagram for horizontal pneumatic
conveying. This diagram, which is similar to the Zenz [20] two-phase flow diagram,
w a s presented earlier in Figure 3.3. Note the similarity with the pneumatic
conveying characteristics given in Figure 3.1. A comparison between Figure 3.3
and Figure 3.7, indicate that the pulverised coal w a s transported in the densephase m o d e (i.e. for the range of mf values considered). Furthermore, this is
supported by the relatively large values of m*. which were obtained from these
experiments (e.g. 260< m * < 420).
36
3.3 Fly A s h
3.3.1 Introduction
During the first two years of this project, considerable interest was expressed
industry to extend the research work to investigate the pneumatic conveying of
power station fly ash. Preliminary investigations on Vales Point fly ash in 1982,
demonstrated that the handling problems significantly were greater than those
associated with pulverised coal and emphasised the importance of continuing work
in this area. Therefore, fly ash was included in the scope of work of this thesis and
resulted in priorities being placed on comparing the conveyability of fly ash samples
collected from six power stations (viz. Tallawarra, Eraring, Munmorah, Vales Point,
Wallerawang and Liddell. Details of each sample and the type of boiler used are
provided in Table 3.1.
P o w e r Station
Fly A s h Sample
Unit
No.
Unit Load
Op./Max. (MW)
T y p e of
Boller+
Method of Dust
Collection (Location)
Tallawarra
90/100
Eraring
400/660
Munmorah
2&3
Vales Point
190/350 (U2)
290/350 (U3)
630/660
Wallerawang
460/500
Liddell
390/500
Fabric Filter
(Pozzolanic Tank)
Fabric Filter
(Cell 23)
Electrostatic Precipitator
(Zone 2)
(Zone 3)
(Zone 3)
(Zone 2)
+ Type of Boiler: A
C
Tangentially-fired
conventional type
Tangentially-fired
down-flow type
B
D
Opposed-wall-fired
conventional type
Tangentially-fired
tower type
Table 3.1 List of power station fly ash samples

Note that all the above samples were collected and supplied by the Electricity
Commission of N.S.W. Particular objectives of the fly ash work included the
determination of
complete pneumatic conveying characteristics displaying minimum
transport behaviour (i.e. dense-phase performance),
relevant physical properties (e.g. particle diameter, solids density, loosepoured bulk density), and
fluidisation performance.
37
This information w a s intended to provide a data base, from which the pneumatic
conveying performance of a given fly ash sample could be estimated qualitatively
(i.e. after ascertaining the physical properties and fluidisation behaviour of the
sample, as described later in Section 5.1).
As indicated in Section 3.1, in order to compare the conveyability of different
materials, it w a s found necessary to employ the s a m e blow tank, pipeline/bend
configuration and operating modes. A detailed description of the test rig that was
used in these investigations is given in the following section. Section 3.3.3 presents
the pipeline conveying characteristics that were obtained for each fly ash sample.
3.3.2 Test Rig Description
A schematic layout of the test rig that was used extensively during the fly ash
program is presented in Figure 3.8, which includes the location of all recorded
transducers. The following list provides a description of the major components of
the testrig(i.e. Test Rig B1) and the relevant operating modes.
0.425 m3 Sturtevant blow tank with a maximum safe working pressure

of 350 kPag (refer to Figure 2.3). Blow tank top-air, fluidising ring-air and
conveying-air (originally referred to as supplementary-air) all were used
in various amounts throughout the test program.
71 m total effective length of 50 m m Schedule 40 (52 m m I.D.) conveying
pipeline.
3.6 m vertical lift (located 5.4 m from the blow tank outlet).
Eleven 1 m radius, 90 bends.
T w o blinded-tee bends connected to the vertical pipe (refer to Figure 2.5).
A D C E Model U M A 70V venting dust control unit mounted on top of the
receiving hopper.
Note that the effective length [9] of a 1 m radius 90 bend is 2.0 m, whereas th
actual length is 1.57 m. Therefore, the total actual length of the pipeline is "71 m 11 x (2.0 - 1.57) 66 m". However, for the purpose of scale-up (discussed later in
Chapter 5), it w a s decided to use effective length (instead of actual length) to
represent the total length of pipelines.
The air supply consists of the Atlas Copco Model GA308 rotary screw compressor
(see Section 2.7), an S M C Model LDP-150S refrigerated air dryer and two air
receivers totalling 7.8 m 3 volumetric capacity. T h e capacity of the compressor is 3.1
N m 3 m i n - 1 (free air delivery) with a m a x i m u m pressure head of 800 kPag. Orifice
Plate No. 1 (see Table 2.7) with D and D/2 pressure tappings and designed
according to B.S.1042 : Part 1 : 1964 is selected to record the amount of air used
during the conveying cycle.
All the important conveying parameters such as blow tank top-air pressure, pipel
air pressure (refer to Figure 2.4 for details of a typical pressure tapping location),
supplied/delivered mass of solids and supplied air m a s s flow rate are recorded with
respect to cycle time using the portable H P 3 0 5 4 A Data Acquisition System
(described earlier in Section 2.8). A chart recorder is used in conjunction with the
Data Acquisition System to ensure that steady-state conditions occur during the
conveying cycle (a requirement for the standardised-test procedure described in
Section 3.4).
38
O)
cu
c
39
3.3.3
Test Results
The procedure for determining the pneumatic conveying characteristics of each fl

ash sample consisted of the following six major steps.
1. Apply the standardised-test procedure (refer to Section 3.4).
2. Obtain steady-state values of mf, ms and Apt from the transient plots of
the major conveying parameters recorded for each experiment.
3. Present this information in tabular form.
4. Plot values of ms against mf (abscissa axis) and Apt (ordinate axis), as
depicted by the generalised form given in Figure 3.1. Note that Apt is the
preferred primary variable since it is a limitation on the plant by the
compressor used.
5. Using interpolation, draw lines of constant ms through the data at
appropriate intervals.
6. Delineate any regions of unreliable transport displayed by the transient

plots of both the pipeline air pressure and the delivered mass of solids.
This supplementary information will determine the limits of reliable
transport and the suitability of conveying the material in the dense-phase
mode. The two main types of flow irregularity, which predominated during
the fly ash test program, were unstable duning and blockage conditions.
Examples are presented in Section 3.4.3, which also includes results
from P V C powder, which w a s found to display unstable plugging or
blockage conditions in the conventional dense-phase (or nonsuspension) m o d e of transport.
The chronological order in which the fly ash samples were tested is given in Tab
3.2, which also includes a summary of the experiments carried out for each sample.
Fly Ash
Sample
Duration of
Test Work
Exp.
NOS.
Total No.of
Useful Tests
NO. Of
Data Pts.
Tallawarra
Eraring
Munmorah
Vales Point
Gladstone
Wallerawang
Liddell
25-10-83 to 31-01-84
03-02-84 to 15-02-84
13-03-84 to 02-04-84
09-08-84 to 19-09-84
03-10-84 to 11-10-84
26-11-84 to 18-01-85
26-03-85 to 22-07-85
160 to 193
220 to 251
321 to 384
520 to 546
661 to 685
740 to 766
830 to 865
32
30
61
27
22
24
35
58
70
88
52
41
44
57
Table 3.2 Chronology of the fly ash test program.
40
Important information relevant to the fly ash test program is summarised below.
(a) The Gladstone fly ash referred to in this table was tested for the
Queensland Electricity Generating Board (now the Queensland Electricity
Commission) and has been included for an additional comparison.
(b) The total number of useful tests listed against each sample refers to the
actual total number of pneumatic conveying experiments, from which
data were extracted (i.e. mt, m s and Apt). Therefore, the experiments
which either had to be rejected due to faulty equipment (e.g. transducers)
or were concerned only with air flow/pressure drop measurements (e.g.
orifice plate checks, empty pipeline air pressure drop data) have not
been included in this total.
(c) No serious operational problems occurred during the fly ash program
except for the Vales Point fly ash sample, which w a s found to create
excessive blinding of the original polypropylene filter bag surfaces. The
shaking/cleaning operation of the filter unit w a s not able to remove the
caked-on fly ash material. Subsequent over-pressurisation occurred in
the receiving hopper and caused large amounts of dust to be released to
the atmosphere (from between the joining surfaces of the filter housing
and the access panel). The polypropylene bags were replaced with
epitropic Goretex bags and the over-pressurisation problem w a s
eliminated. Although such problems were not repeated for the Gladstone,
Wallerawang and Liddell samples, it is possible that they still could have
occurred with the original polypropylene bags.
The pneumatic conveying characteristics of the Eraring fly ash are presented in
Figure 3.9, which includes the actual values of m s obtained from Exp. Nos. 220 to
251. Note that for reasons of clarity not all data points have been shown on this plot.
This form of representation is similar to the one presented by Mason et al. [11],
except for the following two extensions.
1. The range of mf is selected to span the regions of both the dilute- and
dense-phase m o d e s (i.e. suspension and non-suspension flow regimes).
2. Regions of unreliable transport (e.g. unstable duning, plugging,
blockages) are investigated and delineated on the conveying
characteristics. Certain experiments are designed actually to approach
the minimum transport condition. This task is m a d e feasible with the
unblocking technique described in Section 2.2.
However, for the purpose of providing clarity in reports and publications, the m
values are omitted usually from the conveying characteristics. Hence, the final form
of presentation is obtained by reproducing the lines of constant m s , as shown in
Figure 3.10. Refer to Figures 3.11 to 3.16 for the pneumatic conveying
characteristics of the Tallawarra, Munmorah, Vales Point, Gladstone, Wallerawang
and Liddell fly ash samples.
41
in
o
i
to
CJ1
co
o
CM
O
o
in
o
o
o
m
<->
CO
D. Q.
200
+
Ap t
Blockage
Condition
Unstable /
(kPa)
100
.02
.04
.06
.08
raf (kgs-1)
Figure 3.10
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Eraring fly ash

for L = 71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1).
200
Ap t
Blockage
Condition
Unstable
Duning
OOv
(kPa)
100
I
i
(kgs"1)
Air OnV
0 L
0
.02
.04
.06
.08
m.f (kgs"1)
Figure 3.11
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Tallawarra fly ash

200
1
i Blockage
Condition
Unstable
Duning
Ap t
(kPa)
100
Air Only.
0
.02
.04
.06
.08
-1
mf (kgs )
Figure 3.12
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Munmorah fly ash

200
iBlockage
Condition
Ûnstable
Duning
Ap t
(kPa)
100
Air OnT:
0
A
.02
.04
.06
.08
-1
mf (kgs )
Figure 3.13
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Vales Point fly ash

200
Unstable
Ap t
(kPa)
100
.02
.04
.06
.08
mf (kgs-1)
Figure 3.14
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Gladstone fly ash

200
Ap t
(kPa)
100
.02
Figure 3.15
.04
mf (kgs-1)
.06
.08
Pipeline conveying characteristics of Wallerawang fly ash

45
200
Apt
(kPa)
100
0
0 .02 .04 .06 .08
mf (kgs"1)
Figure 3.16 Pipeline conveying characteristics of Liddell fly ash
3.4 Standardised-Test
Procedure
During the initial stages of the fly ash testing program, it was realised th
be advantageous to standardise experimental procedures for the purpose of
minimising the total number of necessary pneumatic conveying
experiments,
providing sufficient data for the representation of complete conveying
characteristics,
investigating minimum transport behaviour (to determine the extent of
dense-phase suitability), and
defining undesirable operational problems such as plugging, blockages
or unstable transport.
A standardised-test procedure was developed and also generalised to apply to
different types of materials, as reported by Wypych and Arnold [21], In conjunction
with suggested scale-up procedures, which are discussed in Section 3.5, this
procedure provides a basis for reliable pneumatic conveying design.
The results presented previously on Eraring fly ash (i.e. in Section 3.3) an
P V C powder [21] are employed to demonstrate the standardised-test procedure
and the determination of minimum transport boundaries. The 71 m x 52 m m test rig
(i.e. Test Rig B1) described in Sections 2.2 and 3.3.2 is applicable to all results
presented in the following sections.
46
3.4.1
Experiments
Three different types of pneumatic conveying experiment (referred to as Test 1,

and 3) were developed and designed to provide efficiently the data necessary for
the representation of conveying characteristics. Note that the transient plots of the
following major conveying parameters are presented to demonstrate the differences
between each test.
Blow tank top-air pressure, pDt (referred to as PM , for transducer
location A 1 , as shown in Figure 3.8).
Pipeline air pressure, PG2 ( 17.8 m from the blow tank outlet).
M a s s of solids conveyed, M s .
Supplied air m a s s flow rate, mf.
3.4.1.1 Tesf 1 - Standard Batch Cycle
The blow tank is pressurised to an initial steady-state value. The conveying-air

discharge valves are opened, and the conveying parameters are recorded for the
duration of the cycle. This experiment obtains usually one steady-state operating
condition, which represents one conveying characteristic coordinate location. A
typical example of a standard batch cycle is presented in Figure 3.17 (Eraring fly
ash, Test Rig B1, Exp. No. 236). Note that for this experiment
steady-state m* = ms mf-1
2.42 kg s_1
0.045 kg s"1
= 54 kg kg"1
whereas average m *
Total mass of solids conveyed

Total mass of air used
390 kg
10.2 kg
= 38 kg kg-1,
which is 30% lower than the steady-state value. Note that the 10.2 kg of air wa
determined by calculating the amount of air used during the conveying cycle (viz.
9.4 kg, which is equal to the area under the mf curve) and adding on the amount of
air required for initial pressurisation of the blow tank (viz. ~ 0.8 kg of air to provide
Pbt.i = 170 kPag). Note that such differences between the steady-state and average
values of m * are typical of the standard batch cycle and should be allowed for when
designing a pneumatic conveying system.
47
iii|iiiil)iiniiii|iiii[ijii|iin[iui|ni
01
1U
I-
c
co
W
cF
co CO
CVJ
i
o

2 Q03 x
Q.UJ
D)T-"
s
CM
CD
.ECQ
<c
D.
ot
03 "<c co
^- CD
'
rO.J=
Q-CO
CO
c
a
co o
c
bI)
03 C
D
SI
CO
1^ 03
T- >^
co
CD
3
D)
i_
m
in
IM
rg
o
z
z
UJ
31
0 I I , I
C9
en
11
<u
a.
D.
en
48
3.4.1.2
Test 2 - Increase of Apt for Approximately Constant mf
The blow tank is pressurised initially to a relatively low steady-state value.

discharge and conveying-air isolation valves are opened, and the conveying
parameters are allowed to reach a steady-state condition. The blow tank air
pressure then is increased by opening-up the regulators to a predetermined value.
The operating conditions once again are allowed to reach a steady-state condition
and then the procedure is repeated until the completion of the cycle. For certain
materials it is possible to obtain up to six coordinate locations. Refer to Figure 3.18
(Eraring fly ash, Exp. No. 240) for typical transient plots of the major conveying
parameters obtained using this type of test.
3.4.1.3 Test 3 - Decrease of mf at Steady-State Conditions
The blow tank is pressurised to an initial steady-state value (similar to Tes

discharge and conveying-air valves are opened, and the operating conditions are
allowed to reach a steady-state value. The conveying air mass flow rate is reduced
gradually by a predetermined amount using a calibrated flow control valve. The
conveying parameters are allowed to reach a steady-state condition before the air
flow rate is reduced any further. This type of test usually produces up to three
coordinate locations and an example is presented in Figure 3.19 (Eraring fly ash,
Exp. No. 249).
3.4.2 Results
The following technique then is used to obtain the three steady-state conveying
parameters required for the presentation of the pipeline conveying characteristics.
1. Establish a steady-state region during the conveying cycle taking into
account all parameters (i.e. blow tank and pipeline air pressure, air flow
rate and supplied/delivered mass flow rate of solids).
1. mf: read the value directly from the transient plot, as shown in Figures
3.17(d), 3.18(d) and 3.19(d).
2. ms : determine the slope of the delivered mass of solids curve, as shown
in Figures 3.17(c), 3.18(c) and 3.19(c).
3. Apt : extrapolate the pipeline air pressure drop curve back to the blow
tank outlet (see Figure 3.20). However, in s o m e blow tank installations,
where the conveying air pipe has the s a m e internal diameter as the
actual conveying pipeline, Apt m a y be approximated by the gauge
pressure measured upstream of the blow tank outlet (referred to as the
conveying-air pressure or back-pressure). All Apt results presented in this
section were determined using the extrapolation technique.
The test procedure described in Section 3.4.1 was employed to obtain sufficient
data for the representation of pipeline conveying characteristics (Eraring fly ash and
P V C powder). The resulting groups of experiments and data points (noting that one
data point represents one value of mf, m s , and Apt, as determined from the
technique described above) are summarised in Table 3.3.
49
O)
UJ
I-
03
i_
IO
UJ
LU
i_
*-*
O
*sT
t\J
.
4 O
n
m
i_
o
z
tr
IU
0.
X
X
IU
>o:
rO en
U
TI
i_
en
CM
03 Q.
03 X
Q.HI
05 ,_
C CQ
O)
a. -^
h-
03 C\J
to
H
CD
(0
en
oH
<nm
o c
Q. 03
V'1
1"
f"
|""'
in
IS
!-
\
\
CM
<M
Q
>.
v_
c CO
c
en o
c
z t03 0)
"O
ii
CO
00
CI
>>
*-;
CO
N. \
tt
CO
n
ui
\\
"
\
\
\
y\s
r
o
z
z
UJ
tr
ui
UJ
0X
IU
e.
rtf
-^
ca
(9
ni
cn
r-l
ITS
<C ex.
a. -c
en
>
3_
D)
U_
O
CO
'
50
IM
in
cr
o
c
"l_
03
LU
i_
s- (J}
CO SI
C\J
IM
E
03 z
a.
X
D.HJ
O)y
DQ
O)
UI
0-
{_
>rr
CO
U
cn
CM
CD
(0
Q-
i_
en
1
CO
4'
CO
**
o 1-
CO O)
" "1
0]
1'
Q-
c C/J
c
'<no
c r1- D
.(0
rz

CO
CO
IM
O)
T >
CO s
3
D)
li.
'
eg
ty
z
UI
C
IU
UJ
0.
. 1 ..... .
.
ts
a.
I . . . . i. ... I . . . .
IS
IS
en
it
<a
a. J*
en
51
UJ
CO
UJ
cc
cc
ZD
CO
CO
UJ
Z)
CO
CO
UJ
cc
c
c
Q_
cn
-^
CC
cr
CO
UJ
UJ
JcT
z
cc
zc
o
_i
cc
ci-
cr
_j
UJ
0_
-^
0_
CO
i^s
ts
CD
CO
C\]
ts
in
**
t
UJ
_J
ts
CO
ts
C\J
CO
2:
UJ
CO
r-
o
oc
u_
o
z.
c
r
t
C3
tS
CM
-e- , tsl , , , , J
ts
obdM) 3ynss3yd yiu 3Nn3did
ca
ts
in
<*-
CO
1
(1
UJ
3T
z
<<
-J
UJ
Q_
CO
Q_
CO
tS
CQ
D)
DC
-
UJ
cr
o
CO
*
UJ
D.
X
UJ
ts
-i
oats
Ui
_J
CJ
>-
Q.
i
i_
13
CO
CO
cz
Q.
o
CN
CO
=3
52
Sample
No. of
Test 1
Eraring fly ash

PVC powder
14
4
Table 3.3
No. of
Test 2
No. of
Test 3
Total No.
Exps.
Total No. of
Data Points
10
15
30
32
67
63
6
13
Summary of experiments and data points for Eraring fly ash.
To demonstrate graphically the standardised-test procedure (and the differences

between Tests 1, 2 and 3), the mf, m s , and Apt results which were obtained from
Exp. Nos. 236, 240 and 249 ( refer to Figures 3.18, 3.19 and 3.20) have been
reproduced in Table 3.4 and superimposed on the pipeline conveying
characteristics, repeated in Figure 3.21.
Note that in Exp. No. 249, unstable duning occurred at mf 0.0130 kgs~1 and t
the corresponding values of Apt and m s are approximations averaged over the
steady-state period.
Experiment
Number
mf
(kg s-1)
Apt
(kPa)
ms
(kg s-1)
Steady-State m*
(kg kg-1)
236
0.0450
121
2.42
54
240
0.0395
0.0407
0.0415
0.0425
0.0435
32
56
64
78
87
0.34
0.76
0.94
1.31
1.53
9
19
23
31
35
0.0252
0.0130
109
=106
2.30
=2.10
91
=162
249
Table 3.4 Steady-state operating conditions obtained

from Exp. Nos. 236, 240 and 249.
53
Blockage
Condition
0
mf (kgs"1)
.02
.04
.06
.08
Figure 3.21 Pipeline conveying characteristics of Eraring fly ash for

L = 71 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig B1) demonstrating Tests 1, 2 and 3..
3.4.3
Minimum Transport Behaviour
The large differences in flow performance and efficiency, that were found to oc
in a variety of materials by Lohrmann and Marcus [22] and Wypych and Arnold [16],
emphasise the need to investigate minimum transport behaviour. For the case of
Eraring fly ah (and the other fly ash samples considered in this thesis),
considerable difficulty w a s experienced in obtaining a well-defined locus of
blockage conditions. However, a broad region of unstable duning w a s observed
and recorded. Transient plots of the major conveying parameters obtained from
Exp. No. 232 (Test 3), which produced the only well-defined blockage condition, are
presented in Figure 3.22. Note the increase in pipeline air pressure fluctuation as
mt w a s decreased (i.e. as the reliable transport limit w a s approached). However,
the steady-state section of the M s curve w a s considered still as a stable response
and, hence, the corresponding operating conditions were not recorded as an
unstable duning coordinate. A total of three experiments (including Exp. No. 249)
provided unstable duning phenomena similar to that shown in Figure 3.19. From
these data, an approximate reliable transport boundary was estimated and plotted
on the pipeline conveying characteristics of Figures 3.9, 3.10 and 3.21.
54
" " 1 " I ' | ' M I | I M ' | " " | " " l " " I1 '",
CO
^_^
>-,C\J
CO
t\J
O) .
C" u
"l_ ^
.
l_
o
LU X
> LU
co CD
l_
CD
rr
.*<
b
CO
i_
Q.
C3)C0
cz *CO

>
CZ r-
. . . i f t | f f I . t t t I t . t i I i I . . 1 "I t Ii 'i 1 I ' ' I <
e>
-^
c*
TS
CVJ (0
CD Cu
Q- -^
nj
u c~
u 'co
o Z3
C
Eo
T>
** '4*
o cz
(D o
I)
n
u. O)
CZ ^.
o
to o
c JO
O)
CZ
*
CN LCN co
CO CZ
o
E
3
c
IU
c
id
ca
t-i
O- J*
ro
en
55
In contrast, P V C powder (dp 50 = 135 Lim, p s = 1400 kg m-3, pbi = 575 kg m-3), which
was conveyed on the s a m e test rig (i.e. Test Rig B1), displayed a well-defined
minimum transport condition [21], as shown on the pipeline conveying
characteristics presented in Figure 3.23. At the onset of blockage, severe pipe
vibrations occurred. However, most of the blockages only were temporary and a
restart in the conveying cycle usually w a s possible. Both Tests 2 and 3 were used to
estimate the locus of blockage/plugging conditions, and examples are presented in
Figures 3.24 and 3.25 ( P V C powder, Exp. Nos. 387 and 414). Note that any
evidence of imminent blockage (e.g. unstable duning for fly ash) w a s not observed
for the P V C powder.
3.4.4 Test Procedure Applications and Limitations
Although the total number of experiments and corresponding data points required
for the presentation on conveying characteristics were similar for Eraring fly ash and
P V C powder, considerable differences occurred between the number of actual
experiments (i.e. Tests 1, 2 and 3). This w a s due mainly to the limitations and
particular applications of each test to provide data over the (maximum) regions
0<mf < 0.10 kg s"1
and
0 < Ap t < 200 kPa.
Note these values are relevant only to the test rig that was employed (i.e. Tes
B1) and will vary for other blow tank/pipeline configurations and air supply
compressors. The necessary number of individual experiments (i.e. for Tests 1, 2
and 3), as indicated in Table 3.3, will depend also on the physical properties and
the minimum transport behaviour of the material.
Test 1 is used usually to achieve one steady-state operating condition at the u
end of the pressure, drop scale (typically, for Apt > 100 kPa).
Test 2 is employed mainly to minimise the total number of experiments required

generate sufficient data for the presentation of conveying characteristics. U p to ~ six
steady-state operating conditions are possible (i.e. for Test Rig B1). The actual
number depends on the response rate of the material subjected to a given change
in operating conditions, the batch size of the blow tank and the pipeline
configuration. Test 2 is used also to investigate minimum transport behaviour and
locate plugging/blockage boundaries (e.g. refer to the results presented for P V C
powder). W h e n approaching this type of boundary for the purpose of delineation, it
is easier and more accurate to use Test 2 than Test 1. The latter requires pbt.i
values in the blockage region to produce the necessary steady-state coordinate
location just outside the unstable zone. In fact, when attempting to use Test 1 to
locate the blockage conditions of the P V C powder, severe plugging occurred
immediately after the c o m m e n c e m e n t of the conveying cycle, preventing any
accurate estimation of the corresponding operating condition.
However, for some materials, Test 2 will be restricted to an upper limit of pre
drop during the conveying cycle. This will depend mainly on the physical nature of
the material being conveyed (e.g. permeability, compressibility) and the flow
restrictions imposed by the blow tank air supply lines (viz. top- and fluidising ringair). For the test rig, the Eraring fly ash sample and the P V C powder considered in
this section, the following Apt limits were observed (i.e. for Test 2).
200
Blockage
' Conditions
L50
Apt
Blockage
Boundary N.
(kPa)
100
50
(kgs-1)
0
JL
,02
.04
06
m.
.08
(kgs-1)
.10
12
Figure 3.23 Pipeline conveying characteristics of P V C powder [21]

57
i 11 i 1 1 1 1 > 11 1 1 1 1 1 1
Is
o-d
^x
LU
CO
ra
rr
E
i.
CO
.........i
111 n
Q.
CT r CZ C\J
>>
a
> CO
>
<
cz 1CM
C3 CO
DI
Q- Q-
DI
o
i_
n
D)
t
C/J
o
n
tu CZ
Eo
u
--
#
ea
ca
CD
D)
'co
tz Q.
i_
h- O)
t_
"caa
ao
.
ca
ca
"
"
"
"
~~
'r^
,
4'
ea
ca
<tf
CN CO
CO c
o
3 01
F
(O
"1'
m
ea
ea
in
~
~~
'
"
"~
-
B
ea
ca
cn-vrj
^-
li-
ca
e
a
8T>
ea
"
/ "~-"crau
/ *"
/
/
- ea
X^ "" ea
L
"
"
*
_
"
,
-ea
O
.I DI
< 10
CL D.
CO cz
o o
a. o
O)
cz cz
ca
ea
*
~"
"
"
"
"
Is
DI
58
*s
a*
gi
-6.
LU
-"
DQ
D)
E
rr
I-
c/)
Q_
D)h-
co
^ +_,
a
> co
>
TJ
cz H
o
l_
o
o
C3 (0
CL Q.
C~
CO
"l
w
E
cz
o
o "D
co CZ
o o
Q. o
DJ
CZ
CZ
C5)
'co D)
13
cz Q.
v_
4'
h-
<
m
CM </)
CO c
o
3 F
D)"D
li.
i-H
D)
to
o>
59
Eraring fly ash :
P V C powder :
Maximum Apt 100 kPa.

Maximum Apt 200 kPa.
The 100 kPa limitation for Eraring fly ash also was observed for the other fly ash
samples (i.e. considered in Section 3.3). Note that for the P V C powder and Apt >
150 kPa, only three steady-state operating conditions were able to achieved.
Test 3 is used also to minimise the total number of experiments, although not as
many operating conditions can be achieved (i.e. w h e n compared with Test 2).
However, its main use is to supplement the unreliable transport information that
cannot be obtained by Test 2 due to the pressure drop limitations mentioned
previously. Furthermore, for unstable transport boundaries, which are either difficult
to locate or relatively insensitive to changes in mf (e.g. compare Figures 3.10 and
3.23), Test 3 is found to be very useful. In fact, the ten experiments of Test 3
conducted on the Eraring fly ash were used mainly for this purpose.
The final selection of the actual number of experiments (i.e. Test 1, 2 or 3) requ
for the standardised-test procedure depends on the test rig configuration and the
physical nature and minimum transport behaviour of the material in question.
However, upon the commencement of experimentation, it soon becomes evident
which tests will predominate the test program. For example, the Eraring fly ash and
the P V C powder displayed different conveying characteristics and minimum
transport behaviour, which was reflected by the different number of Tests 1, 2 and 3.
With the assistance of the powder classification results reported by Wypych and
Arnold [16], it may be suggested generally and qualitatively that for
Dixon [23] Group A and some Group C powders (e.g. fly ash), the
individual number of tests will be similar to that of the Eraring fly ash,
although certain unpredictable p h e n o m e n a m a y require additional
experimentation (e.g. refer to the unusual shape of the reliable transport
limit displayed in Figure 3.12),
Group B and some Group D materials, the number will be similar to that
of P V C powder [21], where four experiments of Test 1, thirteen of Test 2
and fifteen of Test 3 were required.
These matters of powder classification are discussed further in Chapter 5.
60
CHAPTER 4
61
4.
BLOW TANK CONFIGURATION & AIR INJECTION
There are many interacting considerations involved in the design of a pneumatic

conveying system. For example, the estimation of a suitable pipeline configuration
and corresponding air supply is required usually to fulfil a given specification. A n
equally important consideration is the selection of the most suitable m o d e of
conveying (e.g. dilute-, dense- or plug-phase flow), feeder configuration (e.g. top- or
bottom-discharge blow tank) and the method of air injection (e.g. aeration nozzles,
fluidising membrane). This will depend on the given specification and the
behavioural properties of the material. Only a limited number of publications have
considered such matters and unfortunately, these have been quite general and
lacking useful detail or results (i.e. for the designer or potential user of pneumatic
conveying equipment). For example, Flain [4] has provided a general overview of
several commercial blow tank systems and also has indicated their field of
application. More recently, Klintworth and Marcus [2] have reviewed various
commercial low-velocity pneumatic conveying systems, with particular emphasis on
discontinuous dense-phase and specialised designs of pipeline. This section of
work investigates the effect of blow tank design and the method of air injection on
the pneumatic conveying performance of bulk solids and is aimed at emphasising
the importance of matching both the method of air injection and the design of blow
tank to the material (and its behavioural properties), as well as demonstrating how
the overall performance of a pneumatic conveying system m a y be improved by
incorporating a more suitable method of air injection.
Three case studies involving the dense-phase transport of pulverised coal, the
long-distance conveying of fly ash and the plug-phase transportation of screened
and unscreened granulated aluminate ( S G A and U G A ) , bone char and crushed
bath are discussed in s o m e detail for this purpose. Table 4.1 provides a list of the
relevant physical properties for each material and
the test rigs that were used to
Materia!
p s (kg m"3) Pbi (kg nr3) Test Rlg(s)
dso (Jim)
obtain the experimental data.
Pulverised Coal
Fly Ash
SGA
UGA
Bone Char
Crushed Bath
Table 4.1
30
10
2500
2150
600
3900
1600
2240
2320
2350
3500
3080
760
522
1000
1520
1090
645
A
D1&D2
F2
F2
F1
F3
Note that a Malvern Model 2600C laser diffraction particle sizer w a s employed to
obtain the particle size distributions of the pulverised coal and fly ash, whereas a
sieve analysis w a s used for the other products. The solids density, p s , w a s
determined by a Beckman Model 930 air pycnometer and the loose-poured bulk
density, pDi, by pouring gently a known m a s s of material into a measuring cylinder.
62
4.1 Pulverised Coal
Several groups of experiments were carried out on the original Test Rig A1 (see
Figures 2.1 and 2.2) to investigate the relative effect of blow tank top-air and
supplementary conveying-air on the dense-phase pneumatic conveying
characteristics of the pulverised coal. Each test group consisted of three
experiments, which were subjected to the same set-up conditions (e.g. air flow, pbt.i)
but with one of the following different combinations of air injection.
(a) Blow tank top-air only.
(b) Blow tank top-air and supplementary-air (solenoid valve removed).
(c) Blow tank top-air and pulsed supplementary-air (using a solenoid
valve controlled by an electrical timer).
A more detailed arrangement of the various air supply lines is shown schematical
in Figure 4.1. Note both probe- andring-airwere not used for these experiments
Material
Inlet
Conveying
*" Pipeline
Solenoid
Valve
Discharge
Valve
Figure 4.1 0.425 m 3 Sturtevant blow tank and air supply arrangement.
and the supplementary-air line simply consisted of a 12 mm O.D. nylon tube
connecting the top-air line to the blow tank outlet via a timer-operated solenoid
control valve (for combination (c) only) and a non-return valve. For combination (b),
the solenoid valve w a s removed completely from the supplementary-air line. By
operating the isolation valves shown in Figure 4.1, the above three methods of air
injection were compared for five different values of pt>t,i (viz. 115,165, 200, 240 and
270 kPag). Transient responses of the blow tank top-air pressure (i.e. pDt = PA1,
transducer location A1, see Figure 3.8), a typical pipeline air pressure ( P G L see
Figure 3.8) the delivered mass of solids (M s ) and the supplied air mass flow rate
(mf) were obtained from each experiment.
63
A typical set of results from three experiments are superimposed in Figure 4.2, and
the relevant set-up conditions are summarised in Table 4.2. Note that
in Exp. No. 35, a 0.5 s ON / 0.5 s OFF setting was used for the timeroperated solenoid valve,
additional experiments, which were carried out to determine the
effectiveness of knife-air (see Figures 2.1, 2.2 and [8]), have been
included in Table 4.2,
combination (d) consisted of blow tank top-air and knife air (with a timer
setting of 0.5 s O N / 0.5 s OFF),
the results obtained from Exp. Nos. 61 & 62 are presented in Figure 4.3.
Exp.
No.
Method of
Air Injection
PA1,I
(kPag)
Blow Tank
Top-Air
SupplementaryAir
KnifeAir
21
23
35
(a)
(b)
(c)
115
115
115
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes (pulsed)
No
No
No
61
62
la)
185
185
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
(d)
Table 4.2
Set-up conditions for the blow tank air injection experiments.
The following steady-state conveying parameters also were determined from Exp.
No. 23 (i.e. the combination (b) results).
ms = 2.19kgs'1=7.9th-"'.
mf =
0.0076 kg s'1 = 22.8 m 3 h"*" free air (i.e. @ 20C & 1010 hPa).
Vf = 1.74 m s"1 @ pipe inlet & 2.98 m s-1 @ pipe exit (where D = 52 mm).
m* =
(2.19) (0.0076)"1 = 288 kg kg-1.
Apt =
72kPa.
From these results, the following observations are made for pulverised coal.
For low air flows, top-air only seems to compact the material inside the
blow tank resulting in a more unstable conveying m o d e (e.g. a temporary
blockage condition occurred during Exp. No. 21, whereas reliable
transport was achieved in Exp. No. 61).
T-l
I 1
i I ~ I -I
ii
i i
ca
CJ
>
>
i.
1 "*
\
1
\
** ': ?
\ :f
\V Y?''i
>*l
ts
tsa
'
1?
"
"
* ^ 1
i
<]
\ sr
> V
\v
>
i i i 1
,,,,1
CVJ
ca
(2B<PI)
CU
(X!
-r ' 1 -ir
'
Tf)
1 _i_ i..i_.
ca
ca
ca
ca
( t _s^) 3Tn
ca
1 1 1 1 1 i i
ca
1 1 1 1 1 1
i i 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11 i 11 1 1 1
ca
i | esa
CM
o
4J
:
_>
**
CU
>
E
<u
u
a
3
w
1:1
ca co
ca ^
/" *
1
:'l
:/ 1
X'
Cu
ca
ca
i
c
o
ta
ca
CM
J.1
J_J-
1 1 -lU JL.
t i i .1 .I-JL. i J
ca
ca
(2W)
ca
ca
TV
M I l l l l l l l i m l l l l l l l l l l l l M I
ca
ca
CO
ca
c
a
CM
ca
ca
-i
(1) K
ca
ca
ii'r
JI
0.
I H.
65
f-r J
50.
100.
oa
TRANSIENT CYCLE TIME (SECS)

CO
300.
5C
i ' i '
-1i|H-.-'-I
: EXP. NO. 61
EXP- N O . 6 2
cn
200.
to
o
UJ
cc
UJ 100.
LU
O
CO
cn
cr
100.

cn
o
UJ
.030
-iii|i|ir
->r
T'r
EXP. NO. 61
EXP. N O . 62
CE
CC
tt
a.
aaa L_J
0.
I i I i I i I i IiIi1iIiIt.
50.
100.
^
Figure 4.3 Transient plots of major conveying parameters from Exp.
61 and 62 for pulverised coal conveyed over 25 m (Test Rig A1).
66
The introduction of supplementary-air has an overall smoothing effect on

conveying characteristics and, hence, allows the selection of larger m *
values. For example, from Figure 4.2 and the previous set of calculations,
it can be seen that top-air only is unable to achieve reliably the
combination (b) result of m * = 288. O n e reason for this improvement in
performance m a y be due to the equalising effect that combination (b) has
on the air pressure acting across the bed of material inside the blow tank,
hence tending to minimise the compaction effect described in the
previous observation.
The addition of a timer-operated solenoid control valve to the
supplementary-air line (i.e. combination (c)) produces conveying results
between those of combination (a) and (b). In fact, additional experiments
were carried out to determine the effect of varying the O N / O F F timer
setting (i.e. for the solenoid control valve). The results obtained with Min.
O N / Max. O F F were found to be similar to combination (a) and those with
Max. O N / Min. O F F similar to combination (b). Note that the minimum
timer setting represented 0.02 s and the m a x i m u m 1.0 s.
The introduction of knife-air has a relatively insignificant effect upon
conveying performance (e.g. the average values of m s for Exp. Nos. 61
and 62 are 3.7 and 3.9 kg s _1 , respectively) and also tends to create a
non-linear M s response curve (see Figure 4.3(b)).
The supplementary-air line assists in the fluidisation of the product prior
to transportation (i.e. during the initial pressurisation cycle of the blow
tank). This is considered to be an important requirement for the densephase conveying of fine powders. Also, the presence of a supplementaryair supply at the blow tank outlet s e e m s to provide an additional feature
of mixing the product during transportation (i.e. a region of turbulence at
the entrance of the pipe).
The above results further indicate that accurate control of both pressure and fl
rate between the blow tank top- and supplementary-air supply lines, would provide
a fine-tuning effect for solids flow rate control. For example, relatively large turndown ratios of m s are possible by simply varying the blow tank top-air pressure, as
shown by Test 2 of the standardised-test procedure (refer to Section 3.4.1.2 and
Figure 3.18). In conjunction with a solids metering device (such as the KBI G m b H
blow tank cone-dosing-valve used on Test Rig E1, as shown in Figure 2.10), such
innovations could provide an effective and efficient technique for the control of
solids flow rate. In fact, KBI G m b H recently has marketed a proportioning valve,
which monitors and controls the amount of air being distributed to both the
conveying pipeline and blow tank.
4.2 Fly Ash
4.2.1 Introduction
Certain materials including fly ash, which were tested initially on the original
Rig C, have been found to cause serious rat-holing problems inside the blow tank,
similar to that shown in Figure 4.4. The following possible contributing factors have
been established.
67
Dead
Region
Aeration
Air
Discharge
Figure 4.4
Configuration of bottom-discharge blow tank demonstrating

incomplete discharge of material due to rat-holing.
Inappropriate blow tank geometry (e.g. critical hopper angle and outlet
diameter) for a particular material.
Material cohesion (as well as wet or sticky properties) producing poor
fluidisation and, hence, bad-channelling (or rat-holing) during the
pressurisation and conveying cycles.
Strong adhesion between the material and blow tank wall.
The method of air injection causing localised penetration, as shown in
Figure 4.4 (i.e. the aeration air will follow the line(s) of least flow
resistance).
Similar problems also could occur easily in top-discharge blow tanks, as indicate
in Figure 4.5 (especially for products which are fine and heavy). From a practical
viewpoint, the consequences of such performance are
the effective working capacity of the blow tank is reduced due to
incomplete discharge of the contents, thereby lowering the overall solids
throughput of the system,
inconsistent and, possibly, unstable transport could result from the nonuniform fluidisation of material in the vicinity of the conveying pipe
entrance (for top-discharge blow tanks).
To overcome some of the above problems in relation to the original KBI blow tank
(Test Rig C, see Figure 2.7), the design of the second blow tank unit (i.e. for Test Rig
D) w a s improved in collaboration with N.E.I. John T h o m p s o n (Aust.).
68
Discharge
Dead
Region
Porous
Membrane
Plenum
Chamber
Air Inlet
Figure 4.5 Configuration of top-discharge blow tank demonstrating

incomplete discharge of material due bad channelling and rat-holing.
That is, a fluidising discharge cone w a s fitted to the bottom of the vessel and highflow evassers (instead of sintered bronze nozzles) were installed at the end of each
remaining aeration line. Note the evassers m a k e use of a rubber boot that tightly
covers a series of aeration holes drilled into a hollow, spherical steel bulb, which is
welded to a short section of threaded pipe (for connection to the aeration line). In
addition to fluidising the product and pressurising the blow tank, these evassers are
intended to promote material discharge from the vessel by washing down its inside
surface and also, to function as a non-return valve w h e n the air supply is turned off.
The following section presents results obtained from investigations into comparing
these two different methods of blow tank air injection (i.e. refer to Test Rig D, Figure
2.9).
4.2.2
Test Results
Test Rig D 2 (L = 9 4 0 m & D = 60/69/81/105 m m ) w a s set up initially with the
intention of simulating continuous long-distance transportation and hence,
obtaining conveying characteristics of the fly ash sample (refer to Table 4.1) under
these conditions. This required the establishment of reliable steady-state conditions
during the consecutive discharge of the two blow tanks. Note that as the receiving
silo in Test Rig D 2 w a s not located directly above the tandem blow tanks (to enable
gravity filling), this test facility w a s unable to provide continuous conveying. To
provide a direct comparison, the top- and aeration-air supplies to each blow tank
were set up in the s a m e manner (i.e. in terms of distribution, pressure and flow rate)
and the conveying-air w a s not altered at any stage during the experiment.
69
Figure 4.6 presents typical solids mass flow rate data obtained from one of the
several tests carried out for this purpose. Note for this experiment, Blow Tank No. 2
(with the fluidising cone) was discharged first, followed by Blow Tank No. 1 (with the
aeration nozzles only) and the air flow was set at m f 0.2 kg s-1. It can be seen that
there is a considerable difference in solids discharge performance between the two
blow tanks. This is reflected also in the mass flow rate of solids into the silo. Note
that similar differences in discharge characteristics were observed when Blow Tank
No. 1 was discharged before Blow Tank No. 2 (i.e. when the operating sequence
was reversed).
As a result of observing this behaviour, a further series of tests were conducted
the same fly ash sample to examine in more detail the difference between the two
methods of air injection. Test Rig D1 (L = 293 m & D =69 m m ) w a s used for this
purpose, so that steady-state conveying conditions could be established with the
discharge of only one 0.9 m 3 blow tank. In this way, the two blow tanks could be run
independently and exposed to the s a m e set-up conditions.
A series of tests were carried out on Test Rig D1 covering a wide range of mf
values. Figure 4.7 superimposes typical transient plots of major conveying
parameters obtained from two consecutive tests where Blow Tanks No. 1 and 2
were used alternately. The steady-state and average conveying parameters listed
in Table 4.3 have been determined from these experiments.
Blow
Tank
ms
(kg s-1)
1
2
1.85
1.85
mf
m*
(kg s-1) (kg kg-1)
0.25
0.25
7.4
7.4
Apt
(kPa)
Disch.
Time (s)
Avg. m s
(kg s-1)
242
240
365
288
1.47
1.77
Table 4.3 Conveying parameters of fly ash for

L 293 m & D = 69 m m (Test Rig D1).
For these experiments, the supply air (aeration and conveying air) w a s held
constant with the top-air not being used. Note that the total amount of air injected
into the blow tanks (via evasser nozzles for Blow Tank No. 1 and the combined
fluidising discharge cone and evasser nozzles for Blow Tank No. 2) effectively was
equal for both tests.
It is apparent from these results that the steady-state conveying parameters wer
very similar for these two experiments. However, from Figure 4.7, the m s response
for Blow Tank No. 1 is seen to decline at a relatively early stage of the conveying
cycle. For example, this occurred over the final 40 % of the discharge cycle of Blow
Tank No. 1 (affecting 210 kg of the initial batch size of 530 kg), whereas for Blow
Tank No. 2 this occurred over the final 8 % (affecting only the final 40 kg of the initial
510 kg batch). A n additional comparison is m a d e by determining the average
conveying rate for each blow tank. For example, for Blow Tank No. 1, average m s =
(530 kg) (365 s)" 1 = 1.47 kg S'1 which is 17 % lower than the 1.77 kg S'1
calculated for Blow Tank No. 2. The following observations are m a d e as a result of
these experiments.
TEST RIG
800.
'
'
'
'
'
- B -
(943 M)
. .
~ 600.
ts
ac
500.
a
<=> 4 0 0 .
TI
3BB.
700.
'
y'/
s
TC
in
^"
s
.**'
,v s-'
"^v.
/s
y "
cn
S200.
jL
/ v.
j
100. -
^^.
^^>^
CYCLE TIME
.o^ rw/wr 7
SJLO
13EC31
IBB.
BLOH THNK S
Figure 4.6 Blow tank comparison using fly ash and

Test Rig D 2 (L = 940 m & D = 60/69/81/105 m m ) .
For a fly ash of this type (i.e. fine and cohesive, refer to the Geldart [24,25]
Group C classification), the fluidising discharge cone is a significant
improvement over the aeration nozzles in terms of maintaining a steady
discharge of material from a bottom-discharge blow tank into the
conveying pipeline. This is evident particularly over the final portion of the
conveying cycle and is believed to be achieved by
providing a more even fluidisation of the material inside the
blow tank,
having an effect similar to flow promotion aids in silos (i.e.
effectively expanding the active outlet diameter of the blow
tank).
This improved method of aeration has the potential of reducing
significantly the discharge time required by a blow tank (e.g. 15 to 25 % in
the experiments carried out on Test Rig D1) and hence, is important in
terms of the overall conveying capacity as well as the air/energy
requirements of the system.
The results presented here on fly ash and previously on pulverised coal
(i.e. in Section 4.1) also suggest that the fluidising discharge cone m a y
assist in attaining conveying conditions with a higher m * value than m a y
be achieved reliably with an aeration nozzle type of blow tank (especially
for fine, heavy and/or cohesive products, which are difficult to fluidise).
71
ts
' 1 ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I 1 I | | | | j I ' l I ca

T
I I M
I I | I I
' ' I I IM
I1 I I M
ta
ca
_ Ln
LT)
2 ca
ts
-4CD
C
ca
'>>
CD
>
ts
oo
to O
CN
ts
ca
_ OJ
O
3
o.
caD)
fc
DC
o-co
CO ,d)
H
&
o
ca
ca
*
iH
c co
pq
' ' l ' ' f i I
ca
ca
ca
ts
CO
<
ts
' i i i I i t I i i . r,
ts
ts
.i
o
z
c Cd CD
s >
"^ o
?-o
i j 1 1 1 1 VI
1 1 1 1 1 I'l Tj 1 1 1 1
i injn1
ca
ts
I
CH
&
JIM.
C\J
IS)
CM
CD <33
C\J
W)
.b CD
<o >,
3 CD
ca
CJ
LT)
.M
H
ts
ts
-^-
o
pq
< s
is
si
/ }
o
cc-c
o .>>
o
2*
CJ*
' /
OS CO
ts
1/
$2
\f
O CD
CO
\(
-U
OJ
ts
<D
3
O
ii
ca
ca
1
1
-
V. \
ts
ca
cn
' '
' '
Mill
ca
ca
Pd
i J u^ - 1
1 !
ra
ts
i
-W-. 1
ca
cs
fr
ca
CM
is.
ts
ts
CD
CS
ts
Ln
ca
cs
CS
ts
ts
CM
cs
cn
ST
CO
AS
CS
ca
ts
72
4.3 Plug-Phase Conveying
Over the past two decades, dense-phase [2,7,14,17], low-velocity [2,3], longdistance [1,5,6] and also dilute-phase [7] pneumatic conveying have received
considerable attention from both researchers and commercial suppliers of
equipment. In contrast, discrete plug-phase conveying (i.e. the transportation of a
limited plug length of material per cycle) has received little attention except for a few
general papers/reports published or presented by vendors of such equipment. Yet
this method of transport is able to handle efficiently a large range of conventionally
difficult materials (e.g. coarse, heavy, wide size range, abrasive and even friable),
that otherwise could be considered only for dilute-phase transport. For example,
refer to the case study on screened coke presented by Wypych and Arnold [26]. In
fact, even specialised techniques such as low-velocity and/or by-pass technology
[2] may not be suitable for such materials. This aspect of powder classification (i.e.
in relation to determining the most suitable m o d e of conveying for a given product)
is considered further in Chapter 5.
The results obtained from four materials (SGA, UGA, bone char and crushed bath,
refer to Table 4.1 for relevant physical properties) are presented to demonstrate
(a) the general features and full potential of this method of transport,
(b) the effect of blow tank air injection on plug-phase conveying
characteristics, and
(c) how considerable improvements in performance (e.g. reliability, reduced
degradation) can be obtained simply by modifying the method of air
injection.
4.3.1 Screened & Unscreened Granulated Aluminate (SGA & UGA)
Using Test Rig C2 (0.9 m3 blow tank, L = 59 m & D = 105 mm) several experiments
were carried out initially on S G A to establish reliable and optimal operating
conditions for the dilute- and/or dense-phase m o d e of transportation. However,
severe pipeline blockages occurred for air flows below m f 0.3 kg s_1 (e.g. for pbtj *
140 kPag) and it w a s found that conventional dense-phase w a s not possible for
this material. In fact, the following steady-state operating conditions were found
reliable for dilute-phase conveying only.
mf = 0.325 kg s"1, ms = 6.8 kg S'1 = 24.51 rr1, Apt = 85 kPa, Vf = 17 m S'1
to 31 m s _1 (i.e. from start to end of the pipeline).
On inspection of the material, which was conveyed under these conditions, an
excessive amount of fines was noticed in the sample and considered unacceptable
for the proposed application (i.e. for a liquor burning impurity removal process,
which could not tolerate large amounts of dust). For this reason, additional tests
were carried out on Test Rig F2 (0.113 m 3 plug-phase blow tank, L = 58 m & D =
105 m m ) to determine whether lower transport velocities could be achieved (i.e. to
minimise degradation). After carrying out 14 experiments at different values of mf,
the following conveying parameters were found most reliable for the plug-phase
mode.
Orifice-air only (see Figure 2.12), mf 0.079 kg S"1, Avg. ms = 2.5 kg s"1 =
9.01 h"1, Max. pbt - 200 kPag, Avg. v s 1.8 m s"1 (where the time taken
for the material to reach the end of the pipeline w a s 33 s).
73
Note that
steady-state operating conditions are not applicable to this method of
transport,
these conveying parameters were based on Exp. No. 1274 (refer to
Figure 4.8 for transient plots of the major parameters),
the average conveying rate (i.e. avg. m s ) is determined by dividing the
mass of product conveyed (viz. 102 kg) by the conveying cycle time (viz
41 s),
the m a s s of solids conveyed w a s obtained by actually removing the
material from the 5 m 3 receiving silo and weighing it on a load platform
(refer to the eccentric loading problems described in Section 2.6),
the material which w a s conveyed after Exp. No. 1274 w a s retained for
later inspection and found to contain only minor levels of dust
(acceptable for the liquor burning impurity removal process),
to determine an overall conveying rate (i.e. for a proposed installation)
the average conveying rate avg. m s must be modified to allow for cycle
overheads (e.g. filling time, valve switching time). However, this is not
required for the purpose of the present investigations.
The type of conveying produced by the 0.113 m3 blow tank (i.e. for Test Rig F, see
Figures 2.12 and 2.13) leaves a significant portion of material in the pipeline
especially when the latter had been emptied or purged prior to an experiment (e g'
after a planned shutdown). This is caused by the relatively low values of conveying
velocity used for operation (typically, avg. v s = 1 to 3 m s"1, which is based simply on
the time taken for the material to reach the end of the pipeline and also the
assumption that the product c o m m e n c e s to move into the pipeline shortly after the
air supply is turned on). However, there exists a minimum flow rate condition, below
which an excessive amount of material will remain in the pipeline and gradually
build up until either unstable, strong plugging or a blockage will occur. For the S G A
tested in these investigations, m f - 0.07 kg s'1 represented this minimum air flow
condition. Hence, the above operating conditions are considered quite safe and
reliable, although for an actual system, mf > 0.085 kg s"1 m a y have to considered.
As both SGA and UGA were required to be conveyed pneumatically (and also with
low levels of degradation), it w a s considered necessary to undertake additional
experiments on U G A for the purpose of
determining reliable operating conditions, and
establishing whether an increased level of fines would have any effect on
the conveying performance of U G A (e.g. refer to particle size distributions
presented in Figure 4.9).
Subjecting UGA to the operating conditions, which were found reliable for SGA (Le.
orifice-air only, mf * 0.08 kg s-1), a stable plug formed during transportation and this
produced substantial pipe vibrations and much higher pipeline air pressures (e.g.
Pbt > 300 kPag). Although U G A w a s conveyed successfully under these conditions,
the method of transport w a s considered too damaging to the particles and it was
decided to pursue the requirements of a more gentle duning m o d e of conveying.
Note it is believed that the majority of such degradation occurs during the final
stages of the cycle, where the stable plug of product is released suddenly from the
end of the pipeline (due to a high upstream air pressure, usually referred to as
back-pressure).
TEST DBTE I 20.5.1988
EXPERIMENT NO. 1274

200.
cc
cu
UJ
cc 103.
UJ
cc
CL
20.
30.
I 11
60.
40.
CYCLE TIHE (SECS)
TEST DATE 20.5.1988
EXPERIMENT NO. 1274

200.
" T i i i i i i i | i i r -
" I I I I I I I r -
CH. NOS
e
u
<n
o
5 100.
V)
in
.1
10.
0.
l_
60.
20.
CTCLE TIHE
CSECS1
EXPERIMENT NO. 1274

TEST DRTE l 28.5.1988
TOTAL HflSS OF RIR USED (KGS) - 2.719
.09
- i
1 i r i i i i r
i r i i
| i i i i | i i i
< i i '
.08
u
UJ
.07
v.
u
g 08
in
UJ
1-
.05
cr
cc
z
.04
a. i
u.
.03
c
c
X
.02
c
>
<
a .01
in
in
.00
,
BD
K. i i l
10.
07
J_
20.
'
30.
lî-
I I I l _ l L .
40.
CTCLE TIHE (SECS)

ORIFICE PLATE NO. 5
Figure 4.8 Transient plots of major conveying parameters

for SGA (Exp. No. 1274, Test Rig F2).
75
100
CD
1ir
Screened Product
CU
E
ra
Unscreened Product
Q
CD
O
SQ.
50
ro
CU
ro
CJJ
s_
CJ3
cn
rCU
1.0
Figure 4.9
3.0'
Particle Diameter (mm)
I Tî
10.0
Particle size distributions of S G A and U G A .
Selecting orifice- and ring-air (see Figure 2.12) and carrying out an additional
series of tests, the minimum flow rate condition described previously for S G A was
found to occur at m f 0.076 kg s_1. At or above this value, the discharge of product
from the end of the pipeline occurred more in the form of a dune (i.e. instead of a
stable plug), which w a s seen to be more gentle and less damaging to the particles
(note, by visual inspection only). Also, the resulting operating pressures were found
to be considerably less (e.g. pbt = 200 to 250 kPag). Typical transient plots of major
conveying parameters are presented in Figure 4.10. Note that this experiment was
operated in the vicinity of the minimum flow rate condition. The following conveying
parameters were found to be most reliable for the plug-phase conveying of U G A .
Orifice- and ring-air (see Figure 2.12), mf 0.085 kg S"1, Avg. ms = 2.40
kg s'1 = 8.61 fr1, Max. pbt 250 kPag, Avg. v s 1.7 m S"1 (where the time
taken for the material to reach the end of the pipeline was 35 s).
EXPERIMENT NO. 13S6

300.
TEST DATE i 12.8.1986
"i1|111r-j1111p T I I T"
TI|TTTT
CH. NOS
0
4__
^200.
1C
UJ
cc
3
100.
0- ir1
1 '
70.
EXPERIMENT NO. 1356

200.
1 1 1 i_i
TEST ORTE 1 12.8.1988
1111|1111|1111
| 1111|1 1 11|111 1 | 11r
CH. NOS
5 100.
10
0.
10.
1 j
1 1 I 1 1 1 J I i_i
20.
30.
1 1 L_i
40.
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 L
50.
60.
70
CTCLE TIME (SECS)
EXPERIMENT NO. 1356

TEST DRTE 12.8.1986
TOTAL MASS OF RIR USED (KGS) - 2.610
.08
. 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 11
1 1 1
20.
1 I 1 1 1 1 IJ_J
30.
40.
l_l
L_l
50.
I I_J
I I L_J
60.
70.
CTCLE TIHE (SECS)

ORIFICE PLATE NO. 4
Figure 4.10 Transient plots of major conveying parameters

for U G A (Exp. No. 1356, Test Rig F2).
77
The following observations are m a d e as a result of these experiments.
(a) SGA was found to be unsuitable for conventional dense-phase

conveying and had to be transported under dilute-phase conditions. This
produced high velocities and an excessive as well as unacceptable level
of product degradation. Plug-phase conveying (using orifice-air only) was
found to be more suitable and efficient than the dilute-phase m o d e (i.e. in
terms of air flow and degradation requirements). However, it should be
noted that as only a limited amount of product is transferred per cycle,
relatively low conveying rates must be tolerated (e.g. 2.5 kg s-1 instead of
6.8 kg s-1 for dilute-phase) and m a y require the selection of larger sizes
of pipe (i.e. when scaling-up to required system capacities).
(b) UGA, which possesses a wider particle size distribution (and also a
larger amount of fines) than S G A , displayed a greater propensity to form
stable plugs in the pipeline. For example, when U G A w a s subjected to
the s a m e operating conditions (i.e. which were found reliable for S G A ) , a
strong plug formed during the cycle and resulted in substantial pipe
vibrations, higher back-pressures and excessive degradation.
(c) The selection of orifice- and ring-air prevented the formation of such
plugs and produced a more gentle duning type of flow (and hence, less
degradation). Note that for this comparison, the air supply valves were
adjusted to maintain similar values of the supplied air mass flow rate mf
(i.e. with respect to orifice-air only).
(d) The minimum flow rate condition for UGA (i.e. mf 0.076 kg s-1) was
found to be slightly greater than the more mono-sized S G A (i.e. m f = 0.07
kg s-1).
(e) An increased level of fines definitely has an impact on conveying
performance. Also, these results demonstrate that the plug-phase m o d e
of transport is quite sensitive to changes in material properties (i.e.
particle size) and also the blow tank configuration and air injection. Test
work is required to select the most efficient m o d e of conveying (and
hence, the method of air injection) for a given material and its
behavioural properties. For example, S G A m a y be suitable for lowvelocity [2,3] conveying, although higher operating pressures are
expected. Such matters of powder classification are considered further in
Chapter 5.
The following case study on bone char presents in more detail the effect of air
injection on conveying performance and especially product degradation.
4.3.2 Bone Char
This material is required for the clarification of sugar liquor and it is desirab
be conveyed into the cisterns with a minimum amount of degradation. Note the
material is recycled pneumatically as often as possible and rejected once the level
of fines below 425 u.m becomes too great. Similar to S G A , conventional dense- or
even dilute-phase conveying w a s considered unsuitable. Hence, plug-phase
conveying w a s pursued with the aim of establishing reliable operating conditions
and an efficient method of air injection based on particle sizing information.
78
The following test program w a s carried out on Test Rig F1 (0.113 m 3 plug-phase
blow tank, L = 41 m & D = 105 m m ) .
(a) Test Group No. 1
Using a 100 kg batch size, a reliable air flow of mf 0.09 kg s -1
(determined from preliminary test work) with a combination of orifice- and
ring-air, 10 tests were carried out on essentially the same sample of bone
char. Three grab samples were taken after the fifth and tenth experiments
(i.e. for later size analysis and averaging). Note that to compensate for
product being left in the pipeline (as described in Section 4.3.1),
additional fresh material had to be added to the blow tank during the first
two transient experiments (i.e. to maintain a batch size of 100 kg). The
following summary of results is based on the transient plots of the major
conveying parameters (which were obtained from each experiment) and
the sieve analyses performed on each grab sample.
Conveying cycle time varied between 28 and 30 s. Based on
the latter, an average conveying rate of ~ 3.33 kg s_1 or 121 h-1
is calculated.
The air flow was constant at mf 0.09 kg s*1.
As more experiments were carried out, the operating pressure
increased gradually from 370 to 470 kPag (based on Exp.
Nos. 1227 and 1235, which were the second and last
experiments of Test Group No. 1). Refer to the pressure plots
presented in Figure 4.11.
Table 4.4 summarises the averaged particle sizing data, which
were obtained from each of the three grab samples (i.e.
collected after the fifth and tenth experiments). Data relevant to
the original or as received sample
is Size
included.
Sieve
(nm)
Sample
425
300
212
Original
After 5 exps.
After 10 exps.
17.0
26.0
32.0
3.5
11.0
17.0
0.5
5.0
9.0
Table 4.4 Cumulative % mass passing through sieve size

(for orifice- and ring-air).
(b) Test Group No. 2
Using a fresh batch of bone char, an additional 10 experiments were
carried out using a combination of orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air
for the blow tank. All other test procedures and set-up conditions were
similar to Test Group No. 1 (e.g. grab samples, batch size 100 kg, m f
0.09 kg s'1). The following major results were obtained.
EXPERIMENT NO. 1227

400.
T"-r- I " |""T f - T -
' 1'
\- 1 J" 1 ' ...1 ,. ..r jt..,r..r.1. | - T f i i
CH. NOS :
0
-
-see.
79
TEST DRTE i 19.3.1986
3 ***** *
"
ft
/s
//
u
a
a.
"
/ //1
fi
ft
UJ
200.
tf)
cn
I * \
ft
/ /
Ui
cc
a.
iM M\
v
'
/J
*
*
."
*
It
tr
(I
a 100. 0.
<
I.I
h
j1
U
0.
'
__
'
-
: m
/1
/s
i
10.
; E
;I
x\ .
"
^v
^L
j\
\\
L . ^ . J V l
20.
30.
40.
1 ,J
50.
60
CYCLE TIME (SECS)
EXPERIMENT NO. 1235

500.
400.
a
a.
900.
TEST DATE 19.3.1986
T i i i | i i i i j i i \ \ j i i i | i i | \
r-
CH. NOS
0
1-3 '
4
ui
cc
=3
V)
V)
200.
a.
100.
0.
JmmX.
0.
1 '
' * ' 1
(8. 50. 60
CTCLE TIME JSECS1
Figure 4.11 Transient plots of blow tank and pipeline air pres
for bone char (Exp. Nos. 1227 & 1235, Test Rig F2).
80
Conveying cycle time varied between 30 and 31 s and hence,
the average conveying rate was 3.23 kg s_1 or 11.61 Iv1.
The air flow w a s constant at mf 0.088 kg s-1 (slightly lower
than the 0.09 kg s_1 recorded during Test Group No. 1).
The operating pressure increased gradually from = 255 to 285
kPag (based on Exp. Nos. 1237 and 1245, which were the
second and last experiments of Test Group No. 2). Refer to the
pressure plots presented in Figure 4.12.
Table 4.5 summarises the average results obtained from the
particle size analyses.
Sieve Size (\xm)
Sample
425
300
212
Original
After 5 exps.
After 10 exps.
18.0
20.0
26.0
4.1
6.5
12.0
0.6
2.2
6.0
Table 4.5 Cumulative % mass passing through sieve size

(for orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air).
From the above results, it can be seen that (with respect to orifice- andring-air)the
orifice-,ring-and supplementary-air combination produces
a mode of conveying that is more gentle to the material,
lower operating pressures (e.g. for the tenth experiment, pbt 285 kPag
instead of 470 kPag),
lower levels of degradation (e.g. a difference of 6 % in the cumulative %
mass passing through a 425 u.m sieve size) which would allow the
material to be recycled a greater number of times (i.e. for the sugar liquor
clarification process),
hence, generally a more reliable and efficient method of transportation.
4.3.3 Crushed Bath
Using Test Rig F3 (0.113 m3 plug-phase blow tank, L = 161 m & D = 105 mm),
numerous experiments were carried out recently to determine reliable operating
conditions and also examine the effect of blow tank air injection on the conveying
performance of this material. Note that crushed bath possesses a very wide particle
size distribution (e.g. 30 % by weight of product < 0.5 m m , dso = 3.9 m m , 10 %
by weight of product > 11.2 m m , top size 16 to 18 m m ) and usually contains a
certain amount of alumina. Preliminary experiments established a minimum flow
rate condition at m f 0.28 kg s_1. An air flow of m f 0.31 kg s*1 and a batch size of
100 kg of fresh material were maintained for each experiment. Four tests were
carried out initially with orifice-air only (to establish the consequences of conveying
this material in the form a stable plug). These were followed by three further
experiments using a combination of orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air. The
results are summarised in Table 4.6.
EXPERIMENT NO. 1237

300.
TEST DATE i 21.3.1986
"i111|1111j1111|i11|1i1rj1rir
CH. NOS
1 :
B-.-. 2
:
3
4
200.
ui
cc
<n
ui
100.
0.
10.
20.
30.
40.
SB.
60
CYCLE TIME (SECS)

EXPERIMENT NO. 1245
TEST ORTE * 21.3.1986
3 0 0 . r1111j11jr
cs
^200.
*:
UJ
cc
CO
CO
Ui
cc
"100.
0.
60
CYCLE TIME tSECS)
Figure 4.12 Transient plots of blow tank and pipeline air pressure
for bone char (Exp. Nos. 1237 & 1245, Test Rig F2).
82
Exp.
NO.
108-10
-11
-12
-13
108-14
-15
-16
Max. mf
(kg s-1)
Mf
Ms
(kg)
(kg)
tc
Avg. m s
(S)
(kg s-1)
(kg)
Air Inj.
O/R/S
100
100
100
100
0
O
O
0
.30
.31
.31
.31
8.6
8.1
8.6
8.7
95
104
99
104
510
550
480
600
31
29
30
32
3.1
3.6
3.3
3.3
100
100
106
O+R+S
O+R+S
O+R+S
.31
.31
.31
11.8
11.7
12.5
94
93
101
66
71
75
40
40
42
2.4
2.3
2.4
Mbt
Max. Pbt
(kPag)
Table 4.6 S u m m a r y of plug-phase conveying parameters for crushed bath

(Test Rig F3, L = 160 m & D = 105 m m ) .
Transient plots of the major conveying parameters for Exp. Nos. 108-12 (orifice-air
only) and 108-16 (orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air) are presented in Figures
4.13 and 4.14, respectively. The following observations are based on the above
results.
(a) The selection of only orifice-air caused the formation of a stable plug
during the conveying cycle. Although this produced severe pipe
vibrations, very high pressures (e.g. 500 to 600 kPag) and would tend to
suggest imminent blockages, Exp. Nos. 108-10 to -13 demonstrated
good repeatability. However, such results are not considered practical
and certainly would create serious hardware problems (i.e. for an actual
installation).
(b) Orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air prevented the formation of the stable
plug described in (a), and provided a surprising improvement in
conveying performance (although the values of average m s were 25 %
lower than those determined from Exp. Nos. 108-10 to -13). T h e
discharge of material from the end of the pipeline was very gentle (due to
the duning m o d e of flow) and operating pressures did not exceed 100
kPag.
4.3.4 Summary
The results presented for the previous case studies involving screened and
unscreened granulated aluminate, bone char and crushed bath, demonstrate that
the plug-phase mode of conveying is able to handle efficiently a large
range of conventionally difficult materials that otherwise could be
considered only for dilute-phase transport (i.e. low-velocity or by-pass
technology may not be possible),
orifice-air only tends to form a stable plug of material in the pipeline,
usually resulting in higher operating pressures and levels of degradation,
500.
I I i | i i
| -1
i i
CH. NOS
5
- 28__
400.
a.
300.
100.
'~ I- *- ' ' L_i i i i_J I i L_L
10.
20.
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
CTCLE TIME (SECS)
200.
"T-1I
| I
I I I |I
I II
| I I I
I |I
I I I
| I I
I |
I I
I I
CH. NOS
o
a
100.
IX.
3L
01
8.
10.
I i i i I t t ' i I i i ' ' L_i I I i I i_

20- ' 3040.
50.
60-
70.
CYCLE TIHE (SECS)
+1 i iii [ i i i i [i i ii | i n i | n
i i |-"i i i ip
u
UJ
in
cr
cc
3
O
in
n
cr
z
cc
a
B.
I t i i i I i I r i I i i T i-l i i
10.
20.
3840.
58.
60.
70.
CYCLE TIHE (SECS)
Figure 4.13 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for crushed bath
(Exp. No. 108-12, orifice-air only, Test Rig F3).
80.
* ' ' i ' i ' | ''
' ' | i i
i | i
30.
40>
ii
i | i
ii
i |i
i i i | i i 1 1 |
i i i i | i i i i
CH. NOS
S A
28_.
I i i_T
0.
10.
20.
50.
I - L J .I I I
60.
I I I I
70.
I I I I
60.
90. 100.
CYCLE TIME (SECS)
200.
i i i i I i i i 'i |I i i i i i| i i i i I iI i i ir |I iI i iI i I| i iI i iI I| i iI i i |I i i i i 1 i i i i
CH. N O S
1
100.
l i i - f l i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i t i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i
-J. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 60. 30. IBB
CYCLE TIME (SECS)
4 i i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i
u
UJ
in
u
XL
a
cc
x
a
in
in
a
x
CC
cc
0
l.i i i I
0.
10.
i i i i i i t t
20.
30.
l , ._ l . ^ i
i i i
40.
50.
60.
70.
i I-
<
60.
90. 120.
CYCLE TIME (SECS)
Figure 4.14 Transient plots of major conveying parameters for crushed bath
(Exp. No. 108-16, orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air, Test Rig F3).
orifice-, ring- and/or supplementary-air prevents the formation of such

plugs and produces a more gentle duning m o d e of flow (with lower levels
of product degradation),
this method of transport is relatively sensitive to changes in the physical
properties of a material (e.g. particle size), although this m a y be
compensated to s o m e extent by selecting a different method of air
injection (usually orifice-, ring- and supplementary-air),
generally, the method of blow tank air injection has a significant impact
on the overall performance of a plug-phase pneumatic conveying system
and should be given careful and sufficient consideration in the design,
selection and operation of such systems.
86
CHAPTER 5
87
5.
POWDER
CHARACTERISATION
5.1 Introduction
The characterisation of bulk solids is becoming an increasingly impor

requirement to
assess the suitability of conveying a material in the dense-phase mode

establish a more efficient (economic) means of transportation,
determine the feasibility of long-distance pneumatic conveying (viz. > 800
m) for a particular material, and
generally, select the most suitable mode of transport (e.g. dilute-, dense-,
pulse-, plug-phase or low-velocity conveying).
To obtain an appreciation of the parameters which are relevant, the ph
properties, fluidisation performance and pneumatic pipeline conveying
characteristics were obtained for the seven fly ash samples listed in Table 3.2, as
well as the Tallawarra pulverised coal sample that was considered previously in
Section 3.1. As introduced in Section 3.3.1, the results obtained from this section of
work are intended to provide a data base, from which the relative assessment of a
given fly ash could be undertaken with only a small amount of sample (e.g. < 3 kg).
Also, results from recent investigations into predicting the performan
coarser products (e.g. PVC powder, screened coke, coarse ash) are presented
and/or referenced to provide additional information and comparisons for the
development of a general procedure to classify bulk solids (i.e. to meet the above
design requirements).
5.2 Physical Properties
The following bench-type experiments were conducted on the pulverised
each fly ash sample.
(a) Particle size analysis.
(b) Solids or particle density measurement (viz. ps) using a Beckman Model
930 air-comparison pycnometer.
(c) Loose-poured bulk density, pbi-
The above analyses also were carried out on PVC powder [14,16], screen
[14,16] and coarse ash [27]. However, it should be noted that three different devices
were employed for the measurement of particle size (viz. a Coulter Counter Model
ZM for the pulverised coal and fly ash samples, sieving tests for PVC powder and
screened coke and a Malvern Model 2600C laser diffraction analyser for the coarse
ash). Before analysing and presenting the results obtained from this section of work,
it is necessary to become familiar with the various definitions of particle size.
5.2.1 Definitions of Particle Size
For several decades, it has been accepted that the size and density of
have a significant influence on the behaviour of a fluidised bed [28] and the
performance of a pneumatic conveying system. Particle size distribution also has
been recognised as an influential factor [29,30].
88
Possibly, the most difficult aspect of determining particle size is selecting initially the
correct or relevant definition and then calculating a mean diameter to represent the
complete bulk solid. To some extent, this will depend on
the measuring apparatus and its principle of operation,
the final application or requirements (e.g. prediction of free settling
velocity Voo, minimum fluidisation velocity V m f or pipeline air pressure
drop Apt), and
the basis of definition used in a theoretical or empirical relationship (e q
sieve or volume measurement).
In some cases (especially for very fine powders), researchers have looked at oth
properties to explain/classify product behaviour. For example, Geldart et al [251
have found that the ratio of tapped to aerated bulk density provides a good
indication of the likely fluidisation characteristics of fine and cohesive powders
However, in this thesis, it was decided to pursue particle size measurement and
evaluate its importance (as well as density) for powder characterisation.
As a result of using three different devices to analyse particle size distribut
following different definitions and related properties [31,32] were required to
calculate the mean particle diameter.
Arithmetic mean of adjacent sieve sizes.
dpm
Mean particle size from a standard sieve analysis,

Z(AM)
(5.1)
where AM is the mass percent of product between adjacent sieves.
Weighted mean diameter [32] based on a sieve analysis,
-pwm
(AM dp)
E(AM)
Diameter of a sphere with the same surface area to volume ratio as

the particle.
sv
svm
(5.2)
Mean surface volume diameter,

2 (AM)
(5.3)
Diameter of a sphere with the same volume as the particle.

d
vm
Mean (equivalent) volume diameter,

SCAM)
(5.4)
89
d
vwm = Volume weighted mean diameter [32],

X (AM dv)
Z(AM)
d5o = Median particle diameter [32].
(5.5)
dV50 - <%() fr a volume diameter distribution.

p50 = ^50 for a sieve size distribution.
\\r = Particle sphericity [31],
dSv
dv
(5.6)
Although the Coulter Counter Model ZM has been found to have certain
disadvantages [33], it still does make use of a convenient principle [32], where
within a given size range, particles are counted according to their displaced volume
(viz. d v ). The resulting number count distribution then is transformed to a weight %
frequency or cumulative distribution. This measurement technique was applied to
the pulverised coal and fiy ash samples, and after obtaining the resulting particle
size distributions, Equations (5.4) and (5.5) then were used to calculate d V m and
dvwm 0-e- based on the various measured values of A M and d v ).
For PVC powder and screened coke, Equations (5.1) and (5.2) were applied to the
sieving results (viz. A M and d p ) to calculate the mean and weighted mean
diameters d p m and d p w m .
Assuming that the measured particle diameters for the coarse fly ash (i.e.using
Malvern analyser) were dv, allowed d V m and d V w m to be determined from
Equations (5.4) and (5.5).
Table 5.1 summarises the mean and weighted mean diameters obtained from the
above section of work, as well as the various median particle diameters which were
read directly from the actual size distributions. Note that the actual values of A M and
d v (or d p ), which were obtained from the cumulative size distribution of each
material, are summarised in tabular form in Appendix A. Using the following results
of Geldart and Abrahamsen [31] and the assumed values of sphericity, the surface
volume diameter d S vm was calculated for each material, and values of dV50 and d V m
also were estimated for the P V C powder and screened coke.
1.1 <-7^-< 1.2, Average ~ 1.127.
dp
dp
For pulv. coal, \|/ 0.7 (angular, tetrahedron),
fly ash,
y 0.9 (spheroids),
P V C powder, y 0.85 {rough spheroids),
screen, coke, Y 0.80 {coarse spheroids),
coarse fly ash, \\r 0.85 (spheroids and some unburnt coal particles).
90
NO.
Product
Ps
Pbl
dv50 ^vwm
(kg nr 3 ) (kg nv 3 ) (u.m) (u.m)
dvm
Cp50 dpwm dpm dsvm
(Jim) (lim) (nm) (nm) (nm)
Tallawarra
Pulv. Fuel
1600
760
30.0
37.4
14.1
9.9
Tallawarra
Fly Ash
2350
500
19.6
27.1
12.0
10.8
Eraring
Fly Ash
2160
880
27.4
49.4
14.0
Munmorah
Fly Ash
2100
650
25.4
38.1
13.1
Vales Point
Fly Ash
2130
700
18.8
28.7
14.1
Gladstone
Fly Ash
2250
1030
17.6
27.6
10.1
9.1
Wallerawang
Fly Ash
2195
455
11.5
17.5
8.0
7.2
Liddell
Fly Ash
2415
640
13.3
29.3
8.6
7.7
PVC Powder
1400
575
152.1
10
Screened
Coke
1940
985
529.7
11
Coarse
Fly Ash
1860
787
99.0
Table 5.1
122.8
12.6
11.8
12.7
148.8
135.0 150.0
378.7
470.0 538.7 336.0 302.9
59.1
132.0 126.4
50.2
List of samples and physical properties.
5.3 Fluidisation Analysis

5.3.1 Experimental Apparatus
The fluidisation test facility, which was employed during the initial investigat
pulverised coal and fly ash, comprised the following major components.
A 102 mm internal diameter pyrex vertical column (750 mm long) with an
attached graduation scale for bed height measurement (viz. hb).
A 6 m m thick x 35 u.m Porex permeable plastic gas distributor covered
with an epitropic Goretex filter fabric to prevent particulate penetration
of the plastic and also allow the discharge of excessive electrostatic
charge.
91
A plenum chamber base with a retaining ring assembly to house the 6
m m thick Porex gas distributor.
A Goretex filter fabric covering the top of the vertical column to prevent
atmospheric contamination and any loss of product.
T w o Rosemount Model 1151 D P differential pressure transmitters (0 to
152 m m H 2 O and 0 to 762 m m H 2 O ) for direct measurement of the air
pressure drop across the material via Goretex protected pressure
tappings (of which the design is similar to that used on the pneumatic
conveying test rig, as shown in Figure 2.4).
Four in-line rotameters connected to the air supply line to monitor the
amount of air passing through the bed of material.
A schematic layout of the fluidisation test rig is presented in Figure 5.1.
5.3.2 Results
With approximately 2.5 to 3.0 kg of product and using the air flow reduction
technique [34], the following parameters were recorded for Sample Nos. 1 to 8.
Height of material above the Porex gas distributor, hb (cm).
Air pressure drop across the bed of material, Apb ( m m H2O).
Volumetric flow rate of fluid (air) passing through the rotameter(s), Q f
(cm 3 s-1).
Operating conditions of the rotameter(s) (i.e. air pressure and
temperature).
Atmospheric conditions (i.e. air pressure, temperature and relative
humidity).
For each value of Qf, the corresponding value of mf was calculated using the
operating conditions of the rotameter in question. Assuming the pressure drop
across the final Goretex filter fabric to be negligible, the superficial velocity of air,
Vf, leaving the bed of material also w a s determined. The variation of the average
air pressure gradient, Apb I v 1 ( m m H 2 0 cm" 1 ), with respect to Vf was plotted for
each coal and fly ash sample and the resulting fluidisation curves have been
reproduced and superimposed onto the one plot shown in Figure 5.2. The following
general observations also were noted during the experimental program.
Samples 1, 3 and 4 fluidised well and retained aeration for a
considerable length of time (i.e. after the air supply valve was turned off).
Fluidisation w a s accompanied by extensive bed expansion. Bubbling
occurred at air flows greater than that required for fluidisation.
For Samples 2, 5, 6 and 7, bad channelling (or rat-holing) occurred
throughout the range of air flow rates considered. This produced large
regions of dead material (preventing uniform and complete fluidisation of
the sample).
Although s o m e channelling and poor mixing w a s observed for Sample 8,
the material still displayed a semi-fluidised condition with s o m e bed
expansion (e.g. refer to the fluidisation curve shown in Figure 5.2).
Using the above procedure, measurements also were taken for PVC powder and
screened coke and the resulting fluidisation curves are presented in Figure 5.3.
92
i- O -
oo
77. fO
CO
cu
SCD
-a
scu
>{XJ-
CU
+J
cu
a:
cn
+->
ro
t/J
O
S-
S-
o>
\
sN
>
cn
E
v-
CU
5-
T-
o:
ro
4->
cu
'
.1
a.
..
' V
cu o
E cn
CJ
cu cu
+J I
X
cu
a>
vN
i-
l-txjT-txj-
(O c
+J o
>txH
o o
oc
o
a:
/.
;
1 t
f 1
03
+
*
CO
CD
J
S3
i/>
00
S-
k:
i
1s
$CU
+->
cu
+-'
c
o
to
co
|g
|g
a>
13
o
_ca
o
ca
t/1
cu
. CU
13
. CU
D_ U.
(/)
c
ro
s-
CL
"^
ii Q .
X
CU CU
o. cn EE n CU
O c OJ
CU
s- ro
CU i
o
+>
I 00
cu
x:
o
W
3
D)
93
6.0
4.0
Ap b /h b
(mmHgOcrrf1)
2.0
Sample No.
(Table 5.1)
0
2.0
4.0
(cm s"1)
Figure 5.2 Comparison of fluidisation curves for pulverised

coal (Sample 1) and fly ash (Samples 2 to 8).
6.0
94
10
Screened /
Coke /
/
/
6
A
/
/
?b V1
/
-1
(mm H-0 cm )
4
PVC Powder
/
/
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Vf Ccm s"1)
Figure 5.3 Fluidisation curves of P V C powder (Sample 9)

and screened coke (Sample 10).
95
Note that insufficient material prevented a fluidisation analysis being performed on
the coarse ash (Sample 11). Additional observations, which were m a d e during
each experiment on P V C powder and screened coke, are summarised below.
PVC powder (Sample 9) displayed good fluidisation characteristics but
deaerated quickly when the air supply to the plenum chamber w a s turned
off. Bubbling occurred at approximately the s a m e air flows which were
required for fluidisation and was accompanied by only a small amount of
bed expansion.
For the range of air flow rates considered (viz. 0 < Vf < 8 cm s'1), the
screened coke (Sample 10) did not display a fully fluidised condition.
However, at the higher air flows (e.g. Vf > 5 c m s-1), a top section of the
bed w a s seen to bubble strongly and hence, exhibit s o m e form of
fluidisation. This depth of active material decreased as the air flow was
reduced, and for Vf < 2.0 c m s-1, almost all the activity had disappeared.
O n closer inspection of the test chamber (i.e. after the experiment), the
bed of material w a s seen to be m a d e up of stratified layers, each having
a different particle size range (viz. coarse at the bottom and fine powder
at the top).Jn fact, the lower section of material resembled a granular bed.
This is believed to be caused by the relatively wide size distribution of the
product (e.g. 60 (im < d p < 1500 urn) and the gradual segregation/settling
of particles as the air flow w a s reduced during the experiment. The
screened coke also deaerated very quickly w h e n the air supply to the
fluidisationrigw a s turned off.
5.4 Pipeline Conveying Characteristics
The conveying characteristics for each fly sample have been presented previously
in Section 3.3.3 (viz. Figures 3.10 to 3.16). The test rig that w a s employed for this
work has been described in Section 3.3.2. For ease of comparison, the m s contour
lines of 1, 2 and 3 kg S"1 have been reproduced in Figure 5.4.
5.5 Powder Classification Techniques
The Geldart [24] fluidisation and Dixon [23] slugging classifications have been
found useful in explaining
some of the feeding problems that can occur in blow tanks [35] (e.g. refer
to Section 4.2.1), and
the differences that can occur in flow performance and minimum transport
behaviour [16] (e.g. refer to Section 3.4.3).
Similar findings have been obtained from the current work on pulverised coal and
fly ash, and are discussed further in the following sections. Modifications to the
Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram have been proposed by Molerus [36] and Zenz
[37], but will not be considered here as they require s o m e knowledge or
measurement of particle adhesion forces and bulk surface tension, respectively.
That is, detailed investigations into evaluating and/or developing such fluidisation
diagrams were considered beyond the present scope of work and the overall
objectives of this thesis. A more recent classification technique that makes use of
two different bench-type experiments (viz. permeability and deaeration) has been
(a) m s = 3.0 kgs"1

180
Ap t
(kPa)
160
Fly Ash
Sample No. "
(Table 5.1)
140
.02
.04
.06
m f (kgs-1)
(b) iru = 2.0 kgs -1
140
Ap t
(kPa)
120
100
.02
.04
.06
mf (kgs-1)
(c) m s = 1.0 kgs -1
100
Ap t
(kPa)
80
60
.02
.04
.06
m f (kgs-1)
Figure 5.4 Comparison of pipeline conveying characteristics for fly ash
(Samples 2 to 8, Test Rig B1).
97
presented recently by Mainwaring and Reed [38]. A s deaeration experiments were
not carried out for these investigations and as most of the fly ash samples were not
able to be fluidised readily (i.e. for the range of air flow rates considered) this
technique also will not be considered in detail for the present study. However,
where relevant s o m e comments and references will be m a d e to the results [38].
Fluidisation
5.5.1
Using fluidisation data obtained from several researchers, Geldart [24]
characterised powders into four groups (viz. A, B, C and D) according to their
fluidisation behaviour and developed a classification diagram, as shown in Figure
5.5. The reader is directed to the Geldart [24] paper for detailed descriptions of the
various groups (including a numerical technique to distinguish between each one),
and the Geldart et al. [25] paper for recent investigations into the fluidisation of
cohesive powders. Note that the m e a n diameter used by Geldart [24] is actually a
surface volume m e a n diameter, based on Equation (5.3). Hence, using the values
ofdsvm listed in Table 5.1, it w a s found that according to the Geldart classification
diagram [24]
Samples 1 to 8 are Group C powders (i.e. difficult to fluidise due to
cohesive properties or large interparticle forces),
Samples 9 and 11 are Group A powders (i.e. easy to fluidise, retain
aeration, bubbling occurs s o m e time after fluidisation and considerable
bed expansion),
Sample 10 is a Group B material (i.e. easy to fluidise, deaerate quickly,
bubbling occurs at or just after fluidisation, small bed expansion).
10'
cn
<+Q.
I
Q.
CU
U
10;
c
cu
S<D
M<41
C/l
C
cu
o
10<
10:
io 2
Mean Particle Diameter
io3
10l
(nm)
Figure 5.5 The Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram.
98
However, based on the actual results presented in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 as well as
the observations listed in Section 5.3.2, it w a s found that
Samples 1, 3 and 4 exhibited typical Group A behaviour,
Samples 2, 5, 6 and 7 displayed poor fluidisation performance similar to
that described by Geldart [24] for Group C powders (e.g. poor particle
mixing due to cohesive properties, channelling),
Sample 8 did display a semi-fluidised condition, but this w a s
accompanied by poor mixing and channelling (similar to Group C
materials),
Samples 9 and 10 produced characteristics similar to that described for
Group B, although the test rig w a s found to have insufficient capacity to
fluidise completely the relatively coarse and heavy particles of screened
coke (Sample 10).
On closer inspection of the particle size definitions and equations presented in
Section 5.2.1 and the actual values of diameter listed in Table 5.1, it was found that
(a) the reciprocal form of definition (e.g. Equations (5.1), (5.3) and (5.4))
tends to over-emphasise the influence of the finer particles,
(b) the weighted or product type of definition (e.g. Equations (5.2) and (5.5))
tends to under-emphasise the influence of the finer particles (or overemphasise the coarse end of the size distribution),
(c) the relatively wide particle size distributions of pulverised coal and fly ash
(e.g. 1 to 200 urn) seem to be the major contributing factor to the effects
described in (a) and (b) (e.g. refer to the actual size range of products
considered by Geldart [24]),
(d) the large differences described in (a) and (b) are not so apparent for PVC
powder, which has a fairly narrow size distribution,
(e) for the materials considered in these investigations (especially Samples
1 to 8 and even Sample 9), the median particle diameter d V 50 seems to
provide a better indication of fluidisation performance (i.e. as described
by Geldart [24]).
To demonstrate this further, the locations of Samples 1 to 11 have been included
on the fluidisation diagram [24], which is repeated in Figure 5.6. Note as a result of
(e) above, the d v so size w a s taken to represent the average or m e a n particle
diameter of each material. According to this classification: Samples 1, 3 and 4 are
Group A powders (i.e. easily fiuidised and retain aeration); Samples 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8
are Group C powders (i.e. cohesive, difficult to fluidise, channel or rat-hole, poor
mixing); Sample 10 belongs to Group B (deaerates quickly); Samples 9 and 11 are
Group A but lie very close to the A B boundary (this indicates that such border-line
materials m a y exhibit characteristics from either one of the adjoining categories).
Generally, these classifications confirm the experimental observations reported in
Section 5.3.2 and explain the large differences that occurred in the fluidisation
performance of Samples 1 to 10.
99
10'
cn
Q.
1
(/)
Q.
CU
U
10:
c
cu
S-
cu
<+-
in
c
cu
10'
IO1
10<
10;
Mean Particle Diameter , d m (nm)
10'
Figure 5.6 The Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram showing the

location of Samples 1 to 11.
Therefore, based on the results of this investigation, the Geldart [24] classification
diagram does s e e m to provide a reliable technique for predicting fluidisation
behaviour (i.e. using d v so instead of d S vm. especially for products having a wide
particle size distribution). However, it should be noted that when Geldart proposed
his classification diagram [24], he suggested a shaded boundary region between
Groups A and C. This indicates that s o m e degree of overlap m a y exist between the
two categories (i.e. s o m e typical Group C powders could display Group A
performance, or vice-versa). For example, refer to the results obtained from Sample
8 (which is classified Geldart [24] Group C but almost displayed Group A
performance). Similar results were obtained recently from a classified Group C fly
ash (i.e. d V 5o = 14 urn and p s = 2155 kg nr 3 ), which w a s tested for the Electricity
Commission of N.S.W. and displayed good fluidisation characteristics (e.g. similar
to Samples 3 and 4).
However, for the following reasons, it is believed that ultimately the actual
product(s) should be tested in a large-scale fluidisation test rig (e.g. similar to the
one shown in Figure 5.1), so that actual characteristics and performance m a y be
established.
100
Perhaps the greatest difficulty in predicting fluidisation performance (viz.

via the Geldart [24] classification) is deciding on a particular diameter to
represent the complete material (especially if the product possesses a
wide particle size distribution). This is supported to s o m e extent by the
new bulk density approach proposed by Geldart et al. [25].
There is s o m e doubt over the location of the boundary separating Groups
A and C. A particle size versus density relationship (i.e. as proposed by
Geldart [24]) m a y not be sufficient to define these regions (e.g. refer to
[25]).
Products lying close to a particular boundary m a y exhibit fluidisation
behaviour from either one of the adjacent categories (e.g. a product
which is in close proximity of the A B boundary m a y exhibit characteristics
from either Group A or B). It is difficult to estimate the error associated
with each boundary (e.g. between Groups A and B or B and D).
Appreciating the possible problems and inadequacies of the Geldart [24]
classification diagram, this technique still provides a good initial indication of what
to expect w h e n a given product is fluidised or mixed with air. Even though
fluidisation m a y be confirmed by experiment and used subsequently in the design
of feeders (e.g. to establish possible rat-holing problems inside a blow tank, as
demonstrated in Section 4.2.1), the application of such information to predicting
pneumatic conveying performance is a different matter and in fact, has been found
recently [14,22] to be inadequate. This is discussed further in the following section.
5.5.2 Slugging
In an attempt to describe the natural behaviour of different solids in dense-phase
Dixon [39] developed theoretical slugging diagrams for different pipe diameter
systems on the basis of the Geldart [15] fluidisation classification diagram (i.e.
Groups A, B, C and D). Although Dixon's diagrams were based on slugging criteria
[40] for vertical transport, he indicated that they also generally support the observed
behaviour of materials in horizontal pipes. However, Dixon [23] stated that there is
some doubt over the location of the boundary between Groups A and C, and he
subsequently reproduced this Geldart boundary directly onto the slugging
diagrams. Refer to Figures 5.7 and 5.8 for examples of slugging diagrams for 50
and 100 m m N B pipe diameter systems. For detailed descriptions of the various
slugging classifications and the mathematical formulae to distinguish between each
classification group, the reader is referred to the Dixon papers [23] and [39].
5.5.2.1 Slugging Diagram Modifications
After attempting to reproduce the slugging diagrams on the University's mainframe
computer (using Fortran 77 and the Plot Package), the terminal velocity equations
which were used by Dixon [39] to generate the Group A B boundary were found to
be limited to a m a x i m u m particle Reynolds number of 1000. Alternative empirical
expressions were investigated and the standard drag curve correlations
recommended by Clift et al. [41] were incorporated finally. Examples of the
modified slugging diagram, which were obtained from the mainframe computer for
50, 80, 100, 150 and 200 m m N B Schedule 40 pipe diameter systems, are
presented in Appendix B. Note that the Group A-C boundary has been shown as a
dashed line on each diagram due to the uncertainty over its precise location, as
indicated by both Geldart [24] and Dixon [23].
101
u
cn
Q.
I
to
Q.
CU
6.0
D
STRONG
AXISYMMETRIC
SLUGS
2.0
1.0
o
e
cu
%cu
+4r
C/l
CD
O
(nm)
Figure 5.7 The Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 50 m m pipe diameter system.
cn
1
E
o
cn
<+Q.
1
cu
o
c:
cu
scu
a
G.O
2.0
a.
1.0
VN"fjs.'.
'I
C
VN
Vv
Vv
\\\
\ NN
NO
SLUGGING
\ \ \
\ \ V
\ \ \X
\ s
WEAK
ASYMMETRIC
SLUGS
(OUNESI
\\ \
\\
\
\ \ \
\\
\
\\\
\ \ \
\V
0.6
D
STRONG
AXISYMMETRIC
SLUGS
\\
\\ \
\ \\
\ \
\
\W
\
\ t
0.2
to
c
cu
\ \\
\ N^
1 \ \ M
100
(nm)
Figure 5.8 The Dixon [23] slugging diagram for a 100 m m pipe diameter system.
102
5.5.2.2
Results
The classification of each sample listed in Table 5.1 has been represented on th
modified slugging diagram as shown in Figure 5.9. Note that a 50 m m N B Schedule
40 pipe diameter system w a s selected to represent the test rig employed in these
investigations (viz. Test Rig B1) and dvso w a s used to represent the mean particle
diameter (as w a s found necessary in Section 5.5.1). The following classifications
are based on Figure 5.9 and the suggestions of dense-phase suitability are
obtained from Dixon [23,39] (i.e. based on the concept of a moving fluidised bed).
Samples 1, 3 and 4 are Group A (good candidates for dense-phase
conveying; high values of m*).
Samples 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are Group C (usually considered to be too
cohesive for the dense-phase m o d e and hence are poor candidates; but
may demonstrate good properties attributable to Group A powders).
Samples 9 and 11 are Group B (possible candidates for dense-phase but
at higher velocities where dune flow and asymetric slugging are
prevalent; could produce severe pipe vibrations if the dunes are allowed
to fill the pipe; generally, low values of m*). For high operating pressures
(e.g. > 4 atmospheres), Figure 5.9 suggests that Sample 11 becomes a
Group A material.
For low pressures, Sample 10 is Group D (can be conveyed in densephase over a wide velocity range; moderate values of m* less than those
obtained for Group A but greater than Group B materials). However, for
moderate to high operating pressures (e.g. > 2 atmospheres), this
material m a y behave like a Group B powder (i.e. due to a change in air
density).
The change in slugging characteristics of a given material due to increasing or
decreasing operating pressure (i.e. as suggested above for Samples 10 and 11), is
difficult to confirm. At this stage, it is suggested that such materials (i.e. those that lie
very close to or on a classification boundary) m a y exhibit slugging behaviour from
either one of the adjacent categories. Note in Section 5.5.1, a similar suggestion
was proposed for the Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram.
Intuitively, it would be expected that the pulverised coal and fly ash samples w
the good fluidisation characteristics (viz. Samples 1, 3 and 4) would yield similar
dense-phase pneumatic conveying results, with the performance of the Geldart [24]
or Dixon [23] Group C powders (viz. Samples 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8) being quite different.
In fact, Dixon [23] suggested that dense-phase conveying can be regarded as a
moving fluidised bed, and that the Group C powders are considered usually to be
too cohesive for this m o d e of transport. However, all the samples conveyed
reasonably well with the minor exception of the Group C powders (viz. Samples 2,
5, 6, 7 and 8), which produced generally higher pressure drops (refer to Figure 5.2)
and slightly greater irregular flow characteristics. A n example of the latter is shown
in Figure 5.10 (b), where the steady-state pipeline air pressure (at location G 1 , see
Figure 3.8) is seen to fluctuate in the range 110 to 120 kPag. It is interesting to note
that, although considerably higher pressures were obtained when the Group C
samples were conveyed in the dense-phase m o d e (compare the conveying
characteristics with the two-phase flow diagram [7]), such differences were reduced
significantly in the dilute-phase regime (typically, mf > 0.04 kg s*1).
103
m
ca
ca
+
ca
i i i ir
CU
E
eg ^j
* in
S.
"5.ca
ca
ca
E^
E.E
OT3
CO."
c
o
Eo
*>
<D
E
Q
CD
CO
+>
ca
ca
c_
o
&
^ CD
73
Q.
<?E
CO
sw
CM
= o
to' _
X
Q_
c
0
CD
/
/
/
o
O
CC
ii
III I I I
in
ca
ca
+
ca
!''
ca
ca
ca
(8_UJ 6^) d~sd
ca
ca
ca
* eoueje^j.jg fHjsuerj
104
llll|llll|llll|llll|l|||||||||iii|is
i
a
CB
CM
C
in
""5
V
CO
E9
CB
c
o ^
CD 5
52 if
CD ^
f SS
I1-.
Hiii11 it111II11111111111111111tTTT^lea
a
ea
CU
to in * (o w a
S
ea ca CB
ea
cn
CD d
^^
ea
ca
ea
-H
<4- I
Q. 0_
-id
c o
>,Z
& ~
> Q-
cn
I 11 I I | I I i i | 11 I i | 11
eai i
"-co
TT 11 j 11 1111111111 111 I I M j e a
co
c x
OLU
O '
- CD
-O CD
go.
E
E
W
ea
ta
CO x_
o o
Q. co
+- CD
OJ
to
c -^
C 3
CO D)
ea
ea
%
io* "~
CD
i-
CS
a
co
M I I I I M I 1 II I I 1 I I I I I I I II
l l l l l l l i t l i i i i l n t . l n , .108
a
a
^-sCM
<-H cn
< <o
Q. Q.
J*
a
a
a
a
in
a
a
co
w cn
a
a
CM
a
a
105
Generally, the pulverised coal and fly ash samples investigated in this project were
all found to be good dense-phase materials displaying a wide rangeability of
conveying parameters (e.g. a max. m* 500 w a s achieved for the coal sample over
a distance of 25 m, and a value of 150 was obtained easily for the fly ash samples
over a distance of 71 m ) . Hence, even though slightly higher pressure drops were
obtained with the Group C materials, the precautions expressed by Dixon [23] in
relation to this category, seem exaggerated. However, it is known from experience
that difficulties still m a y occur for other products that belong to this category
(especially those that are fine, heavy and cohesive). For example, manganese
oxide (dV50 < 10 u.m, p s 5000 kg nr 3 , pbi 1030 kg nr 3 ), which w a s tested
recently for industry, not only displayed extensive feeding problems similar to that
shown in Figure 4.4, but also required high transport velocities to prevent solids
deposition and subsequent blockage (i.e. dense-phase transport was not possible).
The PVC powder also would be expected to display good dense-phase
performance similar to Samples 1 to 8 (i.e. based on the good fluidisation results,
free flowing properties, the suggestion of Dixon [23] that dense-phase conveying
can be regarded as a moving fluidised bed and excellent air-gravity conveying
characteristics [26]). However, of all the materials tested in this investigation, the
P V C powder possibly displayed the worst conveying performance due to its
inability to be conveyed in the conventional dense-phase [7] or non-suspension
mode (as provided by Test Rig B1). That is, as presented previously in Section 3.4.3
(e.g. refer to Figures 3.24 and 3.25), the P V C powder exhibited unstable plugging
or blockage conditions in the vicinity of saltation or minimum pressure [7] (i.e. prior
to entering the dense-phase regime). Hence, this material w a s able to be
transported only in the dilute-phase mode, which resulted in fairly low values of
mass flow ratio (e.g. max. m* ~ 20 kg kg -1 ). In contrast, for fly ash conveyed on the
same Test Rig B1, values of m* 150 kg kg-1 were obtained quite easily (e.g. refer
to Figures 3.10 to 3.16). Although the P V C powder lies very close to the Geldart [24]
Group A B boundary (suggesting possible behaviour from either category), these
results demonstrate the danger of predicting the suitability of dense-phase based
on only fluidisation characteristics. Similar limitations have been observed by
Lohrmann and Marcus [22] with three Geldart [24] Group A materials. In contrast,
the Group B suggestions of Dixon [23] not only confirm the observed minimum
transport behaviour (e.g. pipe vibrations, require high velocities), but also seem to
explain the flow behaviour (e.g. dunes grow to fill the pipe causing the high velocity
slugs of air to force their way through the material). This is supported further by the
results obtained on coarse ash (Sample 11), which w a s found to display similar
problems in dense-phase (e.g. strong plugging, blockages, pipe vibrations).
Unfortunately, fluidisation experiments on this material were not able to be carried
out (as mentioned previously in Section 5.3.2).
The screened coke also displayed similar plugging tendencies (although somewhat
stronger than the P V C powder), pipe vibrations and relatively low values of mass
flow ratio (e.g. max. m * 35, for Test Rig A1). Pipeline conveying characteristics
have been presented elsewhere [14,16,26] and are reproduced in Figure 5.11, for
ease of comparison. Also, transient plots of major conveying parameters have been
the
characteristics
presented
material.
screened
From
by Wypych
(i.e.
Figure
coke
refer
5.11,
and
did
to the
Arnold
itdisplay
can
two-phase
be
[16]
seen
sto
o mflow
demonstrate
ethatdense-phase
diagram
for the range
[7]
the shown
plugging
oforair in
non-suspension
flows
Figure
nature
considered,
3.3).
of this
106
80
, Blockage
Conditions
60
Apt
Blockage
Boundary
(kPa)
40
20
0.2^" (kgs -1 )
Air Only
.02
.03
.04
mf
Figure 5.11
.05
(kg s.-l")
Pipeline conveying characteristics of screened coke [14,16,26]

for L = 25 m & D = 52 m m (Test Rig A1).
107
This could be explained by the Group D behaviour suggested by Dixon [39] (e.g.
dense-phase is possible but at relatively low values of m*). However, the natural
formation of slugs described by Dixon [23] did not occur and in fact, the plugging
which w a s observed for this material w a s quite strong (e.g. in relation to the P V C
powder) and considered unreliable. Perhaps the relatively wide particle size
distribution (and hence, possible Group B behaviour) could explain this apparent
discrepancy. Also, the coarse shape of the coke particles m a y have contributed to
this effect. Note that Dixon [39] based most of his suggestions and observations on
plastic powders and granules (i.e. smoother particles and relatively narrow size
ranges). Nevertheless, the screened coke generally w a s found to be a better
dense-phase material than P V C powder (a typical Dixon [23] Group B material).
Another interesting comparison w a s m a d e recently w h e n both Samples 9 and 10
were conveyed on Test Rig F3 (viz. 0.113 m 3 plug-phase blow tank, L = 161 m &
D = 105 m m ) . Sample 9 (PVC powder) displayed both unreliable and unrepeatable
characteristics (e.g. the max. operating pressure varied between 150 and 560
kPag). However, in contrast, Sample 10 (screened coke) produced good, reliable
operating conditions. For example, maximum pbt ~ 250 kPag, maximum m f 0.085
kg s"1, average m* 48 kg kg-1 (based on 2.3 kg of air required to convey 110 kg of
product) and an average plug velocity of 3.1 m s_1. In fact, based on the success
of these results, an existing vacuum pneumatic conveying system, which was being
subjected to excessive rates of erosion, w a s replaced by a parallel plug-phase
conveying system [26]. Hence, of the two materials, the screened coke was found to
be better suited to the plug-phase m o d e of conveying. This m a y be explained by the
Dixon [39] suggestion that Group D products produce axisymmetric slugging (viz.
stable full diameter slugs) and Group B asymmetric slugging (viz. weak slugs and
duning). Also, it should be noted that these screened coke results indicate that
although Group D materials m a y not perform as suggested by Dixon [39], it is
possible that such materials still could be conveyed successfully and efficiently in
the plug-phase mode. Examples of materials that fit into this category include
crushed coal (based on several tests undertaken for industry), crushed bath (e.g.
refer to Section 4.3.3), sub 20 m m blue metal and diamond ore aggregate [42].
Otherwise, it is possible that such materials could be conveyed only in dilute-phase,
which would result in high energy consumption and excessive system erosion (e.g.
pipelines, bends). That is, these materials even m a y prove to be too coarse for
specialised pipeline techniques involving say, by-pass technology [2]. O n the other
hand, typical Group B materials like P V C powder and alumina (e.g. dvso ~ 80 urn,
ps = 4000 kg m" 3 ) m a y be well suited to such by-pass conveying systems or other
low-velocity techniques [2] (i.e. to avoid the high velocity gas slugs breaking or
forcing through the powder, as suggested by Dixon [23], and also prevent the
formation of long plugs of material and hence very high pressure drops and
possible blockage).
The apparent anomaly between poor dense-phase performance and good
fluidisation characteristics (as suggested by the P V C powder results) seems to be
explained by the property of deaeration. That is, although this material displayed
good fluidisation characteristics and is classified as Geldart [24] Group A, it was
found
well
considerable
supply
although
sample.
bubbling
(viz.
to
valve
Obed
andeaerate
Samples
proper
the
lengths
was
was
other
turned
fluidisation
seen
quickly.
of
1,
hand,
time
to
3off).
lose
and
the
(e.g.
For
test
A pulverised
its
similar
4),
10
example,
was
height
to
all30
not
property
were
inminutes).
coal
able
less
onfound
and
to
several
wthan
abe
sflyobserved
carried
to
one
ashoccasions
retain
second
samples,
outfor
their
due
(i.e.
the
the
which
toaeration
coarse
after
insufficient
expanded
fluidised
the
ash,
for
air
108
The empirical classification diagram proposed by Mainwaring and Reed [38] for
the purpose of classifying bulk solids, emphasises the importance of permeability
(obtained from a fluidisation test) a n d deaeration. Jones et al. [43] c a m e to a
similar conclusion and suggested further that the ratio of tapped to poured bulk
density provides a good indication of the air retentive properties of a given material.
Also, Geldart [25] proposed a similar ratio to distinguish between Group A and
Group C powders. Hence, there s e e m s to be sufficient evidence to suggest that
powder classification (viz. to select ultimately the most suitable m o d e of conveying
for a given product and its behavioural properties) depends on the following
properties.
(a) Particle size and density.
(b) Particle size distribution.
(c) Particle shape or sphericity (as indicated by the definitions of diameter).
(d) Deaeration and permeability.
(e) The ratio of tapped to poured (or perhaps fluidised) bulk density.
Also, it seems that most of these properties are interdependent. For example,
deaeration and permeability [38] (and perhaps the bulk density ratio [43]) seem to
provide an adequate mechanism to detect changes in material performance due to
different (a), (b) and/or (c). However, possibly the greatest disadvantage or
limitation of the classification techniques proposed by Mainwaring and Reed [38]
and Jones et al. [43], is the need to standardise the experimental apparatus and/or
techniques. For example, the measured values of deaeration rate [38] depend on
the size of the plenum chamber and to s o m e extent the type of gas distributor. Also,
different devices and techniques are available to determine vibrated or tapped
bulk density. Standardisation is necessary so that the results will be applicable on
an international level and can be used/compared by other researchers.
In conclusion, as long as one is aware of the limitations of the Dixon [23,39]
slugging diagram (similar to those found for the Geldart [24] fluidisation diagram),
this technique still is able to provide a good initial indication of what to expect when
a given material is conveyed in the dense-phase mode. In fact, it is believed that
possibly the one main factor that will upset the suggestions of Dixon [23,39], is
particle size distribution. This has been supported by results and experience (e.g.
refer to the screened coke, crushed coal and crushed bath considered previously in
this section) and the dilute-phase results observed by Mainwaring and Reed [38]
for slate dust and pulverised fuel ash grits. Eventually, a standardised technique
(similar to [38] and [43]) based on easily measured and relevant properties (i.e.
instead of particle size, shape and distribution) is required for an accurate
classification of bulk solids. Also, such techniques should be modified or extended
to consider all possible m o d e s of conveying (e.g. dilute-, dense-, plug-phase, lowvelocity, by-pass conveying, and so on). However, it is believed that for many years
to come, the final decision in relation to a given material, specification and method
of transport will rely on conclusive and comprehensive experimentation (i.e. using a
large-scale testrig),as well as accurate predictions of operating conditions.
109
CHAPTER 6
110
6.
SCALE-UP
CONVEYING
CHARACTERISTICS
6.1 Introduction
The following four main areas of investigation usually require a knowle

pneumatic conveying characteristics for a given material and pipeline configuration.
General System Design
When it is necessary to design or evaluate a proposed pneumatic conveyin

system, it is recommended strongly that the designer obtain as much information on
the material as possible. With a knowledge of the product's conveying
characteristics for various configurations of pipeline, it is quite a simple task to
determine the blower or compressor rating (including operating pressure), the
optimal pipe diameter and any other components that are dependent upon the
operating conditions (e.g. filter size).
System Optimisation
Conveying characteristics also may be used to investigate operational p

that a particular plant may be experiencing. For example, a reduced solids
throughput simply may be the result of inefficient operating conditions. Also,
problems of product degradation and pipeline wear may be reduced easily by
determining an optimum value of mf for a given m s . In other words, product
conveying characteristics will determine whether an existing plant is operating at an
optimum condition. If not, they will indicate what modifications are necessary to
achieve the desired result.
Upgrading of an Existing Plant
In the event of an existing plant being upgraded to, say, a higher solid
it is necessary to determine whether the system and the material will be able to
cope with the increased pressure and/or air requirements (viz. whether the
combination of pipe size and compressor rating is sufficient). The pipeline
conveying characteristics for the material in question will provide useful information
for this purpose.
Feasibility Study
Before selecting pneumatic conveying as the method of transport for a p

application and material, the design engineer usually is required to undertake a
feasibility study. Not only will conveying characteristics fulfil this purpose, but also
they will indicate optimal operating conditions and disclose any unforeseen
operational problems due to the material (e.g. P V C powder, which was found to be
unreliable in dense-phase, as shown in Sections 3.4.3 and 5.5.2).
For reasons of confidence and reliability, the following procedure is re
to meet the requirements of the four applications mentioned above.
(a) Conduct a series of pneumatic conveying experiments on a
representative sample of the material in a test rig of appropriate
size.
111
(b) Determine the steady-state pipeline conveying characteristics [11]
(i.e. based on the test rig configuration).
(c) Scale up the test rig data to meet the requirements of a given
specification.
(d) Modify the recommended steady-state operating conditions to allow
for any relevant transients (e.g. blow tank filling, initial
pressurisation, pipeline purging) and the m o d e of operation (e.g.
single batch or tandem blow tanks).
As indicated in Chapter 3, there are two distinct advantages derived from obtaining
test rig pneumatic conveying characteristics of a given product.
1. The information is accurate and applicable directly to the test rig
employed.
2. By adopting the standardised-test procedure [21], minimum

transport boundaries and any unforeseen operational problems
also m a y be identified. In certain cases (e.g. P V C powder [21]), such
effects if not allowed for in the initial design calculations would be
detrimental to the operation of a plant.
The scaling-up of test rig data is considered to be the most important stage of the
design process, in that it provides the necessary link between laboratory-scale
apparatus and full-scale industrial installations. Hence, accuracy and reliability of
scale-up predictions are essential. This section of work investigates the macro or
systems approach to scale-up, where the conveying characteristics for the total
pipeline are scaled to an existing or proposed pipeline configuration and then
modified to allow for any differences in vertical lift, number and/or type of bends.
Investigations into an alternative technique, which is considered more as a micro
approach and designed to analyse a pipeline section by section (viz. using a solids
friction factor correlation), are presented in Section 8.3. Note that Chapter 8
presents a description of the various mathematical models (including the solids
friction factor correlations) which were reviewed and developed in thesis and also
includes results and worked examples, where relevant.
The scale-up procedures (i.e. scale-up of ms with respect to pipeline length and
diameter), which were used initially in this section of work, have been based on the
following criteria proposed by Mills et al. [15] and Mason et al. [28].
Length :
m
for a constant mf and A p s
s2 = rns1 -j
L
(6.1)
Diameter :
(D2f
m
s2
for a constant m f D
=
and A p s
(6.2)
msi TT
where subscript 1 refers to the test rig and 2 to the actual or proposed pipeline.
112
Note that A p s remains unchanged during scale-up (i.e. Ap s i = A p s 2 ) but the
corresponding value of Ap t 2 must be modified to allow for a change in the air-only
pipeline pressure drop, Ap f . The results presented by Mills et al. [15] seem to
indicate the following approximate relationships.
Length :
Apf2 =
APfi
for a constant mf
(6.3)
for a constant m f D-2
(6.4)
-1
Diameter :
Apf2 =
Combining Equations (6.1) to (6.4) together with their stated conditions, the
following generalised scale-up equations have been derived and presented
recently [33].
mt2
m
s2
(6.5)
=
=
(D9\2
sl I K^j
L
(6.6)
Ap t 1 - Ap f1 + Ap f 2
(6.7)
Apt2
where
A
Apf2 =
(6.8)
APfiTL
and
Ap f 1
'D^
xm,^
for m f 1 < m f m 1
(6.9)
Note that Equation (6.9) is an empirical expression relevant to the test rig used.
Equations (6.5) to (6.8), which will be referred to as the original scale-up equations,
have been used quite extensively in several initial investigations (e.g. feasibility
studies, troubleshooting, system uprating and general design). However, the
equations and their predictions frequently have been found to contain the following
inaccuracies and limitations.
(a) The values of ms2, as predicted by Equation (6.6) and when
compared with available experimental data, are found quite often to
be extremely conservative (i.e. too low) for a given value of mf2 and
Apt2.
(b) The values of Apf 2 , as predicted by Equation (6.8), are found
occasionally to be inaccurate.
113
(c) N o allowance during scale-up is m a d e for the relatively longer
lengths of vertical pipe that are used usually in industry.
(d) The current method [15] used to scale up minimum transport
boundaries [21] seems to be inadequate.
(e) The scale-up equations do not allow for different numbers and/or
types of bend (i.e. between the test rig and actual plant).
The present work examines the above five main limitations of scale-up and
presents results obtained from suggested areas of improvement (especially in
relation to (a), (b) and (c)). It does not seek to provide a complete and proven theory
on scale-up, rather it encourages other researchers to pursue similar lines of
investigation for their o w n purpose and verification, so that perhaps in the near
future a reliable and unified scale-up model m a y be available to engineers involved
in the selection and design of pneumatic conveying systems.
6.2 Scaling Relationships
The scale-up of experimental data inevitably is required for the design-of pneuma
conveying systems and should involve the consideration of several aspects which
could affect overall accuracy (e.g. vertical lift, number and type of bends, pipeline
length and diameter, air-only pressure drop).
However, the present study is concerned mainly with the investigation of scale-up
with respect to both length and diameter. Generally, previous results have indicated
that whenever the diameter effect is involved (i.e. D 2 > Di), the prediction of m s 2 via
Equation (6.6) is extremely conservative (i.e. m s for a given rrif2 and Apt 2 is found
frequently to be much lower than the actual value). Although conservatism may be a
desirable feature for design, it also m a y preclude for a particular application the
ultimate selection of pneumatic conveying as the most appropriate m e a n s of
transportation (especially w h e n long distances and/or large throughputs are
involved).
The first aspect considered is the origin of the scale-up criterion [15], where ms
for constant mf D* 2 and Ap s . This is examined by modifying two popular forms of
definition for Ap s . Note that Equations (6.5) and (6.7) are a direct result of the
conditions specified in Equations (6.1) and (6.2). Hence, modifications to Equation
(6.6) are sought to accommodate these conditions/requirements (i.e. generally, A p s
and mf D~2 are constant during scale-up with respect to both diameter and length).
6.2.1 Definitions for Aps
Two popular expressions for Aps are used in the literature. The first results from
analogy to the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor equation, where the pressure drop
due to solids m a y be expressed as
Aps
= * yjL (6.10)
s
2D
114
Using a simulated continuity equation
4m s
v
(6.11)
w Pb D 2
Equation (6.10) m a y be rewritten as

8 ^ L ms2
Aps
K2
pb D 5
(6.12)
In order to use Equation (6.12), an expression for pb is required. From the definition
for the volumetric concentration of solids (per unit time)
< = (1+^F)1
(6 13)
and assuming that this may be approximated by (pf ps-1 m*), Equation (6.14) is
obtained.
Pf ms
pb
<6-14)
^r
mf
The percentage error difference between values of cv calculated by Equation (6.1
and the approximation is less than 5 % for pfm* < 100. Hence, in most cases,
Equation (6.14) is considered as a reasonable approximation. The substitution of
Equation (6.14) into Equation (6.12), results in the following expression for Ap s .
8 X,. L mf 11%
APs =
-^|
TC
L-i
pf D b
(6.15)
Applying the scale-up condition Apsi = Aps2 and Equation (6.5) to Equation (6.15)
yields
ms2
m S1
*1 Pf2 L, (2 Y
(6.16)
^s2 Pf1 L 2
Another popular expression used for A p s is based on the following definition of

Barth [44].
Aps
A.sm*pfVf2L
2D
(6.17)
Applying the continuity equation
vf
4 mf
TC pf D
(6.18)
2
115
and the scale-up conditions for A p s and mf D~ 2 to Equation (6.17), results in
.3
mS2
2
>
hi
fi
i
fi
s1
(6.19)
^s2 Pf 1 L 2 V D 1 >
which is identical to Equation (6.16).

The ratio (pf2 pfr 1 ) will be affected by scale-up with respect to both length and
diameter. However, the friction factor ratio (Xsi X s2 - 1 ) depends primarily on the pipe
diameter D. By using appropriate values of Ap t 2 obtained from, say, Equation (6.7),
corresponding values of (pf2 pf-f1) m a y be determined for use in Equation (6.19).
However, a reliable expression for Xs is still required before any calculations and/or
future evaluations of m s 2 m a y be carried out. The following section presents results
obtained by comparing these equations with other published empirical expressions
for Ap s .
6.2.2 Empirical Relationships
Empirical expressions for Xs and/or Aps were sought in the literature, with the
intention of producing an expression for m s 2 of the general form
C
m s2
r\-<\
n
(6.20)
\^ZJ
so that direct comparisons with Equation (6.6) m a y be m a d e . A s Xs largely is

diameter dependent, length will be taken constant (i.e. L| = L 2 ) for the remainder of
this section. T h e first expression considered is obtained from W e b e r [45], where
-0.1
2.1(m*)-- 3 Fr- 2 Fr fi 0 - 5 [
(6.21)
where Fr = Vf (g D) - 0 - 5 and Frs = v, (g D)' 0 - 5 . Note the different form of definition for
Froude number (i.e. to the one used by W e b e r [45]).
Using the continuity Equation (6.18) and applying the scale-up condition of Apsl =
Aps2. results in the following relationship.
m
^s1
^s2
,0.3/
s2
msi I
\-2.0
li
1.45
(6.22)
VPf1>
After substituting Equation (6.22) into Equation (6.19), Equation (6.23) is obtained.
-1.429/p >2.214
ms2
- (SJ
(6.23)
vDiy
116
The second expression is based on the work of W e n and Simons [46], who
conducted a series of experiments on glass beads and various coal powders
(having particle diameters from 71 to 754 u.m) using 12.7, 19.05 and 25.4 m m
internal diameter pipelines. As each length of test section w a s fixed at 3.048 m, a
relationship in terms of diameter will be investigated. Conversion to SI units of the
empirical pressure gradient expression presented by W e n and Simons [46], yields
% - 41.846X10- pbv -(If , i^ (6.24)
where pb = bulk density or dispersed density of the material (kg nr3)
vs =
solids velocity (m s-1).
Assuming Apt Aps (due to the relatively high values of mass flow ratio obtai
W e n and Simons [46], i.e. m* = 80 to 750) and after substituting Equations (6.11)
and (6.14) into Equation (6.24) and letting L| = L 2 ) t h e following equation is
obtained.
ms2
.-0.55 , _
m s 1 Pf2^
,2.25
(6.25)
The final expression is determined by considering a slightly modified version of the

pressure drop equation presented by Ostrovskii et al. [47], where
Aps = km*VfLpfa5D--22 (6.26)
where k is a constant which depends exclusively on the properties of the mate

being conveyed. Applying the previous analyses to Equation (6.26), results in
ms2
ms1 |
| |
(8.27)
A comparison of Equations (6.23), (6.25) and (6.27) reveals fairly consistent

for the power index of D 2 D-r1 (i.e. TJ = 2.214, 2.25, 2.22) but relatively inconsistent
values for pf2 pfi"1 (i-- = -1-429, -0.55, 0.5). These values of TJ support the
experimental trends described previously in Section 6.1 and to s o m e extent
indicate the inadequacy of Equation (6.6), where the power index of D 2 Di'1 is 2.
However, they are still somewhat lower than the value of 3 suggested by Equation
(6.19). The following section presents results obtained from investigations into
determining accurate experimental data for the verification of scale-up with respect
to diameter, as well as pipeline length. Note that due to the inconsistent values of
the power index for pf2 pfi'1 and also as the present study is concerned mainly with
the length and diameter effect on scale-up, the index e will be taken as zero for the
remainder of these investigations.
117
6.3 Experimental
Investigations
Results obtained from three materials (fly ash/cement mix, screened coke and PVC
powder) are presented to investigate scale-up with respect to diameter only, length
only, and both length and diameter, respectively. Physical properties of the three
products are given in Table 6.1. Note that the fly ash/cement mix comprised 89 wt.%
fly ash and 11 wt.% cement. Also, note that the P V C powder and screened coke are
the same materials listed in Table 5.1 (viz. Samples 9 and 10).
Median Particle
Diameter
dso (nm)
Solids
Density
p s (kg nr3)
Loose-Poured
Bulk Density
Pbl (kg nr3)
19
20
2130
3100
700
950
Screened Coke
470
1940
985
PVC Powder
135
1400
575
Material
Fly Ash
Cement Mix
89 wt.% fly ash

11 wt.% cement
Table 6.1
6.3.1
Fly Ash/Cement Mix
Steady-state pipeline conveying characteristics of the fly ash/cement mix were

obtained from Test Rigs C1 and C 2 (refer to Section 2.3) and are reproduced in
Figures 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. Applying the original scale-up Equations (6.5)
and (6.6) to the data presented in Figure 6.1 (i.e. using L| = 162 m & Di = 0.060 m
and L 2 = 162 m & D 2 = 0.105 m ) results in the 'predicted' conveying characteristics
shown in Figure 6.3. Note to minimise errors due to the scaling up of Apfi,
experimental values of Apf 2 were taken from Figure 6.2 and then simply added to
Apsi ( = Ap s 2 ) to obtain Apt2-
It is evident from Figures 6.2 and 6.3 that Equation (6.6) significantly underp
the values of m s 2 . In fact, for given values of air flow (> 0.3 kg s-1) and Apt, it is found
that the values of m S 2 are underpredicted by 33 %, as indicated in Table 6.2.
It is interesting to note that the general shape of the ms curves, when predicte
the Test Rig C1 results (i.e. shown in Figure 6.1), tends to be retained during scaleup, although s o m e change is noticed due to the Apf effect. Hence, not only does this
tend to cast s o m e doubt over the validity of scaling up typical dense-phase results
to an essentially dilute-phase regime, but also s e e m s to suggest that there is a
significant change in flow characteristics. That is, for a given m s , the variation of Ap t
with respect to mf in the larger diameter system generally tends to be more linear
and indicative of dilute-phase transport.
118
400
300
(kPa)
200
100
Figure 6.1
PipeJine conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for

Li = 162 m & Di = 0.060 m (Test Rig C1).
300
200
Ap
ti
(kPa)
100
d:
.2
.3
A.ir Onl^
L
.5
mfl (kgs-1)
Figure 6.2
Pipeline conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for

Li = 162 m & Dt = 0.105 m (Test Rig C3).
119
300
200
Ap
t2
(kPa)
100
.1
.2
.3
mf2 (kgs-1)
Figure 6.3 Scale-up conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for

L-2 = 162 m & D2 = 0.105 m based Figure 6.1 and Equation (6.6).
Actual ms-|
(kg s"1)
10.0
15.0
20.0
m S 2 , Eqn. (6.6)
(kg s-1)
6.5
10.0
13.5
Error
(%)
-35.0
-33.3
-32.5
Table 6.2 Comparison of predicted and actual values of m s for

mf > 0.3 kg s-1 (i.e. based on Figures 6.2 and 6.3).
One possible reason for this m a y be due to the dispersion of particles (via velocity
fluctuation) being more frequent in the smaller diameter pipeline resulting in a more
efficient mixing of the two-phase flow. Hence, it is possible that the typical trends
displayed by Rizk [7] for dense-phase transport (i.e. m s lines having negative slope
on an mf and Apt plot) m a y be less pronounced for larger diameter pipelines (i.e.
where flow instabilities seem to be more dominant). A comparison of the transient
plots of s o m e of the major conveying parameters obtained from Test Rigs C1 and
C 3 indicate support for this hypothesis. However, it should be mentioned that the
main objective of this experimental program is to investigate the validity of the
scale-up Equation (6.6) and not to examine the effect of minimum transport
behaviour (i.e. further detailed studies still are required before any conclusive
findings m a y be presented). Hence, for the present work, comparisons of typically
120
dilute-phase trends only will be considered (e.g. refer to Table 6.2 where results for
air flows > 0.3 kg S"1 only were presented). By using a trial and error procedure, the
determination of a suitable value for the power index TT in the equation
m s2
m S1 D,
(6.28)
resulted in the selection of T\ = 2.8. Application of Equations (6.5) and (6.28) to the
test rig data presented in Figure 6.1, produces the scale-up conveying
characteristics shown in Figure 6.4. From this plot it can be seen that there is good
agreement with the experimental m s l curves shown in Figure 6.2.
300
200
Ap
t2
(kPa)
100
Air Only
0
.1
-t
.2
JL_
.3
.4
.5
mf2 (kgs-1)
Figure 6.4 Scale-up conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for

L 2 = 162 m & D 2 = 0.105 m based on Figure 6.1 and Equation (6.28) with T\ = 2.8.
6.3.2
Screened Coke
Steady-state conveying characteristics of the screened coke were presented

previously in Section 5.5.2.2 (viz. Figure 5.11, Test Rig A1, Li = 25 m and D n =
0.052 m ) . Four additional tests were carried out on Test Rig A 2 (viz. Li = 71 m and
Di = 0.052 m ) and the corresponding values of mf, Apt and m s are summarised
below in Table 6.3. These results are employed in this section to investigate the
accuracy of scale-up with respect to pipeline length.
121
ms
mf
(kg s"1)
Apt
(kPa)
(kg s-1)
0.0405
0.0400
0.0390
0.0385
15.0
42.0
53.0
62.0
0.12
0.29
0.33
0.39
Table 6.3 Summary of screened coke results for Test Rig A 2

(l_i = 71 m & Di = 0.052 m).
Applying the original scale-up Equations (6.5), (6.6) and (6.7) with Di = D 2 = 0.052
m, to the data presented in Figure 5.11 (using L 2 = 71 m), results in the conveying
characteristics depicted in Figure 6.5. Note that the minimum transport (or blockage)
boundary w a s scaled up on the basis of Mills et al. [15], where the superficial
minimum conveying velocity Vfimjn is assumed to be a function of m*. The
experimental data presented in Table 6.3 have been superimposed on this plot for
ease of comparison. A s can be seen, the scale-up predictions do seem reasonable,
although a comparison of experimental or actual m s curves would have been more
conclusive. Also, it should be noted that during the scale up of Figure 5.11, no
allowance w a s m a d e for the different number of bends used on Test Rigs A1 and
A 2 (viz. 5 and 13, respectively). The experimental technique described and used by
Mills etal. [48] and Mills and Mason [49] could be employed to obtain an empirical,
equivalent length of bend, so that adjusted values of l_i and L 2 could be employed
in Equation (6.6).
80
60
Apt2
Predicted
Blockage
Boundary
(kPa)
40
0.3 "
20 -
O-^Ckgs-1)
.02
.04
.03
.05
.-i<
m f 2 (kgs" )
Figure 6.5 Scale-up conveying characteristics of screened coke for L 2 = 71 m &

D 2 = 0.052 m (based on Figure 5.11 and Equations (6.5) to (6.7)) with four
experimental data points from Test Rig A 2 (L| = 71 m & Di = 0.052 m).
122
However, this additional work w a s not considered paramount to the purpose of the
present investigation. Furthermore, l_i and L 2 represent effective transport
distances [9] and hence, do allow for bends to s o m e extent. Nevertheless,
considering a hypothetical equivalent bend length of 4 m, the following evaluation
is made.
m s1
mS2
25 m
71 m m S1
0.352 ms1
whereas
m s2
m s1
25 m + 5 x 4 m
71 m + 13x4 m
s1 =
0.366 m s 1
which would produce only a 4 % increase to the values of m s 2 presented in Figure

6.5. In either case, scale-up in terms of pipeline length is considered reasonable.
6.3.3
P V C Powder
Both Test Rigs A 2 (L-| = 7 1 m & D-| = 0.052 m ) and C 3 (L| = 162 m & D 2 = 0.105 m )
were used to determine the steady-state pipeline conveying characteristics of the
P V C powder. The former characteristics have been presented previously in Figure
3.23 (viz. Section 3.4.3) and the latter are shown in Figure 6.6.
300
Blockage
Conditions
200 Blockage
Boundary
?ti
(kPa)
100
mf
Figure 6.6
(kg s a )
Pipeline conveying characteristics of P V C powder for

Li = 162 m & Di = 0.105 m (Test Rig C3).
123
Applying the suggested scale-up equation
v2.8
mS2 = msi
(6.29)
T~
to the data presented in Figure 3.23, results in the predicted conveying

characteristics shown in Figure 6.7. Note that Apf 2 w a s calculated once more by
experiment and not predicted using Equation (6.8). Also, the minimum transport
boundary w a s scaled-up on the basis of Mills etal. [15]. From a comparison
between Figures 6.6 and 6.7, it can be seen that the m s 2 values are underpredicted
by 33 %. A n obvious reason for this discrepancy would be the larger number of
bends used on Test Rig A 2 (i.e. 13 as opposed to 5 used on Test Rig C3). As was
done previously for screened coke, a hypothetical 4 m equivalent length of bend is
used to determine the extent of variation to m s 2 . That is,
71 m + (13x4m)
=
123 m
Li'
162 m + (5 x 4 m)182 m
and
123
m s1 182
m s2
ro.iosY*-8 4.835 m
s1
10.052 J
(6.30)
which is 54 % greater than the value stated in Equation (6.29).

300
200
Predicted
Blockage
Boundary
Ap
t2
(kPa)
100 -
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
m f 2 (kgs -1 )
Figure 6.7 Scale-up conveying characteristics of P V C powder for

L 2 = 162 m & D 2 = 0.105 m, based on Figure 3.23 and Equation (6.29).
124
Application of Equation (6.30) to the testrigm s i values of Figure 3.23, produces the
adjusted scale-up conveying characteristics presented in Figure 6.8. Subsequent
comparisons reveal that Equation (6.30) still overpredicts the values of m s2 ', but
only by an amount of = 3.0 %. However, despite this apparent improvement there is
still one area of concern that warrants further discussion (viz. the scale-up of
minimum transport boundaries). It can be seen from Figures 6.6 and 6.8 that the
blockage boundary, which w a s scaled up from the data obtained on Test Rig A2,
displays values of Vf i m j n lower than were obtained actually from Test Rig C3.
Hence, the dependency of Vf >m j n on m*. as suggested by Mills et al. [15], seems to
be inadequate and that a diameter effect m a y be involved. For example, Zenz [50]
carried out numerous experiments on a variety of products and found that the single
particle saltation velocity Vf S0 in a horizontal pipe increases with respect to pipeline
diameter according to the following relationship.
V fso
(6.31)
where 0.4 < 8 < 0.6. lt is expected that a similar effect also would occur for the
saltation velocity under load conditions, Vf S (i.e. for a given value of m s ) . This would
help explain the differences between the minimum transport boundaries depicted in
Figures 6.6 and 6.8. Note that these blockage boundaries for P V C powder seemed
to occur in the vicinity of saltation (see Section 5.5.2.2). A n alternative approach
based on minimum Froude number (viz. Fr m j n = Vf >m j n (g D)--5) is considered later
in Section 8.3. However, further detailed investigations into the minimum transport
behaviour of bulk solids in different pipe diameter systems still are required to test
the applicability and accuracy of such relationships (especially for fine powders
such as P V C powder, fly ash, cement, and so on).
300
m
s2
(kgS
-l-
200
Predicted
Blockage
Boundary
Pt2
(kPa)
100
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
m f 2 (kg s )
Figure 6.8 Scale-up conveying characteristics of P V C powder for

L 2 = 162 m & D 2 = 0.105 m , based on Figure 3.23 and Equation (6.30).
125
6.3.4
Effect of Vertical Lift on Scale-Up
As was mentioned previously in Section 6.1, one of the limitations of scale-up is t

it does not allow for the relatively longer lengths of vertical pipe that are used
usually in industry. This section briefly investigates and suggests a technique that
could be employed to allow (to s o m e extent) for this influence of vertical lift.
The scale-up condition Apsi = Aps2 is assumed valid for an installation containing a
total length of vertical lift, which is proportional to that used on the testrig,so that
v2
-v2 =
where
Lv2' =
Lvi (L2/L1). Similarly,
Lh2' =
Lhi (L2/L|).
Lh2 = Ln2'
where
The pipeline air pressure drop component due to solids may be considered in the
general form
Aps
^ ( L K
+ KL,)
(6.32)
where K is the ratio of vertical to horizontal air pressure gradient due to solids. That
is,
K
fdPs") f d p s
,-1
IdL 1 VdL
(6.33)
Note that initially K will be assumed constant with respect to operating conditions
(i.e. mf, Apt and m s ) . Applying the condition Ap s i = A p S 2 to Equation (6.32) and
assuming that the pipeline air pressure gradient (due to solids) does not vary
significantly between pipeline configurations having the s a m e L2 but different total
lengths of vertical pipe (i.e. L V 2 > L V 2'), then it m a y be shown that
Ap s 2 * =
Aps1
fUo
-h2+ KoL,^
2 Lv2
2 < Lhi + Ki Ly-i
(6.34)
where A p s 2 * is the value of A p s 2 (which equals A p s i ) modified to allow for a

relatively longer length of vertical pipe.
Despite the fairly short length of vertical pipe used in Test Rig A2 (i.e. Lv = 3.6
measurements of pipeline pressure gradient were taken for fly ash [33] and the P V C
powder [51], and K w a s found initially to be contained in the range 1.7 < K < 2.2.
However, these results were obtained for a limited range of operating conditions
and on further inspection of the fly ash results, it w a s found that K approached unity
128
for dilute-phase (e.g. mf > 0.05 kg s*1) and values of 3 to 4 for dense-phase
conveying (e.g. mf < 0.02 kg s -1 ). Hence, it seems that it would be possible for the
test material to determine an empirical relationship between K and pertinent
operating conditions (e.g. mf, m s and Apt). This then could be used in the scale-up
procedures. However, the necessary measurements of (dp s /dL) n and (dps/dL)v
must be accurate and hence, should be carried out on a vertical pipe which is
significantly longer than those being used currently on the test rigs described in this
section of work. This additional effort w a s not considered paramount to the present
study and it is suggested further that in the absence of experimental data, the
approximation
K1 K2 2 (6.35)
could be used in Equation (6.34) for an initial estimation of Aps. This agrees w
with the findings of Reed [52], w h o also has suggested an average value of K 2.0
for a variety of materials.
6.4 Scale-Up of Apt
The scale-up predictions according to Equation (6.8) are found occasionally to b

inaccurate, especially when relatively large values of L 2 are being considered.
Furthermore, as a large proportion of the total pressure drop, which occurs during
either dilute-phase or long-distance transportation, is caused by the air-only
component, then it becomes necessary to predict values of Apf with reasonable
accuracy. Numerous techniques were investigated, and the following equation
based on [53] is suggested.
0.0016 Qf185L
Ap f
=
, kPa
Pfi D
(6.36)
where Qf = volumetric flow rate of free air (N m3 s-1)

L
=
length of the pipeline (m)
D
=
actual internal pipe diameter (m)
initial pipeline air pressure (kPa abs).
Pfi =
For the case of pneumatic conveying and single-diameter pipelines, where the
outlet or final pipeline air pressure (viz. Pf2) usually is atmospheric, Equation (6.36)
may be rewritten in the form
Apf = 0.5[(1012 + 0.004567mf1-85LD-5)"5-101] , kPa (6.37)
for Pf2 = 101 kPa abs and T = 293.15 K. Note the following units required for
Equation (6.37): mf (kg s"1), L (m) and D (m). To evaluate the accuracy of Equation
(6.37), constant values of Apf were calculated for corresponding values of (L D'5 x
10"7) and mf as shown in Figure 6.9. Four to five experimental values of Apf also
were determined from each of the six pipeline configurations outlined in Table 6.4
and superimposed onto Figure 6.9.
127
3.
1.
.3
m.
f
(kgs"1)
.03
.01
10.
30.
m
D 5 IO7
I in5
Figure 6.9 Variation of Apf according to Equation (6.37) with experimental

data points obtained from six different pipeline configurations.
100.
128
L D' 5 x 10"7
No.
L
(m)
(m)
(m nr )
A1
A2
A3
C1
C3
C4
25
71
96
162
162
553
0.052
0.052
0.052
0.060
0.105
0.068
6.58
18.67
25.25
20.83
1.27
38.03
Test Rig
Table 6.4
Coeff. x
Coeff. y
No. of Bends
mfm
Eqn. (6.9) Eqn. (6.9) (kg s"1)
Nb
293.34
803.55
1507.86
738.70
56.23
1783.73
1.513
1.525
1.623
1.555
1.233
1.610
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.17
0.45
0.15
5
13
17
5
5
17
Empirical expressions for Apf.
Despite the significantly different number of bends used on the test rigs, there is still
good correlation between the predicted and experimental values of Apt.
Figure 6.9 also could be used to predict Apf for each section of a stepped
pipeline, which quite frequently is used for long-distance transportation. However,
the final values would tend to be conservative (i.e. too high for a given mf) because
Equation (6.37) would assume that the final air pressure of each pipeline section is
atmospheric. Hence, in this case, the following slightly modified version of Equation
(6.36) is suggested.
Ap f
11418.3 m f 1 8 5 L
Pf1 D5x107
, kPa
(6.38)
Again note the following units: mf (kg s"1), L (m), D (m) and Pfi (kPa abs). Using
Equation (6.38), the analysis procedure consists of the following steps.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Assume Pfi at the start of the stepped pipeline.

Estimate Apf using Equation (6.38) for the first or initial diameter section.
Calculate Pfi for the second diameter section.
Repeat until the last pipeline section is reached and calculate the exit or
final air pressure Pf2 of the stepped-diameter pipeline.
(e) Repeat steps (a) to (d) until atmospheric pressure is reached in step (d)
(e.g. Pf2 = 101 kPaabs).
To investigate the accuracy of Equation (6.38) for this application, the ab
analysis procedure was applied to the 940 m long pipeline of Test Rig D2, which
comprises four different pipe diameter sections, as summarised in Table 6.5.
The variation of Apf with respect to mf was determined experimentally, wher

Ap f
1819.0 m f
1.55
for m f < 0.15 kgs-1
(6.39)
Values of mf = 0.10 and 0.15 kg s'1 were selected for this investigation and the
corresponding Apf values are summarised in Table 6.6.
129
L
(m)
D
(m)
No. of Bends
146
390
261
143
0.060
0.069
0.081
0.105
3
13
8
5
Nb
Table 6.5 Long-distance pneumatic conveying pipeline (Test Rig D2).
mf
(kg s-1)
0.10
0.15
Experimental
Theoretical
Apt, Eqn. (6.39) Apt, Eqn. (6.38)
(kPa)
(kPa)
61
107
51.3
96.1
Error
(%)
+19
+11
Table 6.6 Comparison of experimental and theoretical values of Apf for the
long-distance pneumatic conveying stepped diameter pipeline (Test Rig D2).
Although the maximum error shown in Table 6.6 is almost 20 %, the predic
values of Apf are only ~ 10 kPa greater than the experimental values. For a
stepped-diameter pipeline almost 1 k m in length, this result is considered quite
reasonable.
Note that the analysis procedure described previously (viz. to predict A

Equation (6.38)) may be simplified significantly by replacing the atmospheric
pressure (viz. 101 kPa abs) in Equation (6.37) by the final air pressure (viz. Pf2), a
shown in Equation (6.40).
Apf = 0.5 [(Pf22 + 0.004567 m,1 '85 L D^5)05 - Pf2] , kPa (6.40)
The analysis procedure commences with the final section of pipeline (i.e
+ Apf = 101 + Apf kPa abs) and then proceeds upstream until the initial or starting
section of pipe is reached. In this way, iterative calculations are not required.
6.5 Summary
The experimental results obtained and presented on the fly ash/cement mi

PVC powder indicate that the original scale-up Equation (6.6) is inadequate when
data are scaled up with respect to pipeline diameter. In conjunction with results
obtained from the screened coke, the scale-up equation
-*' = u{%Y
(641)
130
is suggested as an improvement, where Li' and L 2 ' represent adjusted values of l_i
and L 2 to allow for any differences between the number (and type) of bends used
on the test rig and actual plant.
Equation (6.34) also should be used to modify the values of Aps2 if Lv2 > (L2 Lr1)
U n (i.e. if the total length of vertical lift for the actual or proposed plant proportionally
is greater than that used on the test rig). In the absence of experimental data, the
pressure gradient ratio K-i K 2 - 2 could be used as an initial estimation for use in
Equation (6.34).
If prediction of Apf is required (e.g. to determine Apt = Apf + Aps), then it is
suggested that Figure 6.9 or Equation (6.37) be used for conventional singlediameter pipelines, and Equation (6.40) for stepped-diameter pipelines.
6.6 Generalised Pipeline Conveying Characteristics
For the purposes of general design and feasibility studies, the construction of
multiple scale-up conveying characteristics (i.e. for different values of L and D) is
time-consuming and tiresome. Hence, it would be advantageous to either
computerise scale-up procedures or develop generalised conveying characteristics
(for a particular material), which would be applicable to any system of different L
and/or D (provided the extrapolation is within acceptable limits).
Interpretation of the recommended scale-up Equations (6.5), (6.41) and the
condition Ap s i = A p s 2 > indicates that the coordinate system mf D"2 (abscissa) and
A p s (ordinate) could be used to represent the parameter (m s L' D"2-8) for the
purpose of generalising pipeline conveying characteristics (obtained on a particular
test rig).
The subsequent conversion of the test rig data displayed in Figures 6.1 and 6,2 f
the fly ash/cement mix, results in the generalised conveying characteristics
displayed in Figures 6.10 and 6.11, respectively. Note that both L|' and L 2 ' have
been assumed equal to 162 m for these calculations. Either graph can now be used
to predict values of A p s (for a given m s , L' and D) or estimate suitable values of D
(for a given m s a n d L').
For example, consider the requirement to estimate the smallest value of D that
would transport the fly ash/cement mix at a rate of 151 rr1 (i.e. 4.167 kg s'1) over a
distance of 620 m for an operating pressure not exceeding 200 kPag. From Figure
6.11, an initial value of (m s L' D-2-8 x 10'5) = 20 is selected, from which D = 0.093 m
is calculated. Note that for the purpose of this example, no allowance has been
made for bends (i.e. L' has been assumed equal to 620 m ) .
131
250
200
150
100
Ap
r
s
(kPa)
mfD -2 (kg s-V"2)
Figure 6.10
Generalised pipeline conveying characteristics of fly ash/cement mix

based on Test Rig C1 results (L|' = 162 m & Di = 0.060 m).
250
200
--
_20
150
--
_ 15
100
Ap
r
s
(kPa)
10
5
50
/kg s-1m\
m L
D2'8s 105
1
10
20
\ -2'a i
1
30
40
50
m D"(kg S^m"2)
Figure 6.11
Generalised pipeline conveying characteristics of fly ash/cement mix

based on Test Rig C 3 results (LT = 162 m & Di = 0.105 m).
132
Selecting a 100 m m N B Schedule 40 (i.e. D = 0.102 m ) mild steel pipeline, the
following corrected value of Ap s is obtained.
msL'
=
15.4,
Aps
145 kPa (Figure 6.14)
28
5
D x10
for a minimum safe value of mf D"2 = 20 kg s-"1 nr2. Therefore, mf = (20) (.102)2 =
0.208 kg s_1. The corresponding value of Apt may then be determined by predicting
Apt from either Figure 6.9 or Equation (6.37). That is, for (L D~ 5 ) = 5.616 x 10 7 and
mf = 0.208 kg S'1, Apf is estimated at 27 kPa, so that Apt = 172 kPa.
Not only does the above example demonstrate the usefulness of generalising
pipeline characteristics, but it also indicates that this procedure m a y be used
effectively in future investigations on other materials to further evaluate and improve
the accuracy of the scale-up equations presented in this thesis.
133
CHAPTER 7
134
7.
THEORETICAL
ANALYSES
7.1 Introduction
The problem of mathematically modelling the pneumatic transport of particles in t

dilute-phase m o d e for the purpose of predicting pipeline air pressure drop (for a
given set of operating conditions), has been the subject of numerous investigations
over the past two decades [54-58]. However, empiricism has been used widely and
a unified theory applicable to all materials (especially fine powders) and the
numerous configurations of pipeline has yet to b e formulated. Theoretical
predictions for dense-phase pneumatic transportation have been few in number
and the majority have been concerned only with straight and relatively short
horizontal pipes [17,59,60]. Generally, the applicability of these models to industry
is very limited and is reduced further for materials possessing small particle size
(typically less than 40 u.m), relatively wide particle size distributions (e.g. 10 to 300
urn) and/or complex physical properties (e.g. binary products).
This section of work is aimed at reviewing and developing mathematical models to
predict system design parameters and verifying these predictions with experimental
data. Particular objectives include
presenting the analytical and numerical results which were obtained from
investigations into modelling the discharge characteristics of blow tanks,
reviewing various existing pipeline theories to predict pressure drop for
the dense-phase m o d e of transport,
developing new design strategies to predict more accurately the
operating conditions for single- and stepped-diameter pipelines (based
on the correlation analysis of experimental data) and optimising the
configuration of long-distance pipelines.
7.2 Blow Tank Discharge Characteristics
The mathematical models developed by McLean [61] to predict the discharge rate
of powders from mass flow hoppers are extended to simulate the flow from a
pressurised blow tank. In formulating the governing equations, McLean used the
concept of a simplified bulk solid flowing through an Enstad [62] element of a
converging channel, as shown below in Figure 7.1. The resulting differential
equations (applicable to an axisymmetrical flow channel) consist of:
1. Continuity Equation of the Bulk Solid
dvs 2 vs vs dpb
_ + l + --p. = 0
(7.1)
dr
r p b dr
2. Interstitial Air Continuity Equation
135
Figure 7.1 The Enstad [62] element of a converging flow channel.

from which the interstitial air pressure gradient equation
4+dp(!
+
dr vr
dr2
ldoV_^(YYi) .
c dry
p s c dr
(7.3)
was obtained assuming Darcy's Law

dp
U
~dr
(7.4)
Ph
and using r = 1 - .
Ps
3. Equation of Motion for the Bulk Solid
PbV s dv
da Xi a
dp
1
Y
~z
+ Pb 9 i + rr z =-?
1 -sin8 dr
dr
r
w i dr 1 - sin8
(7.5)
136
7.2.1
Approximate Analytical Solution
Assuming a static consolidation stress distribution, the above differential equations

were applied to the case of a bottom discharge blow tank (pressurised from the top)
and the following equations for vs, v s o and m S o were obtained.
2-b
i1-b
"
v$o
'so
(7.6)
w,
A3
A!
2A,
0.5
2Ai
K _2
m so
(7.7)
(7.8)
4 D o Pbovso
where
Ai
Pbo
rw
T3
- Gi r0
Tlln
rT\ ^(Zi-D
f,
T T (Z -1)(1 -sinS)
1 4
PboSroYi (1-b) ZiT^pj-Po)

X ^ I - W - 1 + T4(Z1-1)(1-sin5)
a + b-1
(1-b)
3b-4
1 -b
T2-X
Ti-X
T4
2-b
\N,
(1 - b) (1 - sinS)
'o
VrT>
flo
Pbo
Pbc
C,
P
Uo,
(7.9)
(7.10)
137
CT
o 0 (1 + sinS)
Gi
Pbob(YY 1 )
(1 - b) p s c 0
1
1 - sinS
Xi
2 sinS
1 - sin5
1o
sin(a+2p)~
sina
2 [1 - cos(a+(3)] sina + sinp* sin2(a+p)

Yi
YY!
(1 - sinS) sin3(a+p)
Y! (1 - sinS) sin2(a+p)
2 [ 1 - cos(a+p)]
By integrating Equation (7.3) with respect to r, the following general expressions for
the air pressure and the air pressure gradient inside the blow tank were derived (i.e.
for the case of a static consolidation stress distribution).
v
d1 v
so 'o
rVi
T^-DUo
^W-M-M
-Pc
PT
Zi-1
r V1"1
VZt-DU
v
Gi1 v
so
dp
dr
PT-PO
<-(*f
Ziln +ln
(7.11)
+ (Zi-D
rfi
(Zi-DrJUT
(7.12)
Note that the above equations are similar to the ones derived by McLean [61], for
the case of a bin discharging under gravity, except for the additional pressure drop
terms appearing in Equations (7.11), (7.12) and in the expression for the coefficient
A3 given in Equation (7.7).
7.2.1.1 Results
For a given material, blow tank geometry and transition pressure, value
m s o were able to be calculated by adopting the following procedure.
1. Calculate the material parameters Xi, Yi, YY1 and C.
2. Assume vso = 0.25 m s-1 and pt>o = Pbc-
138
Calculate the corresponding value of o 0 using Equation (7.13).

Pbo C vso ,_, .
o"Q
=
2
(7
- 13)
3. Calculate Ti, T2, T3, T4, W1 and Z1.

4. Set up an iteration loop by determining pbo and c0 from Equations (7.9) and
(7.10).
5. Calculate Gi, Ai, A2, A3 and the new value of vso according to Equation (7.7).
6. Recalculate o0 with this new value of vso and using Equation (7.13).
7. Compare the old and new values of o0. If the difference is greater than 0.1%,
go to Step 4 to continue the iteration procedure. Otherwise, calculate m S o
using both Equation (7.8) and the final value of v s o obtained from Step 5.
The above procedure was incorporated onto the University's mainframe computer
(using Fortran 77) and enabled the variation of m s 0 , with respect to D 0 and ApDt =
P T - po to be predicted for a given a, as shown in Figure 7.2. Note that the
parameters a = 20 and D j = 0.917 m were selected to simulate the Sturtevant
blow tank geometry shown in Figure 2.1. Also, the material properties, which were
used to generate this plot, were obtained from the Tallawarra pulverised coal
sample (refer to Table 5.1) and consisted of
a
8
832.4 kg m *
6020.57 Pa
0.0351
11.9 x 10"9m 4N-l s-1
6020.57 Pa
0.2036
40
25
Ps
1600 kg nr3.
Pbc
cic
b
c
=
=
=
=
0"1p =
7.2.1.2
Discussion
Several alternatives to the static consolidation stress assumption, which was u

to formulate the equations (7.6), (7.7), (7.11) and (7.12), also were investigated (e.g.
a linear decrease in p from the transition to the outlet; constant pb and c with respect
to r). The subsequent detailed formulations were postponed until an accurate set of
experimental data could be obtained for the blow tank. However, due to the
following reasons, this did not eventuate during the course of this thesis project.
1. The necessary blow tank parameters such as p and vs0 were extremely
difficult to measure. For example, the variation of p with respect to r would
have had to been recorded for relatively low values of pressure drop over
139
a short distance of approximately 1.3 metres. Results from the fly ash test
program seemed to indicate that Apbt occurs in the range 1 to 10 kPa,
which would be approximately 1 to 5 % of a 200 kPag typical operating
pressure (blow tank top-air). A direct measurement of Apbt w a s attempted
without success, mainly due to the inappropriateness of the pressure
tapping design (similar to that shown in Figure 2.4) to monitor accurately
small differences in air pressure. Other designs were investigated (e.g.
an open pressure hole with an in-built purge system) but also were found
to be unsuitable.
2. The demands of the fly ash test program, which commenced effectively in
October 1983, generally reduced the emphasis on the blow tank
investigations.
3. The pneumatic conveying test results obtained during the fly ash program
also revealed that the blow tank top-air only conveying m o d e (which is
required for the application of the mathematical model) provided
insufficient air for the transport of this material over the testrigdistance of
71 m. Hence, not only did this prevent any 'parallel' investigations to be
carried out, it also initially threw s o m e doubt over the practical usefulness
of such a model. However, it w a s later realised that continued effort in this
area still could ultimately lead to a unified blow tank theory, which also
would allow for the various types of configuration [63].
4. Due to the requirements of the fly ash test program and industry in
general, it w a s decided to concentrate the theoretical investigations on
the development of a reliable scale-up model to predict plant operating
conditions based on test rig data (e.g. refer to Chapter 6) and correlation
analysis to design and optimise long-distance stepped-diameter
pipelines (considered later in Section 7.3).
Although a thorough assessment of the mathematical model was not able to be
completed due to the lack of experimental data, approximate values of Apbt were
calculated for a number of experiments, which were carried out during the fly ash
program (i.e. using the extrapolation technique depicted in Figure 3.20). After
comparing the corresponding pipeline values of m s with the m s o predictions shown
in Figure 7.2, the results s e e m to indicate that the model underestimates the m s o
values.
7.2.2 Numerical Analyses
The numerical solution of the three governing differential equations (viz. (7.2),
and (7.5)) w a s investigated using the Runge-Kutta technique of numerical
integration. A number of software programs were written on the Univac computer to
predict the parameters v s , p, dp/dr and a at various levels inside the blow tank
(based on a given set of initial boundary conditions at either the outlet or the
transition, depending on the direction of integration). However, occasional
convergence problems, which occurred during the integration procedure, prompted
a more detailed investigation of the actual equations and the initial assumptions
which were used. Several modifications and improvements to the numerical model
were introduced and a summary of the latest version is presented below.
140
20.0
10.0
2.0 -
1.0
0.2
0.1
Figure 7.2
Example of blow tank model results (approximate analytical solution).
The solids continuity equation remained unchanged (i.e. as presented in

Equation (7.1)).
dv s
dr
2vs
r
v s dp b
pb dr
(7.14)
The following modified air continuity equation was formulated
2u
r
du
dr
u + v s r dp
P
dr
dPb v s
dr Pb
(7.15)
by expanding the differential equation

(pf v s r A s + Pf u A s )
(7.16)
where As is the surface area of the Enstad element (m2)

P = p+Patm = absolute air pressure (Pa abs).
The variation of p with respect to r was assumed to be governed by the
following Ergun [64] equation.
$ = Evu + Eku2 (7.17)
K
dr
v
150uf(1 - D 2
EV
2
~
H T-3
QV50 ~
1.75 P(1 -D
k
" RTd^T3
Note that the median particle size dvso (based on a volume diameter
distribution, see Section 5.2.1) was used to represent the material in
these equations.
The original compressibility equation for pb (viz. Equation (7.9)) als

modified to allow for zero values of o (i.e. at the top surface of the material
in the blow tank).
Pb = PblO+<T)b
(7 18)
'
where pbi is the loose-poured bulk density of the material (kg m-3).
Note that, due to the use of the Ergun [64] equation (instead of Darcy'
Law), the permeability coefficient c of the bulk solid is not required for this
analysis.
142
5.
The equation of motion for the bulk solid essentially remains unchanged
(as presented in Equation (7.5)) except for the differences introduced by
the modified compressibility equation.
1
dp [ 2 p b v s 2
r - p b g Y i - 1 - sinS dr ' r (1 - sinS)
da
(7.19)
2
dr
Pbbv
s
1
(1 + a) (1 - sinS)
6. The variation of pb with respect to r, which was also required for the
application of the Runge-Kutta technique, w a s obtained by simply
differentiating Equation (7.18).
^ = 7^ (7.20)
dr
1 + G dr
7.2.2.1 Results
Due to similar reasons stated in Section 7.2.1.2, only preliminary results were
to be obtained from the numerical model. For example, refer to Figure 7.3, which
presents typical variations of vs, p, a and pb (with respect to r/rj) obtained for
Tallawarra pulverised coal where
pb = 760(1+o)-0138kgrrr3
d V 5o
= 30 u.m
ps
= 1 6 0 0 kg nr 3
8
=
40
$
=
25
a
=
20
D0
= 0.052 m Sturtevant blow tank (Figure 2.1)
Dy
= 0.917 m
Patm
=
1010 hPa
T
= 293.15 K,
and for the following initial conditions selected at the transition
VST = 0.002 m s-1
(dp/dr)T =
0
PT
=
150kPag
or
=
1.0 kPa.
The corresponding value of ms, which is constant with respect to r, is calculate
be 1.07 kg s"1. Note the slight convergence problem which still prevails towards the
outlet of the blow tank (i.e. referring to Figure 7.3(c), the mean consolidation stress,
o, is seen to increase as r/rj approaches r0/rj). Various values of initial condition
were tested and the trends seem to indicate that the Ergun [64] equation provides a
more realistic prediction for dp/dr, u and, hence, m s . However, extensive
experimentation is still required before any conclusive assessment can be made.
143
I 'I 'i I
L' I ' I ' I ' I
U ^
L1
I I 'I 'I 'I I '
o>
Z oo
CO
CO
CO
(to s-
to
S-
* s_
c
o
o
CO
- CO
CO
"ca
o
CM
CM
CD
E
D
C
CO
;
. I . I I I . I . I . I . I . t .
ea
esa
CO
CD
U)
T3 ~
ea
ea
CM
13
CO
CD
v_
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IO
CD
Q. E
cn
ea
co
"CD
E
c
03
JIII|IIII|IIII|IIII|IIM|IIILJ^
j 111111111111111111
-I'
TT
- o>
a>
- CO
co
0)
Q.
- r-
- co
cc
x
LU
CO
CO
CD
^^
S-
i_
L
co
- CM
.*.h 111111111 H 1111111111111 ii r~j

CO
IO
CO
CM
y h . . . i.... I.... i 11111 11111 n
CM
CO
>
c/> I
co
E
t>
CL.
144
7.3 Dense-Phase Pipeline Conveying Characteristics
Several existing theories [17, 59, 60, 65, 66] were reviewed for the purpose
predicting dense-phase pneumatic conveying parameters in horizontal and vertical
pipes and around different types of bends. Although all these theories were found to
be limited to horizontal pipes, they still were considered to be worthy of
investigation for the following reasons.
1. A large number of pipeline configurations that are used in industry
contain at least 90 % horizontal pipe.
2. For the applications where the vertical pipe cannot be neglected,
appropriate modifications to the horizontal data (similar to that proposed
in Equation (6.34)) can be incorporated into the model.
3. To allow for the different types and numbers of bends, the experimental
techniques described by Mills et al. [48] and Mills and Mason [49] could
be employed to obtain an equivalent length of pipe for the bend(s), so
that the total length of pipeline could be increased accordingly.
However, of the five theories that were investigated, the more simplified ap
Muschelknautz and Krambrock [59] was found to be most applicable to the work on
pulverised coal and fly ash (viz. dense-phase conveying of fine powders) and is
reviewed in the following section. The other four theories were found to be limited to
particular applications. For example,
1. Konrad et al. [17] mainly considers the specialised case of transporting
discrete plugs of cohesionless material (viz. in the pulse-phase mode,
which is more applicable to granular products).
2. Chari [60] presents empirical correlations for solids friction factor bas
on materials with mean particle diameters in the range 140|im to 2629
urn.
3. The Fortier [65] theory requires a knowledge of material parameters, such

as m o m e n t u m loss coefficient (for solid particles impacting against a
wall), which are extremely difficult to measure for fine powders. Also
Fortier only reports on experimental results obtained for 3 m m particles.
4. When Wilson [66] applied his sliding bed model [67] to the case of
pneumatic transportation, he still incorporated the empirical correlations
(e.g. turbulent threshold velocity), which were based on hydraulic data of
relatively coarse particles. Furthermore, some of the recent fly ash results,
which were obtained from the test program described in Section 3.3,
revealed that the pneumatic transportation of sliding beds was not
possible for such fine materials and that a form of duning and/or moving
bed flow [38] seemed to predominate.
7.3.1 Pressure Loss Predictions by Muschelknautz and Krambrock [59]
The mathematical model presented by Muschelknautz and Krambrock [59] is well

documented and only a brief description is presented.
145
7.3.1.1
Theory
Considering the full-bore plug transport system displayed in Figure 7.4 and
assuming that the pressure drop acting across the plug of length L is proportional to
the wall friction caused by the body forces, it has been shown that
3
f2
where Pfi and

Y
L
=
R
=
T
=
Vf =
Vp =
and m * =
exp
fym'gLV^
RTV
(7.21)
Pf2 are the initial and final pipeline air pressures (Pa abs)
material coefficient 0.6 (average),
total length of plug (m),
gas constant for air = 287.1 (N m kg-1 K" 1 ),
absolute temperature of air (K),
superficial air velocity (m s'1),
velocity of plug (m s -1 ),
mass flow ratio = m s m f 1 (kg kg-1).
, D
Figure 7.4
Full-bore plug transport system.
Operational data from actual dense-phase systems have shown that there is a
relationship between the ratio (V p Vf 1 ) and the parameters m*. p* and , where
Pf1 + Pf2
2 Pw
(7.22)
146
Initial value of air density (kg nr 3 )
Final value of air density (kg nr 3 )
Loose-poured bulk density of the material (kg nr 3 )
Pfi
Pf2
Pbl
1.6x10"^%*
Frc
(7.23)
V,
Fr
(7.24)
V?TJ
Fre
(7.25)
go
free settling velocity of the material based on pbi (m s -1 ).
and v 0
Note that pbi is used instead of ps- Figure 7.5 presents the relationship that was
obtained [59] between (V p Vf 1 ) and (m* p*) for % = 0.01, 0.1,1.0 and 10.0.
7.3.1.2 Calculation Procedure
For ease of calculation, the following step-wise procedure is proposed for the
application of the Muschelknautz and Krambrock [59] model.
1. Determine Voo using either Figure 7.6 (for air at 20 C) or the drag
correlations recommended by Clift et al. [41]. The latter method requires
use of
0.5
3C n
(7.26)
and
Res
where
and
pf Voo d v 5 0
Co =
Res =
(if =
(7.27)
drag coefficient,
Reynolds number at free settling velocity (m s -1 ),
absolute or dynamic viscosity of air (Pa s).
2. Calculate Fr and Frs using Equations (7.24) and (7.25).

3. Using Equations (7.22) and (7.23), obtain expressions for (m* p*) and % in
terms of (Pn Pf2'1).
4.
A s s u m e a value for (P Pf2"1) and calculate (m* p*) and %.
147
CO
LO
o ^
r-l
't
(J)
LO
I
\\
II
1J
>^
*
o
o
CD
\\ \ \
*'
yv \ V/CJ
\\ \ \
\\ \ \
o
c
o
i_
>
Q.
*-*
\\ \ V^^3
o
c
o
H*
c
o
i_
cc
>
LO
r^
LO
LfJ
C\J
CD
k.
3
LL
= 1 1 II Mil
IO
1 1
Air cit 20C

1 1 MINI
1 1 INI
1 1 1 lllll
3
Ps = 10000 kgm" ^
8000 >
6000 >x
x.
4000N
2650.
1500 >
m*.
's
yS
1000 >
10s
500^
s" )
10
0.1 "~~/.// /
0.01
'\ 1 lllll
10
11
1 1 1 lllll
IO2
d (um)
1 lllll 1 1 1 lllll
10:
Figure 7.6 Variation of particle free settling velocity based on

the Clift era/. [41] drag correlations.
10"
149
5.
Determine (V p Vf 1 ) from Figure (7.5).
6. Calculate (Pfi Pf2-1) using Equation (7.21).

7. Compare calculated and assumed values of (Pfi Pf2_1) and repeat Steps
4 to 6 until the difference is less than 1 %.
8. Determine the total pipeline air pressure drop using
fPfi ^
Ap t
f2
~\
VM2
(7.28)
assuming Pf2 to be atmospheric pressure.

7.3.1.3 Worked Example
The following steady-state operating conditions were obtained from a typical
pneumatic conveying experiment, which w a s conducted on Tallawarra pulverised
coal, using the original Test Rig A1 (L = 25 m and D = .052 m ) described in Section
2.1).
and
mf
0.00935 kg S'1
ms
2.93 kg s-1
m*
313.4
Apt =
75 kPa.
Also note that the air temperature was 20 C and Patm = 101000 Pa abs. These
data now are used as part of a worked example to demonstrate the Muschelknautz
and Krambrock [59] model and the calculation procedure described previously.
1. From Figure 7.6, vo = 0.02 m s_1, for dV50 = 30 u.m and pbi = 760 kg nr3
(obtained from Table 5.1). This value of v ^ agrees well with the one
calculated using the Clift era/. [41] drag correlations, where
Voo
Re s
cD
=
=
=
0.0204 m s'1
0.0406
596
for w = 1.81 x Pa s and pf = 1.2 kg nr 3 . Hence, use v^, = 0.02 m s_1.

2. Calculate Vf.
V, = -JS-_ . <-00935> W = 3.67ms"1

Pf [j D2J
1 -2 it C052)2
150
Therefore, from Equation (7.24)
V,
Fr
3.67
V9.81 x .052
Vg~D
5.14
and Equation (7.25)

Frc =
.020
V9.81 x .052
Vg~D
,028
Rewriting Equation (7.22)

m
*Pf2(Pfi ."i 313.4 x 1.2

m" p" =
+1
2 Pbi VPf2
.2474
(Pfi
rP
2x760
Jl + 1
*<Pf2
+1
VH2
Also, from Equation (7.23)

\
1.6x10"^!^*
Fre
5 r 1.2
fP
(1.6 x 10"3) (5.14)
Jl + 1
P
.028
2x760 V f2
= .1614 f ^ + 1
4. to 7.
The following table summarises the results obtained from applying

Steps 4 to 7.
Assumed
(Pfi Pf2-1)
m* p*
(Vp Vf 1 )
(Figure 7.5)
Calculated (Pfi Pf2"1)

(Equation (7.21))
2.00
1.57
1.65
1.63
.74
.64
.66
.65
.48
.42
.43
.43
1.21
1.10
1.13
1.12
1.57
1.65
1.63
1.63
Table 7.1
Summary of results obtained from Steps 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Note that the calculated values of (Pfi Pf2'1) shown in Table 7.1 were
based on L = 25 m. That is, no allowance was made for the 3.6 m vertical
lift or the five 1 metre radius 90 bends.
151
8.
Substituting the final calculated value of (Pfi Pf2"1) = 1.63 into Equation
(7.28) yields
Apt = rdir--A
VH2
= (101000) (1.63-1)
= 63630 Pa
- 64 kPa.
This prediction is 15 % lower than the experimentally obtained value of 75 kP

However, as no allowances for vertical pipe or bends were made during the
calculations, then this result is considered to be reasonable. That is, if an equivalen
pipe length of say 30 m w a s used for L in Equation (7.21), then a much closer result
would have been obtained.
7.4 Correlation Analysis and Stepped-Diameter Pipelines
The case studies and proposed applications presented recently by Wypych and
Arnold [42] indicate the need to optimise the design of the conveying pipeline in
terms of minimising installation cost, air flow, pressure drop (hence, running cost),
and transport velocity (hence, pipe/bend erosion). For this purpose, steppeddiameter pipelines should be considered, especially when large-throughput or
long-distance conveying is required. Also, with improved design procedures, it is
believed that this type of pipeline will become more popular for short-distance
applications (e.g. L = 50 to 100 m ) involving coarse and/or abrasive products. For
example, refer to the Australian Industrial Refractories case study [42], which
describes the use of three 80/100 m m N.B. stepped-diameter pipelines (viz. where
L = 54, 56 and 62 m ) to transport a wide range of heavy, coarse and abrasive
materials at rates between 25 and 40 t lr1 with 70 < m* < 200.
In relation to single- and stepped-diameter pipelines, the main aims of this
are to
review generalised solids friction factor correlations for the prediction of
total pipeline air pressure drop Apt (viz. for a wide range of materials and
single-diameter pipelines) and identify possible areas of improvement,
examine the general principles of designing stepped-diameter pipelines
(including minimum transport behaviour),
suggest a combined test-design procedure to determine an optimal
configuration for the pipeline,
present results from a recent investigation into predicting operating
conditions for long-distance conveying (by using an improved correlation
analysis).
152
7.4.1
Generalised Correlation for Solids Friction Factor
Quite often, correlation analysis is used to determine an empirical expression fo

the pipe friction coefficient due to solids Xs in the equation
pf Vf2 AL
Ap =
Ap f + A p s
(^ + m * Xs) KT 2 T p
(7.29)
which is based on the definition presented by Barth [44].
Unfortunately, most of these correlations usually are limited to one or more of t

following factors.
Only two or three different products (generally coarse).
L o w values of m * (typically, less than 30).
O n e or two different pipe sizes (usually for similar values of L).
Small values of D (typically, less than 50 m m ) .
Consequently, the practical use in industry of such correlations is quite limited

must only be exercised with extreme caution. Furthermore, complete sets of
experimental data (viz. pipeline conveying characteristics which display the
variation of mf, m s and Apt) generally are not published by the researcher or are
located in articles which are extremely difficult to obtain.
To date, the most significant and applicable work seems to be by Stegmaier [68],
w h o summarised the data from various products by the correlation, which is shown
in Figure 7.7. Modifying this correlation to allow for the different definitions of Froude
number (i.e. in this thesis, Fr = Vf (g D)--5 & Fr s = v*, (g D)--5, whereas Stegmaier
[68] actually used Fr = Vf 2 (g D)" 1 & Frs = v*,2 (g D) _ 1 , as shown in Figure 7.7) results
in the following expression for Xs (presented previously in Equation (6.21).
Xs = 2.1(m*)--3Fr-2Frs0-5(^)'1 (7.30)
A number of researchers [45,69,70] also have applied Stegmaier's correlation [68]

to their o w n work on predicting values of Ap s . For example, Chambers and Marcus
[70] recently have compared the experimental data of several researchers with the
theoretical predictions from a mathematical model (based on Stegmaier [68] and
W e b e r [45,69]) and found the difference to be less than a factor of 2 (for 2 < m * <
530).
Unfortunately, the data that were used by Stegmaier [68] to generate the line-ofbest-fit given in Equation (7.30), were based mainly on small pipe diameters (e.g. 8
and 40 m m ) . Also in Figure 7.7, it can be seen that the proposed correlation does
not represent accurately the data points that are plotted for Fr > 30. It w a s decided
therefore, to investigate this apparent inadequacy in an attempt to develop an
improved correlation for fly ash (and other fine powders, such as pulverised coal),
which would be applicable to large values of L, D and m*.
153
0,3 ,--0,25 , . ,
A'
.0,1
Zelchen
PrwJukt
symbol
solid
\
10v
8
6
4
V
X
\ :
: \
VV
y.
(^.i
War 5 !
70
1500
Quelle
ref.
catalyst
sand
69
26 50
Totallt
to
2200
flyash
2J60
to
catalyst
70
1500
sand
69
2650
to
Totalit
2200
to
quaxzpowder
15
260
TO
KBUer
alumina
280
to
Llppert
ferrous sul
phate waste
112
MOO
to
MOO
to
Bohnet
\
10* J
8
6
4 -I
8 \
\g
10-2
8
fi
U A
o
4
' 0.<b
a t *
V A ITFT
\A
10"
8 10
20
40
=*
60 80
Figure 7.7 Correlation of pipe friction coefficient due to solids

according to Stegmaier [68].
The experimental data, that are used for this purpose (i.e. to develop an improved
correlation for solids friction factor), are obtained from
the dense-phase operating conditions of pulverised coal (Test Rig A1,
Section 3.1 and [33]) and additional tests carried out on Test Rig A3,
the pipeline conveying characteristics of seven fly ash samples (Test Rig
B1, Section 3.3.3 or Figure 5.4) and additional tests carried out on
Gladstone fly ash (Test Rig C3 and [71]),
the pipeline conveying characteristics of fly ash/cement mix (Test Rigs C1
and C3, Figures 6.1 and 6.2),
Muschelknautz and Krambrock [59], w h o presented data on fly ash
conveyed over a distance of 1200 m.
154
A summary of the data and associated pipeline configurations are presented in
Table 7.2. Appendix C contains a complete list of all steady-state operating
conditions (viz. mf, m s and Apt) for each material and pipeline configuration. Note
that the values of m * applicable to the data presented in Table 7.2, vary in the ranqe
7<m*<413.
No.
Material
Tallawarra
pulv. fuel
Tallawarra
fly ash
Eraring fly
ash
Munmorah
fly ash
Vales Point
fly ash
Gladstone
fly ash
Wallerawang
fly ash
Liddell fly
ash
Fly ash cement mix
Fly ash f591
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
13
D
(m)
Code
Name
Test
Rig
TWPF
TWASH
A1
A3
B1
25 .052
96 .052
71 .052
11
1.0, 2.0,3.0
ERASH
B1
71 .052
13
1.0,2.0,3.0
MNASH
B1
71 .052
12
1.0,2.0,3.0
VPASH
B1
71 .052
12
0.5, 1.5,2.5
GLASH
71 .052
162 .105
71 .052
12
8
WGASH
B1
C3
B1
12
1.0,2.0,3.0
5.0, 10.0, 15.0
0.5, 1.5,2.5
LDASH
B1
71 .052
12
1.0,2.0,2.5
PFAC
C1
C3
162 .060
162 .105
1200 .200
17
12
2.0,4.0,6.0,8.0, 10.0
5.0, 10.0, 15.0, 20.0
13.98
PFA
L
(m)
Total N o .
Data Pts.
5
2
Values of m s
(kg s-1)
2.62, 2.93, 3.99, 4.47, 4.50
1.41, 1.47
Table 7.2 S u m m a r y of products and experimental

data for correlation analyses.
Also, note that
the physical properties for Samples 1 to 8 were presented previously in
Table 5.1 (Section 5.2),
to avoid confusion with the other materials listed in Table 5.1, the fly
ash/cement mix and fly ash [59] listed above were numbered Samples 12
and 13, respectively,
the pressure drops Apt listed in Appendix C are for the total pipeline and
hence include any effects due to bends and vertical lifts,
the values of dV50 and p s listed in Table 5.1 for Samples 1 to 8 were used
in the following correlation analyses,
the physical properties for Samples 12 and 13 have been presented
elsewhere [71] and are repeated here for ease of comparison
Fly ash/cement mix : dV50 = 19 |im, ps = 2230 kg nr3, pbi = 720 kg nr3
Fly ash [59] :
dV50 = 15 nm, p s = 2350 kg nr 3 , pDi = 1200 kg nr3.
155
Using a Fortran 77 program on the University's mainframe computer, values of Fr,
m*. Xs and Frs were calculated initially from the data sets listed in Appendix C (and
the physical properties of each material). This information then w a s grouped
according to Equations (7.31) and (7.32) and plotted on the same axes which were
used by Stegmaier [68]. The resulting plot is shown below in Figure 7.8, which
includes the correlation given by Equation (7.33).
X
Fr
(7.31)
^(m^Fr;0-5^)0'1
(7.32)
2.1 XT'
(7.33)
TiiTr-
i i
MATERIAL (L.D)
ie
in
L
U_
ca
co
THPF(2S..052)
TWPFC96..0S2)
o THASH171.-B52I
A ERASH171..052)
+ MNASHH1..052)
X VPASHC71..052)
GLASH(71..052J "
CLASH 1162.. 1051
X HGASH(71.-052)
K LDASH171..052)
S PFACtl62..060)
X PFAC 1162..105)
I PFA 11200. -200)
<*
II*
i
I _ L
100.
X = Fr
Figure 7.8 Comparison between experimental data

and the Stegmaier [68] correlation.
156
Note that Fr w a s assumed to represent the velocity Vf at the end of the pipeline (i.e.
at essentially atmospheric conditions) and similarly pf w a s assumed to be constant
at 1.2 kg nr 3 . A s various groups of data (for a given product) were plotted by
Stegmaier [68] at a constant value of Fr (e.g. refer to quartz powder in Figure 7.7),
these assumptions do s e e m to be valid. Also, note that d V 5o w a s employed to
represent each product, whereas Stegmaier [68] m a y have used a m e a n value (no
definition w a s presented). However, the subsequent effect on the location of the
data points shown in Figure 7.8 is expected to be minor.
One further aspect that should be considered and discussed in more detail is the
calculation of Xs (i.e. refer to Equation (7.29)). As indicated previously, the friction
factor is based on the total pipeline air pressure drop Apt and hence, includes any
effect due the bends and vertical lift. Unfortunately, at the time of undertaking the
various test programs, the pipelines had not been instrumented sufficiently to
extract accurate straight pipeline air pressure gradients from the recorded data.
Also, it is believed that the sections of pipe used on most of the test rigs (viz. Test
Rigs A 1 , A 3 and B1) were not long enough to ensure fully established flow (i.e. due
to reacceleration of the product after each bend). A s far as vertical lift on Test Rigs
A1, A 3 , B1, C1 and C 3 is concerned, the ratio (Lv L_1) is seen to vary between 0.027
and 0.144. Also, most of the data presented in Figure 7.8 were obtained on Test
Rigs B1, C1 and C 3 , where 0.027 < (Lv L'1) < 0.051. T o evaluate the possible effect
on X-s, the ratio of vertical to horizontal pressure gradient K is assumed = 2 (i.e. refer
to Equation 6.35 in Section 6.3.4). This allows an equivalent length of 2 x L v to be
calculated for the vertical lift. The subsequent percentage increase in total pipeline
length (i.e. L + L v ) for Test Rigs B1, C1 and C 3 is seen to vary between 2.7 and 5.1
%, which only would have a minor effect on the data points plotted in Figure 7.8. In
fact, as the values of Xs and hence Y would reduce slightly as a result of this
allowance, any correlations representing such data would be considered slightly
conservative. Also, it is believed that the trends displayed in Figure 7.8 would not be
affected by this modification. In contrast, the effect due to bends m a y have a
significant influence on Apt (e.g. refer to [48,49,72]). However, the results obtained
from more recent investigations on pulverised brown coal (presented in the
following section) indicate that under certain circumstances (e.g. relatively few
number of bends for a given length of pipeline, moderate conveying rates for a
given D ) , the presence of bends m a y be ignored for the calculation of straightpipeline air pressure gradient and hence, Xs. Note that the effective length [9] of a
1 m radius 90 bend (i.e. 2 metres) is included in the determination of L (i.e. the total
effective length of a pipeline) and hence, to s o m e extent would compensate for the
pressure loss caused by the bend. However, for the data presented in Figure 7.8, it
is difficult to estimate the degree of compensation. Nevertheless, for the main
objective of identifying possible areas of improvement, the use of Apt to calculate Xs
is considered sufficiently accurate. In fact, it is believed that the trends displayed in
Figure 7.8 (and future analyses) are not affected severely by this approximation.
For example, in both Figures 7.7 and 7.8, the data points for Fr > 20 are seen to
diverge a w a y from the Stegmaier correlation (i.e. for increasing Fr). During the
preliminary stages of developing an improved correlation (i.e. based on the data
presented in Table 7.2 and Appendix C ) , it w a s found that this effect w a s caused
largely by not including the variation of average air density pf in the correlation
157
analysis. Also, the power index for m* used by Stegmaier [68] (i.e. 0.3) did not seem
to represent adequately the changes in pipe diameter (for the s a m e product).
The final set of axes that were selected as most appropriate (i.e. to represen
the experimental data), are summarised in Equations (7.34) and (7.35).
X
Fr m p f m
-0.5
(7.34)
,1 \0.8 ,
Y =
N0.85
Mm*)- Fre- (^ D
(7.35)
v50.
The resulting correlation (i.e. line-of-best-fit), which is presented in Figure 7.9, wa

found to be
Y
9x106X"1J82
(7.36)
.18+808
co
CS
CD
10+007 -
ca
to
GO
il-
10*006 ea
09
10+005
100.
X = Fr m
Figure 7.9
tpfm>
-.50
Improved correlation of pipe friction coefficient due to solids.
158
Note the values of pf m and Fr m , which were used for this correlation analysis, were
calculated from the following equations.
Pf2 + 0.5 Aps
Pfm =
RJ
(7.37)
4 mf
Frm =
*n no.5n2.5
(7.38)
D
Pfm 9
It is evident from Figure 7.9 that the scatter of experimental data has been reduced
significantly and the divergence effect observed previously (i.e. in Figures 7.7 and
7.8) for the larger values of Fr has been eliminated. It is interesting to note that to
improve the accuracy of the correlation (i.e. as shown in Figure 7.9), the pipeline
length L had to be included in Equation (7.35). This w a s unexpected and possibly
could be a result of either not selecting an optimal power index for pf m (i.e. -0.5) or
using Apt in Equation (7.29). That is, in relation to the latter possibility, the inclusion
of L may be compensating for the different number of bends, as well as the various
values of (Lv L -1 ). Nevertheless, even though there exists s o m e doubt over the
numerical accuracy of this correlation (i.e. mainly due to using Apt in Equation
(7.29)), it still m a y be concluded from the trends observed in this investigation, that
employing the mean values pfm and Frm significantly reduces the scatter
shown in Figure 7.8 (which is based on the exit values of pf and Fr),
including air density pf m in the correlation analysis reduces the scatter of
data points (i.e. for a given material and pipeline) and also improves the
divergence problem for large Fr m ,
the power index for m* provides a better representation of larger and
different values of D (i.e. for a given material).
In applying the improved solids friction factor correlation (i.e. as presented in
Equation (7.36)), to the prediction of pressure drop for various materials, pipeline
configurations and operating conditions, the resulting iterative calculations were
found to display poor convergence and in fact, on several occasions unable to
provide a confident value for Ap s and hence, Apt (i.e. using the suggested Equation
(6.40) to calculate Apt). However, due to the following reasons, it w a s decided to
postpone any further investigations into this matter.
Some uncertainty exists over the accuracy of the solids friction factor
correlation shown in Figure 7.9 (i.e. due to including the effect of bends
and vertical lift in the pressure drop data).
G o o d accurate data (e.g. obtained from long straight sections of pipe of
different diameter) are essential for the efficient investigation of such
problems. That is, numerous experiments on different products and
pipelines would have to be carried out for this purpose.
The general objectives of this section of work largely have been fulfilled
(i.e. reviewing generalised correlations and identifying possible areas of
improvement).
159
Instead, it w a s decided to concentrate on developing a test-design procedure for
the purpose of determining an accurate correlation for a given material and
different values of L and D (i.e. after isolating the relevant physical variables and
dimensionless groupings). In this way, as several different materials are tested and
correlated in the s a m e manner, the generalisation of solids friction factor (and the
troubleshooting of any divergence problems) can proceed with confidence.
Investigations into determining an accurate correlation for pulverised brown coal
(applicable to single- and stepped-diameter pipelines, over short and long
distances) are considered in the following sections. However, the principles of
designing a stepped pipeline are reviewed initially.
7.4.2 Design of Stepped-Diameter Pipelines
Over the past decade, only a number of investigations [5,6] have been carried out
this area of pneumatic conveying design and these have been limited to longdistance pneumatic transportation. That is, the application of stepped-diameter
pipelines to large throughput conveying and/or over relatively short distances has
not received m u c h attention. The major difficulties that need to be overcome before
a stepped-diameter pipeline can be designed a n d optimised for a particular
application, include the determination of the following items.
(i) Number of different pipe diameters (i.e. n) for a given L
(ii) Size of each pipe section (i.e. Dj for i = 1 to n).
(iii) Location of each transition (i.e. ALj for i = 1 to n).
(iv) Minimum m a s s flow rate of air (i.e. min. mf) to suit (i) and (ii).
However, the first decision to make is the maximum operating pressure. This will
depend on the type of feeder (e.g. 100 kPag for a rotary valve, 300 kPag for a single
(i.e. batch) blow tank, 500 kPag for a tandem blow tank system) and the required
overall reliability of the system. For example, the operating pressure may need to be
reduced to increase the service life of the hardware and components (e.g.
discharge and vent valves for blow tanks, rotary valve clearances). Once deciding
on this parameter, it then is necessary to optimise Items (i), (ii) and (iii), which are
dependent on the material (as well as its minimum transport properties), the
operating conditions (e.g. conveying rate m s , solids to air m a s s flow rate ratio m* =
m s m r 1 ) and the available sizes of pipe (e.g. 100, 125, 150 m m N.B.). It is
suggested from experience that the increment in pipe diameter (i.e. in the direction
of flow) be kept to a minimum (e.g. 100 to 125 m m N.B. and not 100 to 150 m m
N.B.). Selecting the number and sizes of the different pipe sections (i.e. n and Dj for
i = 1 to n) is a difficult task and usually relies on experience and/or trial and error.
Note that it would be advantageous to minimise the value of D at the end of the
pipeline for reasons of ease/cost of installation and avoiding the use of large bends
and valves that m a y be required (e.g. diverters, unblocking systems). A practical
upper limit s e e m s to be 250 m m N.B., although 200 m m N.B. would be preferred, if
possible. Note that the pipe sizes 50, 80, 100, 125, 150, 200 and 250 m m N.B.
would cater for most applications with the latter five being used more frequently for
long-distance and large-throughput transportation.
160
Once selecting n and the values of Dj (i.e. for i = 1 to n), the next stage of the design
process involves determining the location of each pipe transition (i.e. the values of
ALj for i = 1 to n). T h e ultimate aim of selecting the combinations of Dj and ALj is to
minimise the total pipeline air pressure drop Ap t , which then is compared with the
selected value of m a x i m u m operating pressure. For the purpose of this approach, it
is suggested initially to maximise Al_i for Di (where i = 1 represents the final or
largest size of pipe) and then A L 2 for D 2 , and so on until i = n for the initial or
smallest size of pipe. In this way, it m a y be determined whether
the number of different pipe sizes (i.e. n) is excessive, adequate or
insufficient for the total length of pipeline L,
n e w combinations of Dj and ALj m a y be necessary to either increase or
decrease Apt (i.e. with respect to the m a x i m u m operating pressure).
Ideally, it is desired to achieve this result with the smallest possible value of
which (in conjunction with the other different pipe sections) produces a Apt just
below the m a x i m u m operating pressure. In this way, the required values of air flow
(i.e. mf) are minimised as well. For the purpose of maximising ALj for each Dj (i.e.
starting from the end of the pipeline), the following information must be determined
for the product(s) in question and also each section of pipe.
(a) Minimum transport behaviour and properties (e.g. minimum superficial air
velocity Vffmin or Froude number Fr m j n ).
(b) M a x i m u m transport velocity Vf ) m a x or Froude number Fr m a x .
(c) Pressure drop for the air and solids components (viz. Ap,- = Aptj + ApSi).
Note that Apt represents the total air pressure drop for the overall pipeline,
whereas Ap,- represents the total pressure drop for pipe section No. i, which may
include bends and/or vertical lifts. That is, Apt = Z (Apj) for i = 1 to n. Items (a), (b)
and (c) constitute the mechanism that is necessary to optimise the combinations of
Dj and AL,- and hence, the design of the overall pipeline. T h e following section
considers both Items (a) and (b) in the light of existing criteria to step pipelines, and
Item (c) is investigated in Section 7.4.3.
7.4.2.1 Stepping pipe criteria
In relation to Item (a) above, a minimum Froude number (Frmjn) approach often is
used by researchers. For example, refer to Bohnet [73]. However, from experience it
is believed that for a given material, Fr m j n should be modified by air density pt, as
suggested by Equation (7.39), where i and v are exponents and E is a constant.
Frmin(pf)T = EOrfT (7.39)
This is supported by the findings of Roski [5], who determined the following
relationship for natural anhydrite
, x0.15
Frmin - ^ V pf.atm /
= ( 1 1 4 . 3 6 +159.23 m * ) 0 5
(7.40)
161
where pf.atm is the atmospheric air density. S o m e attempts have been m a d e to
generalise Fr m j n for different products. For example, Weber [45] suggested the
following relationships for Fr m j n in terms of the single particle settling velocity v< and
the particle to pipe diameter ratio (d D" 1 ).
f ft N r H \~^
Frmin
=
(^ v^ + 7J (m*) 0 2 5 (^J
forvoo<3ms- 1
(7.41)
Frmin
x0.25 I d
0.1
15(m*r^^J
for^^rns"1
(7.42)
r- M mjn
pfFrmin
Pf-j==
(7.43)
Vg D
Also, Schade [74] predicted the critical or minimum conveying velocity Vf>min for
coarse products (d = 0.3 to 3.5 m m ) with a mean linear deviation of 19 % using the
relationship
/
x-0.025 / _, N-0.34
Frmi=
(mT'()
(7.44)
which was based on 151 experimental measurements and where ps is the particle
density. Note that from Equations (7.40), (7.43) and (7.44), it can be seen that as pf
increases Frmjn decreases. This effect due to air density indicates that Frmin and
hence Vf >m j n (as well as mf) may be reduced for higher operating pressures (i.e.
towards the upstream end of each pipeline section). Therefore, in order to allow for
this effect (so that the stepped-pipeline configuration m a y be optimised), the
experiments must be carried out at air densities ranging from pf pf,atm to pt.max.
which corresponds to the selected value of maximum operating pressure. Rizk [7]
proposed an alternative approach by correlating the pressure minimum curve
(defining the transition between the dilute- and dense-phase regimes) and
suggesting the relationship
m* = _J__ Frx = Ki Fr* (7.45)
10<
where the exponents co and % are dependent on the equivalent particle diameter of
the product and the pipe material (for bulk solids with an approximately constant
value of p s ). In fact, Rizk [7] demonstrated that for three different sizes of polystyrol
(d = 1 to 2.5 m m ) conveyed through four different pipe diameters (D = 50 to 400
m m ) , the resulting pressure minimum curves could be correlated by the equation m*
= Ki Fr 4 to an accuracy of 15 %. This could be applied to the design of a steppeddiameter pipeline by assuming Fr m j n the Froude number given in Equation (7.45).
Note this will give a conservative result, as for most materials the onset of solids
deposition or flow instability occurs at a critical or minimum Froude number which is
less than the pressure-minimum value (i.e. Fr in Equation (7.45)). Also, again it is
believed that such a relationship should be modified to allow for air density. At this
stage, therefore, it is suggested that in order to determine an accurate expression
f
material(s)
or Fr (e.g.
in question
similar toand
Equation
for the (7.39)),
expectedexperiments
range of airshould
densities.
be carried
Once obtaining
out on thea
162
complete set of data, it then is possible to evaluate the various approaches
described above and determine the best relationship between Fr m j n , m* and pf.
As far as Item (b) in Section 7.4.2 is concerned, Marcus and Bettman [6]
recommended simply that an increase in pipe diameter should occur when Fr
reaches a selected maximum (i.e. Fr m a x ) and also suggested that F r m a x is a function
of the energy utilisation and the required levels of product degradation or damage.
It is believed that
erosion of the bends and pipeline also should be considered in the selection
of Frmax,
increasing the length of a particular section of pipe (i.e. increasing ALj for a
given Dj in the direction of flow) to ensure Fr = F r m a x is not necessary and in
fact, could hamper the ultimate objective of minimising pressure drop,
F r m a x should be used mainly as a guide to ensure Fr m j n < Fr < F r m a x (i.e. for
any section of pipeline).
7.4.3 Test-design procedure
Using generalised correlations for the determination of solids friction factor Xs
the equation [45]
ft} = (Xf + m*U^ (7.46)
where Xf is the air-only friction factor, certainly avoids the use of extensive t
For example, refer to W e b e r [69]. However, with typical m e a n linear deviations
ranging between 30 and 40 %, it is believed that the resulting degree of uncertainty
would be too great for long-distance applications, especially when the operating
pressures are in excess of 300 kPag. Also, the more recent predictions of
Chambers and Marcus [70] to within a factor of 2 are considered too inaccurate for
this application. Hence, as suggested in Section 7.4.2, sufficient experiments
should be carried out to determine an accurate relationship between Fr, m* and Xs.
For this purpose, the following test-design procedure is recommended. Note, to
demonstrate this procedure, results from recent investigations into the long-distance
pneumatic conveying of pulverised brown coal (median particle diameter dV50 = 21
[im, p s = 1500 kg rrr3, loose-poured bulk density pbi = 515 kg nr 3 ) are presented
where appropriate.
(i) For a wide range of mf, ms and pf, record the pressure drop Apj and upstream
static gauge pressure for a test section of pipeline (of diameter Dj), which
should have a length of ALj 10 to 20 m. Note the test section should be
located along a straight section of pipe and sufficiently distant from any bend
effects. T o minimise the total number of experiments it m a y be convenient to
use two test sections, one at the beginning of the pipeline and the other
towards the end. Note, the latter could be installed in a larger size of pipe (i.e.
using a stepped-diameter test rig pipeline) to establish/verify the variation of Xs
with respect to D. Also, it is suggested to monitor and develop a correlation for
the pressure drop caused by a bend. A s demonstrated by Bradley [72], this
163
effect m a y contribute considerably to the overall pressure drop of a pipeline.

Table 7.3 summarises the length of each diameter section of the 947 m long
pipeline (i.e. Test Rig E1), which was employed for the recent investigations on
pulverised brown coal. Note the numbering system for the different diameters
c o m m e n c e s at the end of the pipeline (to be compatible with later calculation
procedures).
ALi
(m)
No. of Bends
D|
(m)
4
3
2
1
.060
.069
.081
.105
146.0
390.0
261.0
150.0
3
13
8
5
Pipe No.
Table 7.3
Nb
Pipeline configuration for Test Rig E1.
Note that at the time of undertaking the test program on the pulverised brown
coal, the preferred method of pressure drop measurement described above
had not been installed. Instead, three to five single pressure tappings points
were used along selected sections of straight pipe for each of the different
diameters listed in Table 7.3. T o determine the required values of pressure
gradient, lines of best fit were drawn through each set of data. For the nine
experiments which were data-logged, the effect of the bends on pressure drop
w a s found largely to be insignificant (possibly due to the relatively few number
of bends with respect to each ALj and also the effective length [9] of each bend
being included in ALj). Examples of the pressure gradients which were
obtained for the Dj = 0.060 m pipe (two test sections) are presented in Figure
7.10. Therefore, it was decided for each experiment to calculate the pressure
drop caused by each Dj and hence, obtain an average pressure gradient.
Also, this technique was found to minimise s o m e of the experimental scatter.
The overall operating conditions obtained from each experiment as well as the
various values of Apj (for i = 1 to 4) are summarised in Table 7.4.
164
m*
mf
ms
NO. (kg S'1) (kg s"1) (kg kg-1)
AP4
AP3
Ap 2
AP1
Apt
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
(kPa)
91
96
72
76
75
76
76
85
110
165
175
147
143
150
138
145
166
209
81
91
73
72
72
69
72
97
108
29
32
25
27
28
23
27
32
38
366
394
317
318
325
306
320
380
465
Exp.
0
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
20.83
23.15
15.00
21.67
24.60
13.36
7.94
8.95
14.70
13
Table 7.4 Steady-state operating conditions for the 947 m Test Rig E1 pipeline.
500
60
400 U
CO
CO
CU
u
P-,
Vi
H
<J
CU
300 -
C
H
H
CU
O.
H
PM
200
50
100
150
Distance from Blow Tank (m)
Figure 7.10 Examples of air pressure drop for the Dj = 0.060 m section of pipe,
showing the vertex location of the three 1 m radius x 90 bends.
165
(ii) Using the data obtained from each experiment, the following calculations are
performed. A summary of the results are presented in Appendix D.
Pfm (Pa abs) = Mean absolute air pressure of test section =
f1 + f2
2
Pfm
pfm (kg m - 3 ) = M e a n air density = ==
H\
Pfi (Pa abs) = Absolute air pressure at upstream end of test section.
Pf2 (Pa abs) = Absolute air pressure at downstream end of test section.
4 mf
Vfm (m s 1 ) = M e a n superficial air velocity =
71 pfm D2
Vfm
Fr m = Mean Froude number =
VgDi
2DjAp
X\ = Overall friction factor for test section =
pfm V f m AL,
1.85
1141.83 rry-ÂL,
Apf (Pa) = Air only component of pressure drop [53] =
Pfi Dj5
2 Dj Apf
Xf = Air only friction factor =
Pfm Vf m2 ALj
X[ Xf
7
Xs = Solids friction factor =
m
(iii) The values of Xs then are plotted against Fr m , as shown in Figure 7.11. Note
the actual value of m * for each A,s and F r m has been included on this plot with
the decimal point representing its actual location . It can be seen from Figure
7.11 that due to the large amount of scatter, it is difficult to establish a
relationship between Xs and F r m (i.e. for any given value of m*). Although a
correlation could be fitted statistically to these data, it is believed that the
resulting errors would be too great for the design of long-distance pipelines.
The results presented previously in Section 7.4.1 indicated that this type of
scatter w a s caused largely by not including air density in the relationship
between Xs and Fr m .
166
025
14-6
020
21-7
.015
IS'O
/34
20-6
7*9
24-6
24-6 23-2
2+*
.010
21-7
2/7
9-0
2I7
("0
20-8
2og
)3-+
(4-7
23-2
23-2
20-tf
23-2
9-0
7-9
79
9-o
/4*7
005
7-9
9-0
1
15
10
/47
J
20
Fr_
m
Figure 7.11
Relationship between Xs and Fr m showing actual values of m*.
167
(iv) T o generalise the relationship between Xs and Fr m (i.e. in terms of pf m and m*),
values of Xs are plotted initially against X = F r m (p f m ) e for different values of e
(e.g. refer to Figure 7.12), and then modified using Y = Xs (m*)f. After
determining the best values for exponents e and f, X and Y are replotted on
log-log scales, as shown in Figure 7.13, which includes the following line-ofbest-fit for the pulverised brown coal.
Y = 1.8076 X-1-423
(747)
where X = Frm (pfm)0-2 and Y = Xs (m*)-5. From Equation (7.47), the following
expression w a s obtained for Xs.
Xs = 1.8076 (m*)-0-5 (Frm)-1 -423 (pfm)'0-2846 (7.48)
(v) To evaluate the accuracy of Equation (7.48), predicted values of Xs are plott
against the experimental values, as shown in Figure 7.14. It can be seen that
for the pulverised coal, Equation (7.48) predicts Xs well within 10 %. Also, a
good comparison can be seen in Figure 7.12 between the actual values of m*
and the curves predicted from Equation (7.48). Noting that the experimental
data were obtained from four different diameters of pipe section and also
would be subjected to a certain degree of scatter (i.e. due to the tests being
undertaken over a total distance of 947 m ) , this is considered to be a good
result. Also, this indicates that the s a m e correlation (i.e. Equation (7.47)) would
have been obtained if only one pipe section had been monitored and
analysed (i.e. 0.060, 0.069, 0.081 or 0.105 m ) . However, as operating
pressures of the test section must approach the m a x i m u m value suggested for
the actual plant, either the 0.060 m or 0.069 m sections of pipe would have
been preferred.
A computer program also was written to predict values of Apt for the test rig
pipeline (using the operating conditions listed in Table 7.5). Note that the
calculation procedure c o m m e n c e s at the end of the pipeline (where Pf2 =
101000 P a abs and T = 293.15 K are assumed) and then involves iteration for
each different diameter section of pipe. The corresponding predicted values of
total pipeline air pressure drop have been included in Table 7.5.
(vi) Plotting the predicted operating conditions listed in Table 7.5 and
superimposing the experimental data given in Table 7.4, results in the pipeline
conveying characteristics for the pulverised coal, as shown in Figure 7.15. This
graph demonstrates further the good accuracy of Equation (7.48) and the
design/analysis technique. To determine the amount of relative error, values of
Apt also were predicted for the experimental values of mf and m s listed in
Table 7.4 and have been summarised in Table 7.6.
168
.020
015
.010
.005
Fr
0-2
m 'fm
Figure 7.12 Relationship between Xs and X = Fr m pfm 0,2 showing experimental

values of m* and predicted curves, based on Equation (7.48).
169
200
~i
.100
Y = 1.8076 X-1'1*23
.080
.060
.040
020
010
-i
i_
10
'
'
'
20
Figure 7.13 Relationship between Y and X, where Y = XS (m*)0-5

and X = Fr m ptm02-
30
170
.01
.02
Xg (Experiment)
Figure 7.14 Comparison between actual and predicted values of Xs,

m s (kg s*1)
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
mf (kg s-1)
.10
.15
.20
.10
.15
.20
.10
.15
.20
Predicted Apt (kPa)
388.1
425.4
464.4
319.7
357.1
397.1
234.7
273.2
314.8
I
i
Table 7.5 Predicted values of pressure drop for the test rig pipeline,
171
(kg s-i)
2
400
Apt
(kPa)
200
0
mf (kg s_I)
0.1
0.2
0.3
Figure 7.15 Pipeline conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for L = 947 m

and D = .060/.069/.081/.105 m (Test Rig E1), showing experimental data
points and predicted curves, based on Equation (7.48).
ms
No.
(kg s- )
(kg s-1)
Exp. Apt
(kPa)
0
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
2.50
2.94
1,80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
366.0
394.0
317.0
318.0
325.0
306.0
320.0
380.0
465.0
Exp.
Table 7.6
mt
1
Predicted
Apt (kPa)
Error
370.0
404.2
319.0
322.8
320.7
312.6
336.2
381.4
460.7
+1.1
+2.6
+0.6
+1.5
-1.3
+2.2
+5.1
+0.4
-0.9
(%)
Comparison between experiment and predicted values of Apt.
j
I
172
From these results, it can be seen that the largest difference in pressure drop is
16.2 kPa, which represents a percentage error of +5.1 %. This is considered
very accurate for a long-distance stepped-diameter pipeline. However, it
should be noted that the test rig bends are included in the correlation
presented in Equation (7.48). Hence, it is believed that any predictions for
pipelines containing a relatively smaller number of bends will be conservative.
Further experiments and detailed investigations are required before an
accurate correlation for bends can be developed and at this stage are
considered beyond the present aims of this section.
(vii) To determine for a proposed length of pipeline, the optimal number and
location of pipeline transitions (i.e. stepped diameters), the minimum Froude
number (Frmin) approach, as defined by Equation (7.39), is suggested. Refer to
Section 7.4.2.1. Unfortunately, insufficient data were generated during the
initial test program on pulverised coal to determine accurate values for z and i).
Nevertheless, to demonstrate the principles of this approach and also the
advantages of stepping pipelines (i.e. in relation to using a single-diameter
pipeline), Frmin 6 is used to optimise the design of a hypothetical 1.8 k m
pipeline, which is required to transport the pulverised brown coal at a
continuous rate of 24 t rr1. Due to this substantial conveying rate (and hence,
relatively high operating pressure), a tandem blow tank system is suggested.
Also, for long term reliability of the hardware and components, a 400 kPag
m a x i m u m operating pressure is suggested (i.e. Apt < 400 kPa).
(viii) Using the same computer program referred to in (v) and adjusting the variou
lengths of selected diameter sections to maintain Frmin ~ 6.0, results in the
prediction of operating conditions for five different pipeline configurations (D =
.127/.154 m, .127/.154/.203 m, .154/.203 m, .154 m and .203 m ) . The final
results are presented in Table 7.7.
ms
AL,
(m)
(m)
.154
.127
1140
660
.203
.154
.127
.203
.154
475
710
615
880
920
m*
mf
Ap|
1
(kg s* )(kg s- ) (kg kg-1) (kPa)
1
Fr2
Ap t
(kPa)
Vfi
(m s'1)
FM
505
7.4
6.7
6.0
6.0
27.3
10.8
22.2
9.7
8.4
7.3
6.6
6.0
6.0
6.0
14.2
14.6
10.8
10.0
11.9
9.7
(-)
Vf 2
(m s"1)
(-)
6.7
.61
11.0
6.7
.55
12.2
6.7
.78
8.6
137
240
377
8.5
7.4
6.0
6.0
20.1
14.8
14.2
12.0
273
232
69
169
211
449
.154
1800
6.7
.95
7.1
479
479
7.4
6.0
42.5
34.6
.203
1800
6.7
1.37
4.9
319
319
8.5
6.0
35.3
25.0
Table 7.7
Suggested pipeline configurations and predicted operating conditions

for pulverised brown coal conveyed at 241 fr1 over L = 1800 m.
173
In relation to minimising air pressure, velocity and the total amount of air
required, the advantages of selecting a stepped pipeline (i.e. instead of a
single-diameter) can be seen from the results presented in Table 7.7.
Note that the above predicted values of Ap, (and hence Apt) are considered
conservative for the following two reasons.
(i) The effect of bends were included in the pressure drop data, which
were used to generate the correlation represented by Equation
(7.48).
(ii) It is believed that Frmin (and hence, Vfimin as well as mf) can be
reduced for higher operating pressures' (i.e. towards the start of
each pipeline section). Refer to Section 7.4.2.1.
Nevertheless, they provide a good relative indication of what to expect for

final installation. In fact, based on this information and also for reasons of
providing long term reliability (e.g. minimising system erosion and hardware
problems), the following configuration and operating conditions are
suggested.
Di = .203 m, AL| = 880 m, D2 = .154 m, AL2 = 920 m,
m s = 6.7 kg s-1 = 241 h-\ m f = 0.78 kg s-1 (39 Nm 3 min-1),
m * = 8.6, Apt - 377 kPa < 400 kPag.
The .203/. 154/. 127 m stepped pipeline also could be selected, but it is
believed that hardware components (e.g. discharge and vent valves), which
are in contact with the material and subjected to operating pressures greater
than 400 kPag, will have a greater chance of fatiguing and malfunctioning over
a period of time.
174
CHAPTER 8
175
8.
CONCLUSIONS
While some progress has been made during the last decade in the understanding
of pneumatic transportation, the technology that is required to design or select
industrial pneumatic conveyors with complete confidence is somewhat limited. The
primary objective of this thesis is to provide industry with s o m e of this technology in
relation to the pneumatic transportation of fine powders (e.g. pulverised coal, fly
ash, P V C powder) and s o m e coarser products (e.g. crushed bath, bone char,
screened coke). T h e work undertaken considers the main areas of determining
pipeline conveying characteristics, evaluating various types of conveying m o d e and
blow tank configuration, developing powder characterisation techniques and
formulating mathematical models to predict s o m e of the more important design
parameters.
Pipeline conveying characteristics and the transient plots of major conveying
parameters demonstrate the large differences that can occur in the flow
performance and the minimum transport behaviour of bulk solids. Pilot-plant testing
is essential for reliable design, where it is necessary to be aware of any operational
problems resulting from unusual material properties (e.g. strong plugging).
A standardised-test procedure comprising three different types of experiment is
developed to generate data efficiently for the presentation of pipeline conveying
characteristics and also delineate any unstable or unreliable transport phenomena.
The application of this procedure to different materials on the one test rig provides
an accurate m e a n s of comparing their relative performance in a pneumatic
conveying system (e.g. dense-phase). Also, in conjuction with accurate scale-up
equations or solids friction factor correlations, the technique provides a basis for the
future design of pneumatic conveying systems.
The pipeline conveying characteristics and the transient plots of the major
conveying parameters demonstrate the wide range rangeability of conveying
parameters and hence, good dense-phase performance of pulverised coal and fly
ash. However, other results from slightly coarser materials (e.g. P V C powder,
screened coke and coarse ash) emphasise the large differences that can occur in
flow performance and minimum transport (dense-phase) behaviour (e.g. unstable
plugging in the vicinty of saltation).
The introduction of supplementary conveying-air at the blow tank outlet provides
smoothing effect upon conveying parameters. This result is particularly important if
lower values of conveying pressure or air flow rate are required or if longer
transport distances are desired. Additional results from the fly ash test program
emphasise the importance of considering material properties w h e n selecting an
appropriate blow tank configuration and an efficient method of air injection (for the
dual purpose of fluidisation and pressurisation).
The transient plots of major conveying parameters demonstrate the importance of
blow tank air injection on the overall performance of a plug-phase pneumatic
conveying system. Although this method of transport is able to handle a wide range
of conventionally difficult dense-phase materials (e.g. crushed bath, screened
coke), it is relatively sensitive to changes in the physical properties of a material
(e.g. particle size). However, to s o m e extent, it is possible to compensate for such
changes by selecting a different method of air injection.
176
Experimental results from fly ash/cement mix and P V C powder indicate the
inadequacy of the original scale-up criteria, which were employed initially to design
pneumatic conveying systems. Improved design equations are derived from these
results and modified to allow for the relatively longer lengths of vertical that are
used usually in industry. The scale-up of the air-only component of pressure drop is
an equally important design consideration (especially for long-distance
applications). Accurate equations are developed, and their predictions compare
favourably with 27 data points from 7 different configurations of pipeline (including a
940 m long stepped-diameter pipeline). A technique to generalise pipeline
conveying characteristics also is proposed and simplifies scale-up procedures for
design.
Despite certain limitations (e.g. particle size distribution), the Geldart [24] an
[23] classifications generally provide a useful technique to indicate the fluidisation
performance of bulk solids (important for efficient transportation and blow tank
operation) and assessing a material's suitability to be conveyed in the dense-phase
mode. However, although such information is important for design, it still only
provides a qualitative evaluation of the material.
The results from an approximate analytical model to represent the governing
differential equations of a converging flow channel seem to underestimate the rate
of solids discharging from the outlet of a blow tank (i.e. for a given pressure drop
across the material). A thorough assessment of the mathematical mode! still is
required and depends on the accurate measurement of the relevant variables, such
as pressure and velocity inside the blow tank.
After several changes and improvements, the predictions of solids discharge rate
from the latest version of a numerical model to predict blow tank characteristics
seem to be more realistic (i.e. w h e n compared with the analytical model). Five
pipeline theories also are evaluated with one being recommended for predicting
pressure drop in the dense-phase pneumatic transportation of fine powders. A
worked example is presented and the results compare favourably with data
obtained from the initial test program on pulverised coal.
Generalising solids friction factor correlations for the prediction of pressure dr
avoids the need of extensive test work. However, the applicability of such
correlations to industry is limited, especially when good accuracy is required (e.g.
for long-distance and/or large throughput conveying). The results from preliminary
investigations into identifying possible areas of improvement indicate that mean air
density should be included in the correlation analysis.
Stepped-diameter pipelines provide definite advantages for long-distance and
large-throughput pneumatic conveying, but also could be applied to short-distance
applications involving heavy, coarse and/or abrasive materials. Based on existing
criteria and the results of this thesis, a combined test-design procedure is proposed
and demonstrated for the ultimate objective of obtaining an optimal configuration of
pipeline. Results from recent investigations into the long-distance pneumatic
conveying of pulverised brown coal, demonstrate the applicability and good
accuracy of this test-design procedure by predicting to within 5 % the operating
conditions obtained from a 947 m x 60/69/81/105 m m I.D. stepped pipeline.
177
These results demonstrate further that the s a m e correlation and predictions could
have been obtained using only one size of pipe. This also indicates that
experimental work in the future only m a y need to be carried out on a short-distance
pipeline (i.e. to predict operating conditions for long-distance and/or largethroughput applications). However, operating pressures in the test rig still are
required to approach those expected for the actual or proposed system. Perhaps
this could be achieved by replacing the test rig receiving silo with a pressure vessel
having good back-pressure and flow rate control. Various configurations of pipeline
are optimised (based on a simplified minimum Froude number approach) for a
hypothetical application requiring 24 t h"1 of pulverised coal over a total distance of
1800 m and demonstrate the advantages of selecting a stepped-diameter pipeline,
in terms of minimising pressure, velocity and air flow requirements.
8.1 Further Work
Although the results obtained in this thesis have contributed significantly to
predicting and understanding the pneumatic transportation of bulk solids, the
following areas of investigation still require immediate attention.
(a) The equipment and test procedures that are used to measure the
permeability (fluidisation) and deaeration characteristics of products
need to be developed and standardised for the formulation of a unified
classification technique (i.e. to evaluate the dense-phase suitability of
bulk solids). Numerous experiments (as well as pneumatic conveying
tests) should be carried out on a wide range of materials having narrow
and wide particle size distributions. These investigations also should be
extended to encompass the different possible m o d e s of dense-phase
conveying (e.g. by-pass pipelines, plug-phase, pulse-phase) and include
an evaluation of
the relevance of mean (or median) particle diameter and size
distribution to the prediction of fluidisation behaviour and
slugging (dense-phase) performance,
other possible influential factors or variables (e.g. ratio of
tapped to poured bulk density [43]) that m a y assist in the
classification of fine or cohesive powders (e.g. [25]).
(b) Despite the developments made in improving the accuracy of the scaleup equations presented in Chapter 6, it is believed that the application of
this macro or systems approach to design still is somewhat limited (e.g.
approximations are used to allow for vertical lifts and bends). The
correlation results presented in Section 7.4.3, indicate that a micro or
components
approach m a y be more useful and accurate in predicting
pipeline operating conditions (even for large values of L and D ) . To
evaluate the general applicability of this approach to design, the
procedure proposed in Section 7.4.3 should be employed to examine a
wide range of materials (e.g. fine powders and coarse products). These
investigations also should include
178
a test program to identify the relevant variables that affect and
define minimum transport behaviour (e.g. air density, minimum
Froude number, mass flow ratio),
the introduction of additional instrumentation to monitor the
pressure drop caused by bends,
an evaluation of undertaking the necessary experiments on
only a small-scale testrig(i.e. replacing the receiving silo with
a certified pressure vessel to generate high operating
pressures and simulate long-distance conveying),
the development of accurate empirical correlations that will
allow each component of a pipeline (e.g. bends, straight pipe
sections, vertical lifts) to be analysed,
the development of computer software to optimise the
correlations for solids friction factor and bend pressure loss.
These correlations may then be used in the development of an
analysis package to predict with confidence the operating
conditions for a given material and different configurations of
pipeline (including long-distance, stepped-diameter pipelines).
(c) After a wide range of materials have been investigated in (b) above, it
then will possible to conduct investigations into generalising correlations
for solids friction factor and bend pressure loss. T h e importance of
particle size distribution and a representative diameter also will need to
be investigated for this purpose (e.g. refer to Werner [29]).
With the results presented in this thesis, together with those obtained from the
above investigations, it then m a y be possible to predict with confidence and good
reliability the most suitable m o d e of conveying and the pneumatic conveying
performance for any material and configuration of pipeline (i.e. based on benchtype experiments and perhaps only a small-scale test rig).
179
CHAPTER 9
180
REFERENCES
Cuerten, H.-J. Industrial applications of long-distance pneumatic conv

Pneumatech 2, Int. Conf. on Pneumatic Conveying Technology, Uni. of Kent,
Canterbury, England, 4-6 September, 1984. Organised by the Powder
Advisory Centre, London, England. Proc. of the Technical Program, pp. 149Klintworth, J. and R. D. Marcus. A review of low-velocity pneumatic conveying
systems. Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 5, No. 4, August, 1985, pp. 747-753.
Wypych, P. W., P. C. Arnold and W. R. Armitage. Developing new methods
the pneumatic transport of bulk solids through pipelines. C h e m e c a 88, Int.
Conf. for the Process Industries, Sydney ,-N.S.W, 28-31 August, 1988.
Organised by the The Institution of Engineers, Australia.
Flain, R. J. Pneumatic conveying : how the system is matched to the ma

Process Engineering, November, 1972, pp. 88-90.
Roski, H.-J. The influence of stepped pipelines in pneumatic long-dist

transport of building materials. Pneumatech 3, Int. Conf. on Pneumatic
Conveying Technology, Jersey, Channel Islands, England, 24-26 March,
1987. Organised by the Powder Advisory Centre, London, England. Proc. of
the Technical Program, pp. 311-333.
Marcus, R. D. and R. Bettman. Refinements to the design of long distanc
pneumatic conveying systems. Pneumatech 3, Int. Conf. on Pneumatic
Conveying Technology, Jersey, Channel Islands, England, 24-26 March,
the Technical Program, pp. 335-352.
Rizk, F. R. Pneumatic transport in dilute- and dense-phase. Bulk Solids
Handling, Vol. 2, No. 2, June, 1982, pp. 235-241.
Burgess, G. Pulse-phase conveying - a review of the first ten years. Bu

Solids Handling, Vol. 1, No.1, February, 1981, pp. 71-75.
Wypych, P. W. and P. C. Arnold. On improving scale-up procedures for
pneumatic conveying design. Powder Technology, Vol. 50, No. 3, 1987, pp.
281-284.
Wypych, P. W., W. R. Armitage and P. C. Arnold. Australia's large-scale

pneumatic conveying test facility. Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 7, No. 3, June,
1987, pp. 409-413.
Mason, J. S., D. Mills, A. R. Reed and C. R. Woodcock. The use of produ

conveying characteristics in the design of pneumatic conveying systems.
Powder Europa 80, Industrial Awareness Seminar Lecture Notes, Seminar
D. Organised by the International Powder Institute, London, England, January,
1980, pp. 58-80.
181
12. Mason, J. S., D. Mills, A. R. Reed and C. R. Woodcock. Introduction to
pneumatic conveying. Powder Europa 80, Industrial Awareness Seminar
Lecture Notes, Seminar D. Organised by the International Powder Institute,
London, England, January, 1980, pp. 1-57.
13. Duckworth, R. A. Introduction to pneumatic conveying. Pneumatic
Conveying of Solids, Chapter 1, L.S. Leung (Editor). Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia, 1977.
14. Wypych, P. W. and P. C. Arnold. Feasibility and efficiency of dense-pha

pneumatic transportation. Transportation Conference, Perth, W.A., 30
October - 1 November, 1984. Organised by The Institution of Engineers,
Australia. Preprints of Papers, pp. 76-80. Also, published in Mechanical
Engineering Transactions of T h e
Institution of Engineers,
Australia, Vol. M E 1 1 , No. 1, March, 1986, pp. 1-5.
15. Mills, D., J. S. Mason and R. B. Stacey. A design study for the pneumat
conveying of a fine particulate material. Solidex 82, The Solids Handling
Conference, Harrogate, England, 30 March-1 April, 1982. Trinity Publishing
(Conferences) Ltd., Oxbridge, Middlesex, England, 1982, pp. C1-C75.
16. Wypych, P. W. and P. C. Arnold. The use of powder and pipe properties i
prediction of dense-phase pneumatic transport behaviour. Pneumatech 2,
Int. Conf. on Pneumatic Conveying Technology, University of Kent,
Canterbury, England, 4-6 September, 1984. Organised by the Powder
Advisory Centre, London, England. Proc. of the Technical Program, pp. 340355.
17. Konrad, K., D. Harrison, R. M. Nedderman and J. F. Davidson. Prediction
pressure drop for horizontal dense-phase pneumatic conveying of particles.
Pneumotransport 5, Int. Conf. on the Pneumatic Transport of Solids in
Pipes, London, England, 16-18 April, 1980, Paper A3.
18. Wirth, K.-E. and O. Molerus. Prediction of pressure drop with pneumatic
conveying of solids in horizontal pipes. Pneumatech 1, Int. Conf. on
Pneumatic Conveying Technology, Stratford-Upon-Avon, England, 3-5 May,
the Technical Program, Session 5, pp. 1-14.
19. Zenz, F. A. and P. N. Rowe. Particle conveying in extrusion flow. Fluidi
Technology, Volume 2, Series in Thermal and Fluids Engineering, D.L.
Keairns (Editor). Proceedings of the Inf. Fluidisation Conf. held at Asilomar
Conference Grounds, Pacific Grove, California, U.S.A., 15-20 June, 1975, pp.
151-158.
20. Zenz, F. A. Minimum velocity for catalyst flow. Petroleum Refiner, Vol.
No. 6, 1957, pp. 133-142.
21. Wypych, P. W. and P. C. Arnold. A standardised-test procedure for pneum

conveying design. Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 5, No. 4, August, 1985, pp.
755-763.
182
22. Lohrmann, P. C. and R. D. Marcus. The performance of a bottom-discharge
blow vessel pneumatically conveying three Group A materials. Bulk Solids
Handling, Vol. 4, No. 2, June, 1984, pp. 409-412.
23. Dixon, G. Pneumatic Conveying. Plastics Pneumatic Conveying and
Bulk Storage, Chapter 2. Applied Science Publishers, London, 1981.
24. Geldart, D. Types of gas fluidisation. Powder Technology, Vol. 7, 1973

285-292.
25. Geldart, D., N. Harnby and A. C. Wong. Fluidisation of cohesive powder

Powder Technology, Vol. 37, 1984, pp. 25-37.
26. Wypych, P. W. and P. C. Arnold. Predicting and improving flow perform

dense-phase pneumatic transportation. Int. Sym. on the Reliable Flow of
Particulate Solids, Bergen, Norway, 20-22 August, 1985. Organised by the
Chr. Michelsen Institute, Norway.
27. Arnold, P. C, P. W. Wypych, O. C. Kennedy and E. A. Whitaker. Long-dis

pneumatic conveying of fly ash and pulverised coal. N E R D D P End of
Contract Report, July, 1988. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The
University of Wollongong, 99 pages.
28. Mason, J. S., D. Mills, A. R. Reed and C. R. Woodcock. Pneumatic
Conveying of Bulk Materials, Intensive Short Course Notes. Thames
Polytechnic, London, England, December, 1983.
29. Werner, D. Influence of particle size distribution during pneumatic de

phase conveying in vertical and horizontal pipes. Bulk Solids Handling,
Vol. 3, No. 2, June, 1983, pp. 351-359.
30. Morikawa, Y. and S. Sakamoto. Flow characteristics of mixed size part

horizontal pneumatic conveying. Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 5, No. 3, June,
1985, pp. 647-651.
31. Geldart, D. and A. R. Abrahamsen. Fluidisation of fine porous powders.

Recent Advances in Fluidisation and Fluid-Particle Systems, AlChE
Symposium Series, AlChE, N e w York, 1981, Vol. 77, No. 205, pp. 160-165.
32. Allen, T. Particle Size Measurement. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London,
England, Second Edition, 1975.
33. Arnold, P. C, A. G. McLean and P. W. Wypych. Dense-phase pneumatic
conveying of pulverised coal and fly ash. N E R D D P End of Contract
Report, March, 1986. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University
of Wollongong, 113 pages.
34. Leva, M. Fluidisation. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, U.S.A., 19
35. Wypych, P. W. and P. C. Arnold. Pneumatic transportation and fluidisat

performance of power station fly ash. Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 6, No. 1,
February, 1986, pp. 93-97.
183
36. Molerus, O. interpretation of Geldart's type A, B, C and D powders by taking
into account interparticle cohesion forces. Powder Technoloav Vol 33
ay
1982, pp. 81-87.
'
37. Zenz, F.A. Pneumatic conveying from grains to powders. Pneumatech 2, In

Conf. on Pneumatic Conveying Technology, University of Kent, Canterbury
England, 4-6 September, 1984. Organised by the Powder Advisory Centre!
London, England. Proc. of the Technical Program, pp. 63-81.
38. Mainwaring, N. J. and A. R. Reed. Permeability and air retention charac

of bulk solid materials in relation to modes of dense-phase pneumatic
conveying. Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 7, No. 3, June, 1987, pp. 415-425.
39. Dixon, G. How do different powders behave? Bulk-Storage Movement
Control, Vol. 5, No. 5, May/June, 1979, pp. 81-88.
40. Yang, W.-C. A criterion for fast fluidisation. Pneumotransport 3, Int.
the Pneumatic Transport of Solids in Pipes, University of Bath, England, 7-9
April, 1976, Paper E5.
41. Clift, R., J. R. Grace and M. E. Weber. Bubbles, Drops and Particles.
Academic Press, N e w York, 1978.
42. Wypych, P. W. and P. C. Arnold. Recent engineering developments in the
application of pneumatic pipeline transport of bulk solids to Australian industry.
Paper to be presented at the National Engineering Conference, Perth,
W.A., 10-14 April, 1989. Organised by The Institution of Engineers, Australia.
43. Jones, M. G., D. Mills and J. S. Mason. Pneumatic conveying of high bul
density products. Pneumatech 3, Int. Conf. on Pneumatic Conveying
Technology, Jersey, Channel Islands, England, 24-26 March, 1987. Organised
by the Powder Advisory Centre, London, England. Proc. of the Technical
Program, pp. 371-396.
44. Barth, W. Stromungsvorgange beim Transport von Festteilchen und
Flussigkeitsteilchen in Gasen (In German). Chemie-lngenieur-Technik,
Vol. 30, No. 3, 1958, pp. 171-180.
45. Weber, M. Principles of hydraulic and pneumatic conveying in pipes. Bul

Solids Handling, Vol. 1, No. 1, February, 1981, pp. 57-63.
46. Wen, C.-Y. and H. P. Simons. Flow characteristics of horizontal fluidis

transport. AlChE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, June, 1959, pp. 263-267.
47. Ostrovskii, V. M., V. T. Krivoi, V. N. Sokolov and V. P. Isakov. Calcul

pressure losses during pneumatic conveying of powdered materials in high
concentrations. Journal of Applied Chemistry of the USSR, Vol. 50, No.
5, 1977, 1117-1119.
184
48. Mills, D., J. S. Mason and V. K. Agarwal. An analysis of the dilute-phase
pneumatic conveying of sand. Pneumatech 2, Int. Conf. on Pneumatic
Conveying Technology, University of Kent, Canterbury, England, 4-6
September, 1984. Organised by the Powder Advisory Centre, London,
England. Proc. of the Technical Program, pp. 258-278.
49. Mills, D. and J. S. Mason. The influence of bend geometry on pressure
pneumatic conveying system pipelines. 10th Annual Powder and Bulk
Solids Conference, Rosemont, Illinois, 7-9 May, 1985. Proc. of the
Technical Program, pp. 203-214.
50. Zenz, F. Conveyability of materials of mixed particle size. Industrial

Engineering Chemistry - Fundamentals, Vol. 3, No. 1, February, 1964,
pp. 65-75.
51. Arnold, P. C. and P. W. Wypych. Pneumatic conveying of PVC powder. Rep

to Henry Simon (Australia). The University of Wollongong, N.S.W.,
Australia, 1984.
52. Reed, A. R. Private Communication, February, 1985.
53. Atlas Copco Air Compendium, Atlas Copco AB, Stockholm, Sweden,
1975.
54. Rose, H. E. and R. A. Duckworth. Transport of solid particles in liqui

gases. Engineer, Vol. 277: No. 5903, 14 March, pp. 392-396; No. 5904, 21
March, pp. 430-433; No. 5905, 28 March, pp. 478-483; 1969.
55. Yang, W.-C. A unified theory on dilute-phase pneumatic transport. Jour

Powder and Bulk Solids Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, S u m m e r 1977, pp.
89-95.
56. Scott, A. M. The influence of particle properties on the pressure drop

the pneumatic transport of granular materials. Pneumotransport 4, Int. Conf.
on the Pneumatic Transport of Solids in Pipes, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California,
U.S.A., 26-28 June, 1978, Paper A3.
57. Molerus, O. Prediction of pressure drop with steady-state pneumatic co

of solids in horizontal pipes. Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 36, No.
12, 1981, pp. 1977-1984.
58. Marcus, R. D. Pneumatic conveying of bulk solids. Notes for Short Cour
on Pneumatic Conveying of Bulk Solids, T U N R A Bulk Solids Handling
Research Associates, University of Newcastle, N.S.W., Australia, 1983.
59. Muschelknautz, F. and W. Krambrock. Simplified calculations on horizon

pneumatic feed pipes at high loading with finely divided granular products (In
German). Chemie-lngenieur-Technik, Vol. 41, No. 21, 1969, pp. 11641172.
60. Chari, S. S. Pressure drop in horizontal dense-phase conveying of airmixtures. A l C h E S y m p o s i u m Series-Fluidisation, Vol. 67, No. 116,
1970, pp. 77-84.
185
61. McLean, A.G. Flow Rate of Simple Bulk Solids from Mass Flow Bins. P h D
Thesis, Dept. of Mech. Eng., The University of Wollongong, 1979.
62. Enstad, G. On the theory of arching in mass flow hoppers. Chemical
Engineering Science, Vol. 30, 1975, pp. 1273-1283.
63. McLean, A. G. Blow tank design. Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 5, No. 1,
February, 1985, pp. 213-218.
64. Ergun, S. Fluid flow through packed columns. Chemical Engineering
Progress, Vol. 48, No. 2, 1952, pp. 89-94.
65. Fortier, A. Two-phase turbulent steady flow of air and solid particles
with high mass concentration in a pipe. Pneumotransport 3, Int. Conf. on
the Pneumatic Transport of Solids in Pipes, University of Bath, England, 7-9
April, 1976, Paper C2.
66. Wilson, K. C. Analytic modelling of energy consumption in solids pipeli

Pneumotransport 5, Int. Conf. on the Pneumatic Transport of Solids in
Pipes, London, England, 16-18 April, 1980, Paper C3.
67. Wilson, K. C. A unified physically-based analysis of solid-liquid pipel

Hydrotransport 4, Int. Conf. on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes,
Alberta, Canada, 18-21 May, 1976, Paper A1.
68. Stegmaier, W. Zur Berechnung der horizontalen pneumatischen Forderung
feinkomiger Feststoffe. Fordern und Heben, Vol. 28, No. 5/6, 1978, pp. 363366.
69. Weber, M. Correlation analysis in the design of pneumatic transport pla

Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 2, No. 2, June, 1982, pp. 231-233.
70. Chambers, A. J. and R. D. Marcus. Pneumatic conveying calculations. 2nd

Int. Conf. on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation,
Wollongong, 7-9 July, 1986. Organised by The Institution of Engineers,
Australia. Preprints of Papers, pp. 49-52.
71. Wypych, P. W. and P. C. Arnold. Classification and prediction of fly as

handling characteristics for dense-phase and long-distance pneumatic
transportation. TIZ-Fachberichte, Vol. 111, No. 11, 1987, pp. 753-761.
72. Bradley, M. S. A. and D. Mills. Approaches to dealing with the problem
energy loss due to bends. 13th Annual Powder & Bulk Solids Conf.,
Rosemont, Illinois, U.S.A., 9-12 May, 1988.
73. Bohnet, M. Advances in the Design of Pneumatic Conveyors. International

Chemical Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 3, July, 1985, pp. 387-405.
74. Schade, B. Zum Ubergang Sprung-Strahnenforderung bei der Horizontalen
Pneumatischen Feststofforderung. Dissertation, University of Karlsruhe,
1987.
186
APPENDIX A
Compilation of Particle Size Data
(Samples 1 to 11, Table 5.1)
187
No.
I
Particle Size Range

Advi (nm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0.0 - 4.7
4.7 - 6.6
6.6 - 9.4
9.4-13.0
13.0-19.0
19.0 - 27.0
27.0 - 38.0
38.0 - 53.0
53.0 - 75.0
75.0-106.0
106.0- 150.0
Average Size
dVi (nm)
2.35
5.65
8.00
11.20
16.00
23.00
32.50
45.50
64.00
90.50
128.00
Mass % in Range
AMj
6.0
5.1
6.1
7.2
9.7
12.4
14.3
15.7
12.3
7.4
3.8
Table A.1 Mass percentage frequency distribution for

Tallawarra pulverised coal (Sample 1), using the Coulter Counter.
NO. Particle Size Range

i
AdVi (nm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
Average Size
dvi (nm)
Mass % in Range
AM;
3.0
5.5
8.5
8.0
9.0
9.0
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
26.0
26.0
16.0
6.0

Tallawarra fly ash (Sample 2), using the Coulter Counter.
No.
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Particle Size Range

Advi (nm)
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0 - 200.0
200.0 - 300.0
Average Size
d V | (nm)
Mass % In Range
AMi
3.0
5.5
8.5
7.0
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
250.0
18.0
21.0
15.0
9.0
7.0
9.5
11.0
2.5

Eraring fly ash (Sample 3), using the Coulter Counter.
188
No. Particle Size Range

A d v i (nm)
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
'8
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0 - 200.0
Average Size
d v | (nm)
M a s s % in Range
AMf
3.0
5.5
8.5
8.5
8.0
6.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
20.5
21.5
21.0
8.0
6.0

Munmorah fly ash (Sample 4), using the Coulter Counter.

A d V | (nm)
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0 - 20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
Average Size
dvi (nm)
5.5
8.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
M a s s % In Range
AM]
14.0
15.0
24.0
23.5
16.5
5.5
1.5

Vales Point fly ash (Sample 5), using the Coulter Counter.

i
A d V | (nm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0 -10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
Average Size
dVi (nm)
3.0
5.5
8.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
M a s s % In Range
AMj
12.0
13.0
10.0
19.0
22.0
16.0
7.0
1.0

Gladstone fly ash (Sample 6), using the Coulter Counter.

A d v i Oim)
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
Average Size
d V | (nm)
3.0
5.5
8.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
M a s s % In Range
AM]
16.0
17.0
13.0
25.0
19.0
10.0
0.0
0.0

Wallerawang fly ash (Sample 7), using the Coulter Counter.

Ad V i (nm)
|
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
7.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
20.0 - 40.0
40.0 - 70.0
70.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
Average Size
dvi (nm)
3.0
5.5
8.5
15.0
30.0
55.0
85.0
150.0
M a s s % In Range
AMj
17.0
16.0
10.0
15.5
15.5
14.0
7.5
4.0

Liddell fly ash (Sample 8), using the Coulter Counter.

Ad p i (nm)
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
40.0 - 75.0
75.0-100.0
100.0-130.0
130.0- 150.0
150.0-200.0
200.0 - 300.0
300.0 - 420.0
Average Size
dpi (nm)
57.5
87.5
115.5
140.0
175.0
250.0
360.0
M a s s % in Range
AMj
4.0
7.0
29.0
26.0
20.0
12.0
2.0

P V C powder (Sample 9), using the sieve test.
190

Adpi (nm)
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
60.0-100.0
100.0-200.0
200.0 - 300.0
300.0 - 400.0
400.0 - 500.0
500.0 - 600.0
600.0 - 700.0
700.0 - 800.0
800.0 - 900.0
900.0-1000.0
1000.0 - 1200.0
1200.0 - 1500.0
Average Size
dpi (nm)
80.0
150.0
250.0
350.0
450.0
550.0
650.0
750.0
850.0
950.0
1100.0
1350.0
Mass % in Range
AMj
3.2
12.1
13.4
13.2
11.3
6.8
11.1
6.6
6.4
5.1
8.1
2.7

screened coke (Sample 10), using the sieve test.

AdVi (nm)
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.0-5.8
5.8 - 7.2
7.2-9.0
9.0-11.4
11.4- 14.5
14.5 - 18.5
18.5-23.7
23.7 - 30.3
30.3 - 39.0
39.0 - 50.2
50.2 - 64.6
64.6 - 84.3
84.3- 112.8
112.8- 160.4
160.4-261.7
261.7-564.0
Average Size
dvi (nm)
2.90
6.50
8.10
10.20
12.95
16.50
21.10
27.00
34.65
44.60
57.40
74.45
98.55
136.10
211.05
412.85
Mass % in Range
AMj
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.4
1.1
1.3
4.1
7.4
7.2
14.5
20.1
20.2
15.1
5.6

coarse fly ash (Sample 11), using the Malvern analyser.
191
APPENDIX B
Modified Slugging Diagrams
based on Dixon [23,39] and Clift et al. [41]
192
E
E
C\J
LO
co
E
CO
CD
*>
CD
E
Q
CD
v_
co
~ E
o>B
ZJ
co
CO
11
CD
c
o eg
c_
o
Q_
c
10
CD
CD
OJ Q.
X
o
O
E
CD
m
CD
(e_w 6^) d-sc/
* eouejej.^jg fiq.|sueg
193
LO
ca
+
ca
M i l i r
I I I If
E
E
CO
l">-
CO
1_
ca
ca
E
CO
i_
c
_
CD
-e>
CD
CD
D)
CO
T3
CT
-E
=3 CO
CO
ca
ca
:
co
~~*
' CD
g!
-p
CD
^ QCD -
c_
o
CJJ
c
o
in
ca
ea
+
ea
I I I.
ea
ea
ea
le-1" 6 ^* d-*d
h-
<B
>3
D)
C_3
CD
-C
m
Li.
Q.
ZD
O
Cd
CD
l l l l l
^= T3
O
CM
5E
n_
CD
ca
ca
ea
eoueje^jfj fi*|suefj
CD
2~
o
cc
194
E
E
CM
O
CO
ECO
t_
c_
CD
*>
CD
F
IO
C2
CD
c_
0
Q_
c0
CD
2 1
CO
o
D)
C
D)
D)
CO
, ,
CO
CO

c
oX
a-o
CD
*+
"a
Eo
CD
x:
Fco
m
CD
i_
3
D)
LL
(e-*" 6î) ^tf- 8 ^
eouejejjjQ
fi^jsueg
195
ca
ca
E
E
<*
LO
CO
F
rrt
ea
pa
ea
'
i_
D)
CO
T3
CD
D)
-fr>
CD
D)
E
0
CD
co
,.,
CO
o
-*>
c
0
Q_
c
0
CD
*+
T3
O
E
CD
-C
h-
CD
a
tt
CD
i_
3
cn
(e- w
l)
^d-Bd
* eoue je^j. j Q f H i s u e Q
196
LO
ca
ea
+
ea
E
E
co
o
CM
CO
E
"-*
c
CD
._>
CD
E
0
_
a
CD
a
.+>
a
ca
ea
c
0
0_
c
0
CD
E
O ) CD
.5 >>
co co
1 I
2,o
c E
o.BHC
=D Q.
o
ED
C
rLO
CD
CD
3
cn
ii
ea
ea
ca
UJ 6^) d-sd
* eoueje^j.jg
fHjsueg
>
CO CD
Dixo
e dia
ea
ea
ea
CO
D)
CO
197
APPENDIX C
Compilation of Operating Conditions for Correlation Analysis
(Samples 1 to 11, 12 and 13, Table 7.2)
Test Rig
A1
A3
mf (kg s"1)
m s (kg s-1)
Apt (kPa)
.0068
.0123
.0115
.0109
2.62
3.99
4.47
4.50
75
87
95
95
.0105
.0105
1.41
1.47
110
115
Table C.1 Steady-state operating conditions of pulverised coal (Sample 1) for

Test Rigs A1 (L = 25 m & D = .052 m) and A3 (L = 96 m & D = .052 m).
mt (kg s-1)
Test Rig
.018
.030
.040
.050
.016
.026
.036
.044
.014
.024
.038
B1
m s (kg s'1)
Apt (kPa)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
66
65
67
74
110
109
110
116
155
154
157
Table C.2 Steady-state operating conditions of Tallawarra fly ash

Test Rig
B1
mf (kg s'1)
m s (kg s*1)
Apt (kPa)
.010
.020
.036
.050
.016
.028
.042
.056
.022
.028
.036
.044
.050
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
61
56
60
75
102
94
100
120
140
135
134
141
149
Table C.3 Steady-state operating conditions of Eraring fly ash

Test Rig
mf (kg s_1)
m s (kg s"1)
Apt (kPa)
B1
.009
.020
.032
.042
.014
.022
.034
.046
.014
.030
.040
.049
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
70
60
60
68
113
103
100
110
152
135
140
162
Table C.4 Steady-state operating conditions of Munmorah fly ash

200
Test Rig
B1
mf (kg s"1)
m s (kg s*1)
(kPa)
48
40
46
72
109
98
111
127
160
145
145
166
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
.008
.020
.040
.068
.017
.040
.056
.068
.023
.036
.052
.068
Apt
Table C.5 Steady-state operating conditions of Vales Point fly ash

Test Rig
B1
C3
mf (kg s"1)
.020
.030
.045
.065
.023
.030
.045
.069
.025
.035
.055
.071
m s (kg s*1)
72
71
76
94
118
115
116
148
164
158
164
190
70
78
87
110
122
130
170
182
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
.200
.300
.400
.150
.300
.400
.300
.450
,
Ap t (kPa)
-.
Table C.6 Steady-state operating conditions of Gladstone fly ash (Sample 6)

for Test Rigs B1 (L = 71 m & D = .052 m) and C3 (L= 162 m & D = .105 m).
Test Rig
mf (kg s'1)
m s (kg S"1)
Apt (kPa)
B1
.010
.030
.050
.070
.014
.030
.050
.070
.026
.040
.050
.062
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
45
45
57
76
105
93
102
130
150
136
141
156
Table C.7 Steady-state operating conditions of Wallerawang fly ash

Test Rig
B1
mf (kg s"1)
.020
.032
.048
.070
.024
.034
.048
.070
.026
.038
.056
.070
m s (kg s'1)
Apt (kPa)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
79
78
83
111
126
124
129
162
153
150
163
190
Table C.8 Steady-state operating conditions of Liddell fly ash

Test Rig
C1
C3
mf (kg s"1)
.035
.080
.120
.165
.045
.080
.120
.165
.055
.120
.165
.060
.090
.130
.065
.080
.100
.112
.300
.450
.134
.300
.450
.158
.300
.450
.184
.300
.450
m s (kg s'1)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Apt
(kPa)
108
108
122
156
170
172
188
226
222
246
304
270
280
320
310
316
334
66
74
89
98
108
124
132
143
163
167
180
202
Table C.9 Steady-state operating conditions of fly ash/cement mix (Sample 12)
for Test Rigs C1 (L = 162 m & D = .060 m) and C 3 (l_= 162 m & D = .105 m).
Test Rig
-
mf (kg s_1)
1.389
m s (kg s_1)
13.89
Apt
(kPa)
350
Table C.10 Steady-state operating conditions of fly ash [59]

(Sample 13) for L = 1200 m & D = .200 m.
APPENDIX D
Summary of Solids Friction Factor Calculations for Pulverised
Brown Coal (Test-Design Procedure, Section 7.4.3)
204
mf
Ap-,
ms
Pfm
Pfm
Frm
Vfm
(kg s-1) (kg s-1) (kPa) (kPag) (kg m-3) (m s"1) (-)
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94 !
29
32
25
27
28
23
27
32
38
Table D.1
14.5
16.0
12.5
13.5
14.0
11.5
13.5
16.0
19.0
1.372
1.390
1.349
1.360
1.366
1.337
1.360
1.390
1.426
10.098
10.550
10.276
8.149
7.353
10.800
15.280
16.615
16.200
9.950
10.395
10.125
8.030
7.245
10.641
15.055
16.371
15.962
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
81
91
73
72
72
69
72
97
108
Table D.2
(-)
.2901
.2895
.2458
.4184
.5306
.2065
.1190
.1167
.1422
Apf
(kPa)
2.043
2.218
2.108
1.373
1.136
2.310
4.393
5.138
4.916
Xf
Xs
(-)
(-)
.0204
.0201
.0207
.0213
.0215
.0207
.0194
.0187
.0184
.0129
.0116
.0150
.0183
.0207
.0139
.0125
.0109
.0084
Solids friction factor calculations for pipe section No. 1

(Di = 0.105 m & AL-, = 150.0 m ) .
ms
Frm
Ap2
mf
Pfm
Vfm
Pfm
3
(kg s-1) (kg s-1) (kPa) (kPag) (kg m- ) (m s-1) (-)
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
Xi
69.5
77.5
61.5
63.0
64.0
57.5
63.0
80.5
92.0
2.026
2.121
1.931
1.949
1.960
1.883
1.949
2.157
2.293
11.495
11.621
12.061
9.561
8.612
12.881
17.926
17.998
16.925
12.896
13.036
13.531
10.725
9.661
14.450
20.110
20.190
18.987
x2
Xf
A-s
(-)
Ap f
(kPa)
(-)
(-)
.1877
.1971
.1613
.2508
.3072
.1370
.0713
.0862
.1020
8.020
8.390
8.504
5.600
4.644
9.456
17.915
18.930
17.628
.0186
.0182
.0188
.0195
.0198
.0188
.0178
.0168
.0166
.0081
.0077
.0095
.0107
.0117
.0089
.0067
.0077
.0058

(D2 = 0.081 m & Al_2 = 261.0 m).
205
mf
ms
AP3
Pfm
Pfm
Vfm
(kg s-1) (kg s-1) (kPa) (kPag) (kg m-3) (m s-1)
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
165
175
147
143
150
138
145
166
209
Table D.3
192.5
210.5
171.5
170.5
175.0
161.0
171.5
212.0
250.5
3.487
3.701
3.238
3.226
3.279
3.113
3.238
3.719
4.176
9.203
9.177
9.912
7.959
7.095
10.739
14.868
14.382
12.807
Fr m
x3
(-)
(-)
Apf
(kPa)
11.185
11.154
12.047
9.673
8.624
13.052
18.071
17.481
15.566
.1975
.1985
.1634
.2475
.3213
.1359
.0716
.0763
.1079
15.000
15.697
16.299
10.881
8.863
18.374
34.609
36.641
31.820
.120
.127
.120
.096
.087
.125
.180
.200
.200
ms
2.50
2.94
1.80
2.08
2.14
1.67
1.43
1.79
2.94
()
.0180
.0178
.0181
.0188
.0190
.0181
.0171
.0168
.0164
Xs
(")
.0086
.0078
.0097
.0106
.0123
.0088
.0069
.0066
.0062

(D 3 = 0.069 m & Al_3 = 390.0 m).
Fr m
Ap4
Vfm
Pfm
Pfm
3
(kg s-1) (kg s-1) (kPa) (kPag) (kg m- ) (m s-1) (-)
mf
Xf
91
96
72
76
75
76
76
85
110
320.5
346.0
281.0
280.0
287.5
268.0
282.0
337.5
410.0
5,008
5.311
4.539
4.527
4.616
4.384
4.551
5.210
6.072
8.475
8.457
9.351
7.500
6.666
10.084
13.990
13.577
11.650
11.046
11.023
12.188
9.776
8.689
13.143
18.235
17.696
15.186
Xf
Xs
(-)
Ap f
(kPa)
(-)
(-)
.2078
.2076
.1490
.2451
.3003
.1400
.0701
.0727
.1096
9.092
9.526
10.158
6.706
5.498
11.251
21.353
22.712
19.301
,0208
.0206
.0210
.0216
.0220
.0207
.0197
.0194
.0192
.0090
.0081
.0085
.0103
.0113
.0089
.0063
.0060
.0061
X4
Table D.4 Solids friction factor calculations for pipe section No. 4
(D4 = 0.060 m & AL4 = 146.0 m).

Pneumatic Conveying of Bulk Solids PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Pneumatic Conveying of Bulk Solids PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Wollongong

University of Wollongong Thesis Collections

Pneumatic conveying of bulk solids

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the

PNEUMATIC CONVEYING OF BULK SOLIDS

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Dedicated to my wife, Linda, and my children, David, Emma

T h e pneumatic conveying of bulk solids through pipelines has been used in

T w o powder classification techniques based on physical properties are evaluated

CONVEYING TEST RIGS

AIR SUPPLY A N D F L O W RATE M E A S U R E M E N T

Test 1 - Standard Batch Cycle

Test 3 - Decrease of mf at Steady-State Conditions

Minimum Transport Behaviour

Test Procedure Applications and Limitations

BLOW TANK CONFIGURATION & AIR INJECTION

GENERALISED PIPELINE CONV. CHARACTERISTICS

B L O W TANK DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS

DENSE-PHASE PIPELINE CONV. CHARACTERISTICS

CORRELATION ANALYSIS A N D STEPPED-DIAMETER

Generalised Correlation for Solids Friction Factor

Compilation of Particle Size Data (Samples 1 to 11,

Modified Slugging Diagram based on Dixon [23,39] and

Compilation of Operating Conditions for Correlation Analysis

Summary of Solids Friction Factor Calculations for Pulverised

Pneumatic conveying characteristics of pulverised coal for

Scale-up conveying characteristics of fly/ash cement mix for L2

C o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n experimental data a n d the Stegmaier

List of samples and physical properties.

Physical properties of test materials.

Summary of results obtained from Steps 4, 5, 6 and 7.

M a s s percentage frequency distribution for Tallawarra

Mass percentage frequency distribution for Vales Point fly ash

Steady-state operating conditions of pulverised coal (Sample

Steady-state operating conditions of fly ash/cement mix

Solids friction factor calculations for pipe

section No. 1 (Di =

Exponent in permeability Equation (7.10)

Value of Fr at upstream and downstream end of test or pipe section

Pipeline air pressure gauge (transducer location G 1 , Test Rig B1,

Terminal velocity or free settling velocity of particle

Variable used to define A-j

Major consolidation stress

data pertaining to a test rig

This thesis investigates m a n y aspects of pneumatic conveying and does result in

PNEUMATIC CONVEYING TEST RIGS

Configuration of the original 0.425 m 3 blow

No. & Type of Bends

Table 2.1 Pipeline details for Test Rigs A1 & A2.

25m of 52mm I.D.

Figure 2.2 General arrangement of the original

Figure 2.3 Configuration of the final 0.425 m 3

Pipeline details for Test Rig B1.

Figure 2.4 Exploded view of a typical pipeline

52mm I.D. Mild

Figure 2.5 Full-sectional view of a 50 m m N.B. 90 blinded-tee bend.

No. & Type of Bends

Figure 2.9 Configuration of the original tandem 0.9 m 3 blow tank

Apart from the above-mentioned modifications to the filter, the rest of t

No. & Type of Bends

Table 2.4 Pipeline details for Test Rigs D1 & D2.