Pipeline Flow of Settling

Slurries

Presentation to Institution of Engineers Australia (Mechanical Branch)

Jeff Bremer - 23 rd April 2008

 Overview and Aims

1. Explain physical laws underlying the behaviour of settling

solids in slurry pipeline flow.
2. Compare theories associated with pipeline flow. Why are
there so many?
3. Show where and how the theories disagree.
4. Present some preliminary results from recent work
(J. Bremer, V.Lim & R.Gandhi )

??
 QUESTIONS
1. Where and why are slurry pipelines used?
2. What is a settling slurry?
3. What are the main features in pipeline flow?
4. Engineers are good at using theoretical and empirical “best
fit” theories. What’s the problem?
5. What are the underlying equations and physical phenomena?
6. What are the theories of pipeline flow?
7. What do we know that is right, and can we easilly confirm that
we have the “right answer”?
8. What’s the latest, and where to in future?
 Slurry Pipelines
Slurry pipelines are used mostly for “short haul” duties, e.g.
dredging (~300m ), process plants (~300m) and tailings
(~3 km) In some “long haul duties”, minerals are pumped
many hundreds of kilometres.

Alumbrera copper concentrate

pipeline (316 km), Argentina

ENGINEERED BY PSI

Photo’s with permission of PSI Australia Pty. Ltd., 66 Kings Park Rd.,West Perth, WA 6005,Tel. no. (08) 9463-6606.
 Slurry Pipelines
Each type of duty has its own “best operation point”, where
the size of the particles and the tendency to settle has a
strong impact on capital and operating cost.

ENGINEERED BY PSI
Photo’s with permission of PSI Australia Pty. Ltd., 66 Kings Park Rd.,West Perth, WA 6005,Tel. no. (08) 9463-6606.
 Settling Slurries

Non Settling Slurries Settling Slurries

contain particles that contain particles that
remain in suspension will fall and settle at
for a long time the bottom of a
container

NON-SETTLING SETTLING
• Particles < 40 µm Particles > 40 µm

• Viscosity modified by Wide range of sizes from

particles Small (suspensions) 40 µm ~ 200 µm
• Increasingly non-Newtonian Medium (transition) 200 µm ~ 2 mm
as concentration increases Large (heterogeneous) 2 mm ~ 5 mm
Very Large (hetero “ “ ) 5 mm ~ >200 mm?

Transport velocity must increase as size increases

 Settling Slurries

SETTLING
Particles > 40 µm
Wide range of sizes from
Small (suspensions) 40 µm ~ 200 µm
Medium (transition) 200 µm ~ 2 mm
Large (heterogeneous) 2 mm ~ 5 mm
Very Large (hetero “ “ ) 5 mm ~ >200 mm?

Transport velocity must increase as size increases

 Settling Slurries

SETTLING
Particles > 40 µm
Wide range of sizes from
Small (suspensions) 40 µm ~ 200 µm
Medium (transition) 200 µm ~ 2 mm
Large (heterogeneous) 2 mm ~ 5 mm
Very Large (hetero “ “ ) 5 mm ~ >200 mm?

Dead Donkeys?
 Pipeline Flow of Newtonian Liquids

ΔP L V2
HW = = f
ρg D 2g
Darcy-Weisbach equation
L
f HW = head loss due to friction (m)
D f = friction factor (dimensionless)

L = length of pipe (m)

D = internal diameter of pipe (m)

2
g = accelaration due to gravity (m /s)

V = mean Flow velocity (m/s)

Moody Diagram
  Head Loss
HW 

2
P v
H1 = 1   +    +   z1    2
ρg 2g P v
H2 = 2   +    +   z1
ρg 2g

 
Pipe Flow

C.Y. O’Connor Pipeline c.a. 1899

 Features of Settling Slurry Pipeline Flow

  Fluidised
Fluidised Heterogeneous
Heterogeneous Homogeneous
Homogeneous
  Fixed Bed Bed Flow Flow
1. Size does matter.
• Larger particles require
increased transport velocity
• Smaller particles (particularly
Hydraulic gradient, i (m/m )

fines <40 µm) can modify

viscosity. Helps to suspend
larger particles.

2. Flow velocity generates

V1 V2 V3 =Vdep V4 turbulence which keeps
Settling Slurry
particles suspended.
Water
Carrier

Mean Velocity , V (m/s)

3. The system curve has a

minimum that bounds different
flow / friction processes
 Newitt’s Classification of Slurry Pipeline Flow

Solids Concentration

Newitt et al (1955) described a range of flow flow/deposition

phenomena after observing sand and coal particles in 25mm Perspex
pipes. His classifications are still used today.

Newitt, D. M., J. F. Richardson, M. Abbott, and R. B. Turtle. 1955. Hydraulic Conveying of Solids in
Horizontal Pipes. Trans. Institution of Chemical Engineers 33: 94-113.
 Frictional Head loss Mechanisms

Head Loss , 5mm gravel,Cv=10%, DN400 Pipe
500 • Since we
450
understand the
behaviour of water
400 (the carrier) we can
 
H M = HW + H S calculate the
350
Frictional Head frictional head
Loss due to
)r
e
ta
300
solids - Hs
losses caused by
Water
W
‐
m
wall friction - HW
 (s 250
o Settling 
L 
d Slurry
a
e 200
H Deposition 
Point
150
• The remainder must
Frictional Head Loss due to be friction losses
100 wall friction of carrier fluid between
with pipe- HW
50
(a) particles and fluid
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
(b) particles and pipe
Flow Velocity (m/s) wall
(c) particle-particle
collisions.
 Durand Theory -1952

φ = 82.ψ−1.5

−1.5
iM − iW ⎡V 2 ρ ⎤
= 82.⎢ CD ⎥
CV .iW ⎣ gD ρS − ρ ⎦

Durand, R. 1952. The Hydraulic Transportation of Coal and Other Materials in Pipes. Colloq. of National Coal Board,
London.
 Durand Theory – (contd)
Head Loss , 5mm gravel,Cv=10%, DN400 Pipe
500

1. Durand’s Theory is purely correlative.

H M = HW + H S
450

400 2. The curve fit was for 305 points, for sand
350 and coal running between 200 µm and 25
Frictional Head
r) 300
te
Loss due to mm.
a solids - Hs Water
‐W
m
( 250
s 
o
L 
Settling  3. The results are in “Head of Carrier Fluid”
d Slurry
a
e
H 200 Deposition 
– usually water.
Point
150
Frictional Head Loss due to 4. As transport velocity becomes large, the
wall friction of carrier fluid
100
with pipe- HW slurry curve converges to water head loss
50 from above.
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
Flow Velocity (m/s)

− 1 .5
i M − iW ⎡V 2 ρ ⎤
= 8 2.⎢ CD ⎥
“Nothing proves that such a formula is
C V .iW ⎣ gD ρ S − ρ ⎦ rigorously exact. Doubtless exists a
more accurate and more complex
means of notation, but the one given
φ = 8 2 . ψ − 1 .5 above groups quite favourably”

= H W (1 + C V . 8 2 .ψ − 1 .5 )
 
H M
 More Theories
(To name a Few)

1. Durand – 1952 Correlation

2. Homogeneous Mixture Theory

3. Newitt et. Al - 1955
Correlation
4. Rose and Duckworth – 1969
5. Heyden and Stelson - 1971 Correlation

6. Volcado and Charles 1972 Correlation

7. Wasp et al - 1977 Part theory part

correlation
8. Lazarus – Neilson 1978 Correlation

9. Wilson - 1992
10. Wilson Addie & Clift 1997

In Current Use

Not in Use
 No Problem – “I’ve got a Computer”
Head Loss at 6.6 m/s , 5mm gravel, Cv=10% DN400 Pipe x 1000m
800

700

600 Answers Using

commonly accepted
) 500
m
(  theories can vary by
s Lazarus ‐ Neilson
o
L  400 several hundred
d
a Wilson‐Addie‐Clift percent – AND
e
H 300 MORE!
Durand
200 Water

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Flow Velocity (m/s)
Settling and Drag Forces on Particles

Depends on density
, particle diameter,
shape, Reynolds
number and
surface effects
Settling and Drag Forces on Particles

Particles > 150 µm

Drag coefficient as a function of Reynolds number for smooth spheres

and cylinders (Munson et al. 2002, 582)

Known correlations
to correction CD
based on shape
effect
Slip Velocity to Produce drag force FD
Settling and Drag Forces on Particles

Turbulent fluctuation of particle velocity in the direction of flow

 Settling and Drag Forces on Particles

Head Loss , 5mm gravel,Cv=10%, DN400 Pipe
500

H M = H W + H S
450
Solids concentration
approaches input
400

concentration
H M = HW (1 + CV .82.ψ−1.5 )
350
Hs=constant
)r
e
ta
300 Frictional Head
Water
‐W Loss due to
(m
 s 250 solids - Hs
o
L  Hs Settling 
d Slurry
a
e 200
H Deposition 
Point
150
ΔP L V2
HW HW = = f
ρg
100

Frictional Head Loss due to

D 2g
50
wall friction of carrier fluid
with pipe- HW
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Flow Velocity (m/s)

• In the limit the slip velocity is roughly constant as the average velocity of
particles in direction of flow equals approaches the velocity of the liquid
i.e.Vsolid = Vliquid the “homogeneous limit” . In other words Hs << Hw
• In Durand Theory in the limit Hs zero
 Comparison of Theories
H e a d  Lo s s  , 5 m m  gra ve l,C v= 1 0 % , D N 4 0 0  P ip e  x  1 0 0 0 m
800

700

600

500
)
m
(  L azar u s N e ilso n
s
Lo
  400
d
a W ilso n  A d d ie  
e C lift 
H
D u r an d
300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

F lo w  V e lo cit y (m / s)

Location of The Deposition Velocity and Head Loss at Deposition is

the Key to having an accurate Theory.
Clearly the “state of the art is not good”
 Comparison of Theories
Head Loss, 100µm particle, Cv=10%, DN100 pipe x 1000m
500
450
400

) 350
m
( 300
s
s Wilson Addie Clift
o
l 250
d Durand
a 200
e Lazarus Neilson
H
150 Water
100
50
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Velocity m/s

Agreement is less critical at 100 µm

 Wilson Addie and Clift Theory

Slope M

Determined in tests on 400 µm sand. Pressure gradient = 0.5 x sliding fr friction factor
 Lazarus Nielsen Theory (1978)

Lazarus Neilsen Theory is a correlation theory that claims to be

more accurate than Durand and Newitt’s theories.

They proposed that the mass flow rate ratio (M*), defined as
the ratio of mass flow of solids to carrier fluid, should be used
instead of the volumetric concentration (Cv)
 Lazarus Nielsen Theory (contd)

They plotted friction factor fM for the mixture against the “base”
friction factor fB to develop their final correlation.
 Current Work – Particle Drag & Deposition Head and Velocity
Collaborators : J. Bremer (SKM) , Vincent Lim (K.J. Beer),
Ramesh Gandhi (PSI – California)

Began by describing the equations of

drag and pressure loss due to solids at
the deposition point.

Assumes : All particles fluidised at the

minimum in the pressure gradient curve

  Fluidised
Fluidise Heterogeneous Homogeneou
Homogeneous
Heterogeneou
  Fixed Bed d Bed s s Flow
Flow
Hydraulic gradient, i (m/m )

V1 V2 V3 =Vdep V4

Settling Slurry
Water
Carrier

Mean Velocity , V (m/s)

Particle Drag and Deposition Velocity and Head Loss(contd)
Particle Drag and Deposition Velocity and Head Loss(contd)

Pesky mean path length constan

Particle Drag and Deposition Velocity and Head
Loss(contd)
All terms in the final equation are rearranged to solve for the
Slip velocity V’

This is Measurable from experiment!

Particle Drag a Virtual Experiment Based on Durand
Points
4 × 10 −5

Particle Drag a Virtual Experiment Based on Durand

Points
System Parameter Value Range Unit
Lower Upper
Carrier density (ρ) 1,000 1,250 kg/m3
Carrier viscosity (μ) 0.0008 0.001 Pa.s
Pipe diameter (D) 0.1 0.9 m
Particle density (ρp) 2,160 4,000 kg/m3
Particle size (d) (40 μm) 0.02 (20 mm) m
Concentration by 0.05 0.4
volume (Cv)
Pipe length (L) 1,000 m
Pipe roughness Smooth

200 Virtual data points (deposition velocity, and pressure

at the deposition point) obtained using Durand equation to
4 × 10 −5

Virtual Experiment – Results

Deposition Velocity

Deposition Velocity – Average Error 0.05 %

-- Maximum Error 0.42 %
4 × 10 −5

Virtual Experiment – Results

Head Loss at The Deposition Point

Head Loss – Average Error 0.55 %

-- Maximum Error 1.8 %
4 × 10 −5

Conclusions

1. Not “all is well” with the theory of slurry transport.

2. There is considerable disagreement amongst theories
regarding
1. Deposition velocity
2. Head Loss at Deposition

3. There is no clear agreement on the forces and friction

associated with various mechanisms, (e.g. fluidised bed,
heterogeneous flow, homogeneous flow etc) or the velocities
at which they occur.
4. Many of the theories “blow up” when large particles are
involved. Say > 2mm. Comparison between calculations at
these sizes indicates a need for model studies in future
developments.
5. Where possible don’t pump at sizes > 150 µm.