Investigation Into The Flow Properties of The Slurry Transportation System

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada
Kakinada - 533003, Andhra Pradesh
A Project Report on
INVESTIGATION INTO THE FLOW PROPERTIES OF THE

SLURRY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of Degree
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY IN TANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
YERRABOLU RAMI REDDY
(20HM1D2215)
Under the esteemed guidance of
Shaik Mahaboobsubhani M.Tech.
Assistant Professor
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
A.M. REDDY MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi, Affiliated to JNTUK, Kakinada)
VinukondaRoad, Petlurivaripalem (V), Narasaraopeta (M), Guntur (Dt.) 522601,
Andhra Pradesh 2018.

A.M. REDDY MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY
(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi, Affiliated to JNTUK, Kakinada) Vinukonda Road,

Petlurivaripalem (V), Narasaraopet (M), Guntur (Dt.) 522601, AP 2021
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project entitled “INVESTIGATION INTO THE FLOW
PROPERTIES OF THE SLURRY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM” is submitted by
Mr. YERRABOLU RAMI REDDY (20HM1D2215) in partial fulfillment for the award of the
degree of Master of Technology in Transportation Engineering in Department of Civil
Engineering during the year 2020-2022. The content of the thesis has not been submitted earlier
for the award of any other degree or certificate and I heartily comment the work done by him in
this connection.
Project guide External Examiner
Head of the department Principal

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to thank almighty for all of his guidance and care throughout my life
and for helping me overcome all the difficulties I encountered over the course of this study.
I am thankful to our beloved secretary Smt. Attluri Santhi Garu & Principal
Dr. K N V R Kumar Ph.D. and Shaik Mahaboobsubhani M.Tech. for providing me necessary
infrastructure.
This thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of my guide
Mr. Shaik Mahaboobsubhani M.Tech. Assistant Professor in Department of Civil Engineering. I
would like to express my deepest gratitude to him for his patience, guidance and thoughtful
advice throughout the various stages of this work. His advice has been precious on both an
academic and personal level, for which I am extremely grateful.
I would also like to extend my heart full of thanks to all the faculty members of the Department
of Civil Engineering for the collective knowledge imparted to me, making me capable enough
to see through the entire process.
I am grateful to the technicians of the all Laboratories for their relentless service and
cooperation with me.
Last but not least, I appreciate my parents just for being there and extending their moral support.
YERRABOLU RAMI REDDY

(20HM1D2215)
LIST OF CONTENT
PAGE
SL.NO ITEM DESCRIPTION
NO
1 LIST OF FIGURES 1-2
2 LIST OF TABLES 3
3 ABSTRACT 4
4 CHAPTER :1 INTRODUCTION 5-9
1.1 Background 6
1.2 Problem Identification 6
1.2.1 Slurry System Components 7-8
1.2.2 Slurry System Design 8-9
1.3 Methodology 9
5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 10-22
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Coal Ash Slurry Rheology 11-14
2.3 Coal Water Slurry Rheology 14-16
2.4 Pressure Drop Characteristics of Solid-Liquid Flow in Slurry
Pipeline 17-19
2.5 Simulation of Pressure Drop in A Slurry Pipeline 19-22
6 CHAPTER 3: CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL AND COAL ASH 23-35
3.1 Introduction 24
3.2 Bench Scale Tests 24
3.2.1 Particle Size Distribution 24-27
3.2.2 Unmoving Focus 27-28
3.2.3 Specific Gravity 28
3.2.4 Comparative Analysis 28
3.2.5 Potential of Hydrogen (Ph) 30-32
3.3 Minerals 32
3.3.1 Scanning Electron Microscopy 32-33
3.4 Leaching Characteristics 33-35
CHAPTER 4: RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL
7 AND COAL ASH SLURRY 36-47
4.1 Introduction 37
4.2 Rheometer 37
4.2.1 Slurry Sample Preparation 37-38
4.3 Rheological Characteristics of Coal-Water Slurry 38
4.3.1 53-75m Coal-Water Slurry Rheology 38
4.3.2 Coal Affects 53-75 M Coal-Water Slurry Rheology. 39
4.3.3 Rheological Changes in A Coal-Water Slurry as A Result of
Incorporating Coal Particles Between 150 And 250 M In Size 42-44
4.4 Rheological Characteristics of Fly Ash Slurry 44
4.4.1 Fly-Ash Slurry Rheology 44
4.4.2 Bottom Ash Affects Fly Ash Slurry Rheology. 45-47
CHAPTER 5: NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF PRESSURE
8 DROP CHARACTERISTICS IN SLURRY PIPELINE 48-64
5.1 Introduction 49
5.2 Governing Equations 49
5.2.1 Mass Conservation 49
5.2.2 Momentum Conservation 50
5.2.3 Realizable K-E Model 51
5.2.4 K-W Model 51
5.3 A Model For Multiphase Flow 53
5.3.1 Instances of The Eulerian Model 53-54
5.4 Tight Pipeline Modelling 55
5.4.1 Preconditions for A Boundary 55
5.4.2 Grid Independency Test 55-57
5.4.3 Pressure Loss in A Slurry Pipeline May Be Predicted Using a
Turbulence Model. 57-58
5.5 Predicting Coal-Water Slurry Pipeline Pressure Decrease
Characteristics 58
5.5.1 Coal-Water Slurry Pressure Decrease 58
5.5.2 Coal-Water Slurry Volume Fraction 59-61
5.5.3 Effect of Particle Size on Pressure Drop Characteristics of Coal-
Water Slurry 62-63
5.5.4 Particle Size Affects Coal-Water Slurry Volume Distribution. 63-64
9 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS 65-66
10 REFERENCE 67-77
LIST OF FIGURES
Sl.
Description Of Figure Page No
No
1 Figure 1.1: Transporting Slurry 8
2 Figure 3.1: Coal Particle Size Distribution 25
3 Figure 3.2: Fly Ash Particle Dispersion 26
4 Figure 3.3: Distribution of Ash Particles 27
5 Figure 3.4: Coal Ph 31
6 Figure 3.5: Fly and Bottom Ash Ph 32
Figure 3.6: Variation of Liquid to Solid Ratio Affects Leached
7 Element Concentration in Bottom Ash. 34
Figure 3.7: Concentrations of Leached Elements in Fly Ash with
8 Liquid-To-Solid Ratio 34
9 Figure 3.8: Groundwater Leached Element Concentrations 35
Figure 4.1: Different Solid Concentrations Affect Shear Stress-Shear
10 Rate Of 53-75 M Coal-Water Slurry. 38
Figure 4.2: Viscosity and Shear Rate Of 53-75 M Coal-Water Slurry at
11 Various Concentrations 39
Figure 4.3: 53-75 M Coal-Water Slurry Containing 106-150 M Coal
12 At 30% Solid Content 40
Figure 4.7: Coal-Water Slurry with A 30% Solid Content and A
Particle Size Range Of 53-75 M Has an Apparent Viscosity Of 150-
16 250 M. 42
Figure 4.8: 53-75 M Coal-Water Slurry With 150-250 M Coal At 40%
17 Solid Content 43
Figure 4.9: 53-75 M Coal-Water Slurry With 150-250 M Coal At 40%
18 Solid Content 43
Figure 4.10: 53-75 M Coal-Water Slurry With 150-250 M Coal At
19 60% Solid Content 44
Figure 4.11: Different Concentrations of Fly Ash Slurry Shear Stress-
20 Shear Rate. 45
Figure 4.12: Fly Ash Slurry Shear Stress-Shear Rate With 30%
21 Bottom Ash 46
22 Bottom Ash 46
23 Bottom Ash 47
24 Bottom Ash 47
25 Figure 5.1: Slurry Pipeline Schematic Illustration 55
1
26 Figure 5.2: Tetrahedral-Cooperative Mesh Grid 56
Figure 5.3: Effect of Increasing or Decreasing the Number of
27 Components on The Pressure Decrease 56
Figure 5.4: Cell Size-Dependent Changes in The GCI Index Across
28 Various Meshes 57
Figure 5.5: Experimental Verification of Numerical Simulation
29 Results 58
Figure 5.6: Different Coal-Water Slurry Concentrations Affect
30 Pressure Drop. 59
31 Figure 5.7: Coal-Water Slurry Contours At 30% Solids 60
32 Figure 5.8: 40% Coal-Water Slurry Volume Fraction Contour 60
33 Figure 5.9: 50% Solids Coal-Water Slurry Volume Fraction Contours 61
Figure 5.10: Coal-Water Slurry Volume Fraction Contours At 60%
34 Solids 61
Figure 5.11: Particle Size Affects Pressure Drop In 60% Coal-Water
35 Slurry. 62
Figure 5.12: Particle Size Affects Coal-Water Slurry Pressure Drop At
36 5 Ms-1 Flow. 63
Figure 5.13: Effect of Particle Size on Coal-Water Slurry Volume
37 Fraction Contours At 30% Solids And 2 Ms-1 Flow. 64
Figure 5.14: Effect of Particle Size on Coal-Water Slurry Volume
38 Fraction Contours At 30% Solids And 3 Ms-1 Flow. 64
2
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Description Of Table
Sl.No No
1 Table 3.1: Coal Sizing 25
2 Table 3.2: Fly and Bottom Ash Sizing 26
3 Table 3.3: Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Coal Sample 30
4 Table 3.4: Different Quantities of Coal's Ph 31
5 Table 4.1: Rheometer Specifications 37
6 Table 5.1: There Are a Variety of Mesh Sizes Available 55
3
ABSTRACT
Coal is an energy source. About 70% of India's energy comes from thermal power stations
using pulverised coal. Fuel efficiency in electricity generating is a global concern. The coal-
water slurry includes 60-70% coal powder and replaces oil as a liquid fuel. Maximum slurry
viscosity improves coal-water slurry movement in pipes for fuel production. Coal combustion
in power plants creates Inorganic leftovers Fly and bottom ash, which cause environmental
difficulties. Low solid concentrations make hydraulic transport of coal ash to ash ponds
uneconomical. Coal water slurry and coal ash slurry transportation is difficult. Slurry
concentrations and rheology affect the slurry transport system. Higher concentrations of slurry
with low viscosity reduce the amount of power needed for conveyance. Understanding these
characteristics' influence on slurry movement is crucial for efficient system design. This
research analyses how slurry rheology and concentration affect pipeline transit.
Physiochemical features of coal are studied using bench scale measurements include SEM
determines coal and ash morphology (SEM). Heavy elements from fly ash and bottom ash are
leached to anticipate the ash disposal system's environmental impact. Fly ash leached
concentration of trace elements. Coal-water slurry rheological tests are done at 35-65% solids
(by weight). This research also determines experimentally and mathematically the pressure loss
during transport of coal slurry and coal ash slurry. Experiments demonstrate that solid
concentration increases pressure drop. addition of 20% bottom ash reduces fly ash slurry
pressure drop the most. The numerical simulation using FLUENT software shows that SST k-
turbulence model findings match well with experimental data. Taguchi approach identifies
slurry pipeline pressure drop affecting factors. Flow velocity, additive mix, and solid
concentration are the most important parameters.
4
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
5
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the history, motivation, and aims of slurry transportation system
research, as well as its issue and applications. End of chapter abstracts outline thesis structure.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Slurry transportation systems convey bulk solid commodities with a carrier fluid across short
or long distances, such as minerals in processing facilities, coal, Chemical and mining
industries allow solid pipeline transit. Pipeline transit is popular because it's economical,
reliable, easy, low-maintenance, and year-round. Pipeline slurry transmission is safe and causes
little environmental damage (Kumar et al. 2014). It may be placed through challenging terrain
to reach isolated mineral-rich places Traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, and accidents
are reduced by pipelines. Slurry pipeline transport is energy-efficient and environmentally
benign under optimal circumstances.
The economical properties of slurry pipeline, such as decreased operating costs with increasing
distance and volume, high reliability and efficiency, easy construction and installation, and
cheaper labour for operation and maintenance, stimulate the wide use of slurry pipeline
(Kumar et al. 2014). Slurry pipeline transport has several restrictions, including:
1.2 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Fuel efficiency in electricity generating is a global concern. There are several ways to use solid
(pulverised coal), liquid. fuel use for electricity production is the world's top scientific problem.
Scientists have begun substantial research on coal liquefaction, gasification, and combustion in
response to the global oil crisis. Recent process development has emphasised coal-water slurry
fuel.
China and Japan are the most active, building coal-water slurry pipelines and boilers. In addition
to these investigations, coal-water combination production and use as an energy source has
garnered much interest. Efficient use of coal-water slurry is only achievable allows maximum
coal concentration and minimal viscosity. It's also pipeline-friendly. Coal plant combustion
creates a large amount of inorganic leftovers including bottom ash and fly ash, which have poor
6
uses and many ecological issues.
Coal ash is currently delivered hydraulically to ash ponds in power plants by slurry pipelines.
As a result, the ash disposal pipeline operation is uneconomical due to high water and electricity
consumption. Fly ash is finer than bottom ash. Low-concentration coal ash transfer requires
increased demonstrate that larger concentrations of solid materials in slurry pipelines minimise
skewness in concentration profile and flow velocity.
Reduced water use speeds ash drying and settling.
If slurry has a significant amount of water, infiltration may pollute groundwater. Low water
content in slurry.Low-concentration slurry conveyance washes away fly ash's binding
properties, reducing air pollution.
Avoid recirculating ash pond water.
Chhabra and Richardson, 1983; Gahlot et al. 1992; Verma et al. 2006; Rabinovich and Kalman
2011; Senapati et al. 2015) calculated the pressure drop of slurry suspension in horizontal pipes.
Experimental correlations make evaluating pressure drop hard and time-consuming. Pilot plant
experiments have been done on slurry flow pressure decrease in pipes.
1.2.1 Slurry system components

the three subsystems of a slurry transportation system. Three subsystems:
1. Slurry plant
2. Pipeline, pumping stations
3. Terminal use
First is the slurry preparation plant, where solid particles are crushed and ground to the proper
size for slurry pipeline transit. Before pumping slurry, the solid is properly blended with the
carrier fluid. The second subsystem comprises of a main pipeline and pumping stations. In
systems requiring intermediate pumping, supplemental facilities like intermediate storage tank,
corrosion, and product quality control may be supplied on a lower level. Third is TUFs. Tanks
store slurry. Dewatering, filtering, and drying are accomplished based on solid particle final use.
7
Figure 1.1: Transporting slurry
transport system includes three subsystems. First and third subsystem design technologies are
well established and understood, but the major slurry pipeline and pump facilities need
considerable technical input for optimum.
1.2.2 Slurry system design
Hydraulic, corrosion, and erosion characteristics are used to design slurry pipelines analysis
demonstrates that carrier fluid, ideal particle size distribution, optimum solid concentration,
rheology of the slurry, specific gravity of the solids, and material characteristics impact the
design of slurry pipelines for higher solid concentrations (Cw > 50%). There are no general
correlations that predict the flow behaviour of all hydraulically transportable slurries. The
design must be based on test results and experience. High transit speed and a skewed
concentration profile cause severe and uneven wear on these pipes. At larger solid
8
concentrations, slurry flow becomes homogenous, resulting in laminar flow at lower pipeline
speeds.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
Investigating physical, chemical, and mineral characteristics. Different solid concentrations

affect slurry suspension rheology. Different solid concentrations and flow speeds affect pipeline
pressure loss. Physical, chemical, and mineralogical samples. The numerical examination of
two-phase solid-liquid flow pressure drop characteristics at varying using FLUENT.
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Coal fuels India's thermal power plants. Indian coals have 34-39 percent ash, whereas imported
coal has 10-15 percent. In thermal power plants, coal combustion produces bottom ash, fly ash,
slag, and flue gas desulfurization by-products [2-5]. Operating parameters affect slurry system
performance. Rheological behaviour of slurry suspension is crucial for optimal slurry transport.
Presently, low-concentration slurry systems transfer coal ash from thermal power plants to ash
ponds. This data emphasises researching slurry transport systems for high-concentration solid-
liquid mixtures. The slurry conveyance method has been studied at higher concentrations. This
chapter reviews major work in this topic to show the current level of knowledge.
2.2 COAL ASH SLURRY RHEOLOGY

Solid-liquid slurry flow in a pipeline relies on its rheology. In designing slurry transport
systems, rheological parameters of the slurry suspension are crucial. Solid-liquid combination
head loss may be determined using suspension rheology. Rheological behaviour of slurry
suspensions relies on nature, flow velocity, solid concentration, yield stress, etc. Reducing
rheological properties reduced frictional losses. This review focuses on strategies that directly
alter slurry rheology. Additives were utilised to enhance slurry suspension. Additives must be
stable and less viscous. No connection exists for predicting the rheological behaviour of solid-
liquid suspensions. In designing slurry transport systems, rheological parameters of the slurry
suspension are crucial. Head loss may be computed from the flow rate-pressure drop
relationship of the pipeline for solid liquid mixture flow based on suspension rheology.
Thomas (1965) studied spherical particles for solid suspension viscosity. The coefficient was
connected a six-term viscosity expression was suggested. Gay et al. (1969) examined of nickel,
alumina, copper, and glass in Based on yield pseudo plastic model, they hypothesised a link
between slurry viscosity and yield stress. Cheng (1980) found that suspension viscosity.
11
Bunn and Chamber (1993) analysed the rheology of Australian fly ash suspension. The
experiment used rotary and tube viscometers to examine the rheology of fly ash suspension at
60 to 80% weightage. At greater concentrations, fly ash suspension was non-Newtonian. The
solid content of slurry.
Ahmad et al. (1995) examined Slurry rheology is a solid concentration's chemical and physical
characteristics, they discovered. Biswas et al. (2000) studied Indian coal ash slurry rheology.
The rheological and physical characteristics of plants vary widely.
Parida et al. (1995) studied the rheology and flow of Talcher Thermal Power Station, Orissa, fly
ash. They predicted slurry using a power law model. Beyond 50% solids, slurry becomes non-
Newtonian. Power law curve was pseudo-plastic non-Newtonian.
Ward et al. (1999) studied hydraulic transport of fly ash slurry with and without stabilising
agent. They observed that stabilising additives enhance slurry viscosity and advised using
dispersion additives to minimise fly ash settling.
Li et al. (2002) added several chemicals to fly ash solution to study its rheology and
sedimentation stability. Fly ash from Japan's Matsuura Power Station was mixed with 68
percent deionized water to make slurry (by weight). They employed carboxym, ethyl cellulose,
rhamsan, and xanthan gums at 0.3 percent concentrations (by weight). Rheometers tested the
apparent viscosities of fly ash slurries (Iwamoto Seisakusho Co., Ltd. Model IR-200). Samples
were kept at 298 K. They observed that additions increased fly ash slurry stability, with 0.20
percent being the optimal value.
Verma et al. (2006) studied the influence of suspension rheology at increasing concentrations.
The experiment used different-sized and -concentration samples. Fly ash is 40% non-
Newtonian. Parida et al. (2006) investigated fly ash rheology. Fly ash slurry pipeline pressure
loss was determined using a pseudo-plastic model. Higher concentration pipeline conveyance of
fly ash slurry lowered costs. Senapati et al. (2008) used a viscometer to examine the rheology of
coal ash suspension with/without additive. Fly ash slurry suspension is pseudoplastic, and
bottom ash slurry suspension viscosity may be estimated using a power law model.
Seshadri et al. (2008) study fly ash slurries additions at varying. computed the pressure loss in a
75 mm straight conduit. Non-Newtonian slurry rheology is more affected by solid concentration
and particle size distribution than Newtonian slurry.
12
Vlasak et al. (2009) observed sodium hexametaphosphate's influence on fly ash suspension
rheology. Small amounts of sodium hexametaphosphate diminish fly ash slurry viscosity.
Chandel et al. (2009) tested. Higher concentration ash slurry flow was predicted using the
Bingham plastic model. Addition of additive modifies ash slurry's rheological characteristics
and reduces pressure drop.
Bbranganca et al. (2009) revealed that coal ash suspension viscosity varies on concentration,
particle size, pH, and liquid characteristics. Senapati et al. (2010) tested the rheology of high-
concentration fly ash suspension. Five samples of fly ash with volumetric concentrations 0.32 to
0.4945 were tested. Concentration and particle size affect the viscosity of fly ash suspension.
Senapati et al. (2012) studied ash rheology increasing. They added The additive reduced yield
stress and viscosity. Pb, Zn, and Cu leachate concentrations are greater than Cd, Co, and Ni.
Sodium silicate reduces heavy metal leaching. Senapati et al. (2013) used a HAAKE Rotational
Viscometer to study coal ash slurry rheology. The study was done at 62 to 65% solids (by
weight). Dense fly ash suspension shows pseudoplasticity, whereas fly and bottom ash
combination is non-Newtonian. Kumar et al. (2013) studied bottom ash slurry rheology. At
varying ratios, they added fly ash to bottom ash slurry. They altered fly ash slurry solid content
from 10-50%. (by weight). Sodium bicarbonate was added at 2-8% (by weight) to all bottom
ash slurry solid concentrations. Up to 50% solid content, bottom ash slurry is Newtonian.
Viscosity of bottom ash slurry increases with fly ash but reduces with sodium bicarbonate.
Pani et al. (2015) studied Jindal Power Limited, Raigarh, fly ash samples. HAAKE Rotational
Rheometer was used to measure rheology at 50-60% solid concentration (by weight). As
additives, they employed sodium silicate and ghadi detergent at 0 to 0.6%. Ash slurry
demonstrates non-Newtonian behaviour, and the results suit the Bingham Plastic model. Sodium
silicate at 0.6% was more effective than ghadi detergent. properties of high-concentration using
a Haake Rotational Viscometer. 10-40% bottom ash was added to fly ash. Fly ash and bottom
ash have median particle sizes of 20 and 250 m. According to a rheological investigation, fly
ash slurry yields pseudoplastic fluid. They calculated the friction factor for Bingham and
pseudoplastic fluids.
13
Senapati et al. (2015) used a Haake Rotational Viscometer to study the rheology of fly ash and a
combination of bottom and fly ash at 60 to 67.5 percent concentration. 0-20% bottom ash added
to fly ash slurry (by weight). Fly and bottom ash particle median size (d50) was 16.4 and 144m.
According to the rheological investigation, all slurry samples display pseudoplastic behaviour at
60-67.5 percent concentration (by weight). Bottom ash thins fly ash slurry. Asefa et al. (2015)
studied 50-70 percent slurry rheology (by weight). They added Henko and sodium sulphate.
Additives in bottom ash suspension ranged from 0.2% to 0.6%, and solid concentration was 10-
60%. (by weight). Sodium sulphate reduces viscosity.
According to the research, tiny amounts of additives in slurry suspension may enhance its
rheology. The kind of slurry to be delivered determines the appropriate addition agent. To build
an effective ash disposal system, use the right additive and its proportion to improve rheology.
2.3 COAL WATER SLURRY RHEOLOGY

Due to coal's employment as an energy source, research on coal water slurry preparation and use
has also gained great interest. Slurry rheology is crucial, especially during the thick phase in
pipelines. Researchers present many investigations on coal-water slurry rheology Coal water
slurry rheology relies on several aspects. Several researchers have explored the multiple factors
that determine coal water slurry rheology.
Hasan et al. (1986) studied sub-bituminous coal slurry rheology. The particle size ranged from
0.044 to 0.223 mm for rheological testing. Coal water slurry demonstrated pseudoplastic
behaviour at all concentrations. Parameters were obtained after fitting the data to the Power law
model. The hot water-dried coal slurry exhibited superior fluidity than the as-received coal
slurry.
Gahlot et al. (1988) analysed that experiment used original crosser and finer slurries suspension
particles. They devised a technique to measure the viscosity examined oil-coal slurry suspension
rheology and coal characteristics on suspension. Particle size distribution experiment findings
suit Rosin-Rammler model.
Logos and Nguyen (1996) evaluated particle size's influence on coal water slurry flow. South
Australian Lochiel coal was used to make coal water slurry. Introducing coarser and finer coal in
varying quantities changed the particle size distribution. Concentric cylinder viscometer was
used to measure rheology (HAAKE, Model RVI00). 23 to 50% of the weight was solid. They
14
observed that slurries generated from just finer fraction, i.e. under 45.
evaluated coarser particles' influence on coal-water slurries' rheology. Using a HAAKE RV-100
viscometer, rheological characteristics were determined at 23-50 percent solid concentration. Up
to 23 percent solid concentration displays.
Ghanta et al. (2002) studied particle size distribution, concentration, and surface characteristics
on slurry rheology. As coal particle size grows, slurry viscosity reduces, whereas copper ore
particle size increases viscosity. Adding coarse ash to finer particles improved their rheology.
Mishra et al. (2002) researched Indian coal-water slurry rheology. Temperature, pH, ash content,
and solid concentrations were examined on coal-water slurry rheology. HAAKE rotating
viscometer RV30 was used to test rheology. Thermostatic bath maintains temperature. With
increased shear rate, coal water slurry became pseudoplastic. Viscosity rose with coal ash and
pH.
Lorenzi et al. (2002) studied the effect of finer/coarse coal ratios on coal-water slurry rheology.
They used a 0.7% ethylene/propylene oxide copolymer surfactant (by weight). Xanthan gum was
employed as a thickening to avoid particle settling. HAAKE VT 550 rheometer measured
rheology. The ideal fine/coarse particle ratio was 55% fine coal with a low viscosity. Adding
surfactant entraps air, which changes the viscosity of the slurry.
Tiwari et al. (2003) studied anionic coal-water slurry. The samples were Ledo coal from Assam
and Sirka coal from Jharkhand. Coal additions included naphthalene and naphthalene-toluene. A
HAAKE RV-12 Roto viscometer tested CWS's rheology. Maximum coal loading was 70% with
naphthalene-based addition and 69% with naphthalene-toluene-based additive. The optimal
additive concentration for high coal is 0.8% naphthalene and 0.9% naphthalene-toluene.
Gurses A et al. (2006) investigated coal-water slurry rheology with solid concentration, pH,
temperature, and additives. They used a spinning viscometer (Model: RV8-Brookfield).
Additives included Ammonium Bromide (CTAB) and Borrosperse NA-3A. Viscosity of coal-
water combination rises at low speed but decreases with temperature. CTAB additives are more
effective up to 50% weight concentration than Borrosperse NA-3A surfactants.
Das (2008) studied coal-water slurry suspension with natural additive. Various factors such as
ash content, temperature, pH, and saponin concentration were tested on coal-water slurry
rheology. They altered coal-water slurry concentration from 55-64 and additive from 0.4-1.2
15
percent (by weight). 0.8% additive improves coal slurry rheology the most.
Mosa et al. (2008) tested the influence of additives on coal-water slurry rheology. Sodium tri-
polyphosphate, sodium carbonate, and sulphonic acid were utilised. 0.5 to 1.5% additives were
used. With more additives, coal-water slurry viscosity and flowability decrease.
Dispersant was th c acid-formaldehyde condensate. 10-40% LH and YH coal was blended with
DLT. High-rank coal may enhance low-rank coal's slurry capabilities and rheology.
Senapati et al. (2008) used a HAAKE RV 30 rotating viscometer to study coal-water suspension
with natural additive. They used 55-63.7 percent coal-water slurry. The additive was 0.4-1.2%.
(by weight). Coal-water slurry with additive shows Bingham plasticity. Additives lower coal-
water slurry viscosity.
Sahoo et al. (2010) examined microwave-treated and untreated Indian high-ash coals. 30-60-90-
120 seconds were used to microwave coal samples at 900W. Coal rheology before and after
treatment. All slurry samples demonstrate pseudoplastic flow, while treated coal samples have
decreased viscosity. Treated coal has superior rheology than untreated.
Shao et al. (2012) researched coal alcohol fermentation wastewater slurries. Rotary viscometers
measured rheological characteristics (NXS-4C). Temperature was 25° 1°C. Coal slurries have
solid contents of 45-65% (by weight) and shear rates of 0-100 s-1.
Singh et al. (2016) examined particle size, slurry temperature, and concentration on coal-water
slurry rheology. 30- 60% solid slurry concentration (by weight). Unimodal and bimodal particle
size distributions were studied rheologically. According to rheological research, solid
concentration enhances perceived viscosity. At high quantities, slurry became pseudoplastic. In
bimodal slurry, fine particles slurry suspension viscosity decreases with coarse particulate.
The literature research shows a scarcity of knowledge on the rheological behaviour of high-ash
Indian coal-water slurry. Few studies have determined the optimal additive concentration for
reducing coal-water slurry viscosity. Better knowledge of coal-water slurry rheology is vital for
designing and optimising transport and combustion systems.
16
2.4 Pressure drop characteristics of solid-liquid flow in slurry pipeline
Extensive study has been done to anticipate solid-liquid slurry pipeline pressure loss. The
aforementioned characteristics assist choose slurry pipelines and reduce electricity usage.
Numerous researchers have studied pressure drop. Prior to the investigation, a detailed
evaluation of previous papers on solid-liquid slurry transfer with focus on parameter effects
was conducted.
Lazarus and Sive (1984) studied pressure decrease in South African fly ash slurry. The
sample's d50 10-30% solids were tested (by volume). The fly ash slurries examined were
Bingham plastic, according to rheology data. A 140 mm test pipe with 10% to 30% particles
was used for pipeline loop testing (by volume). Pipeline slurry head loss matches projected
data well.
Heywood et al. (1993) studied high-concentration coal-ash slurries. 8 km length, 150 and 200
mm diameter tubes were studied. Slurry solids were 68-70 percent ( by weight). Power law
exponent; findings showed SPC increased with slurry concentration.
Kumar et al. (2000) study bottom ash, fly ash, and a combination of the two. The experiment
findings reveal that pressure decrease with fly ash slurries increases linearly with solid content,
but not with bottom ash slurry. Bottom ash slurry has a lower pressure drop than fly ash slurry.
The mixture's deposition velocity is closer to fly ash slurry. Predicted pressure decrease agreed
with experimental results for 2-D straight pipe. Flow velocity, particle size, and slurry outflow
concentration affect solids concentration profiles. The pressure drop for slurry flow via a
200mm 50mm rectangular duct is smaller than a 105mm circular pipe.
Lu and Zhang (2002) examined coal-water paste's pipeline resistance. Four steel tubes of 25,
32, 40, and 62 mm and 5500 mm were investigated. Slurry was pumped using a 16-m3/h screw
pump. 22.1-33.5% water-coal paste was made (by weight). Electric differential manometer
measured pressure decrease. The energy loss coefficient for laminar coal-water paste flow in
pipeline was comparable to Newtonian fluid flow.
Gillies et al. (2004) explored high-velocity heterogeneous sand slurry pressure decrease. The
0.09- to 0.27-mm-diameter, 0.103-m-long test loop was employed for investigations. They
used calibrated pressure transducers and a magnetic flux flow metre to monitor pressure and
velocity. They found a correlation for heterogeneous slurry pipeline friction losses.
17
Kaushal et al. (2005) tested glass beads with mean diameters of 440 and 125m on a 54.9 mm
horizontal pipeline. At 50% concentration, slurry velocity was 0-5 ms-1 (by volume).
Concentration increases pressure drop. Higher speeds cause less pressure decrease.
Low velocity increases pressurised drop rate less than high velocity.
Verma et al. (2006) tested fly ash slurry in a 90o horizontal curve at 50-65% solids (by
weight). Experiment data was analysed to determine relative pressure drop and bend loss
coefficient. The pilot plant test loop was a 53-m-diameter, 30-m-long MS pipe. Experimental
pressure drop data was generated using a 90o, 5.6-radius mild steel pipe bend. They found that
relative pipe pressure rises with velocity and reaches a constant value at high velocity. Bend
loss decreases with speed. Bend pressure loss rises somewhat with velocity.
Chandel et al. (2009) studied additives' influence on The pilot plant test loop was a 50-m
straight 40-mm pipeline. Ash slurry was preserved at over 60% by weight and mixed with
Henko detergent and sodium carbonate. Internal flow
Vlasak et al. (2011) tested for pressure drop and flow. Sand averages 0.20 and 1.40 mm
whereas stone dust is 8 and 33m. Experiments are done on 1.75- and 26.8-mm pipe loops.
Sand slurry solid concentration is 6-40%, stone dust slurry 26-48%, and stony dust-sand slurry
45-51%. The difference in pressure drop between coarser and finer sand slurry diminishes with
velocity. Polydispersed sand slurries have a similar hydraulic gradient as finer slurries. The
data analysis demonstrates non-Newtonian sand slurry behaviour.
Pavel and Zdenek (2011) studied how affect slurry flow, thick complex slurries including sand
of varied particle size (0.20 to 1.40 mm) and inner diameter were determined (17.5 to 26.8
mm). Sand, sand-dust, and stony dust-sand slurry solid concentrations were 6-40%, 26-48%,
and 45-51%. Coarser sand slurry has a higher gradient than finer sand slurry.
Kaushal et al. (2013a) anticipated pipeline slurry concentration. The kaushal is adequate for all
particle sizes up to 26% concentration and 3.5m/s flow in 105mm pipeline. Author proposes
improved model that considers particle grading and size. The updated model used 125mm and
440mm particle sizes. They used a 22m-long, recalculated pipe of varying diameters (53.2mm-
495mm). Comparing experimental results with Kaushal et al. (2005), Gillies and shook (1994),
and Matousek found the modified model to be adequate for narrow and wide particles (2009).
Kumar et al. (2017) studied bottom ash slurry pressure decrease with and without additive.
They added Henko and sodium sulphate. 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 percent of bottom ash additive.
18
Bottom ash suspension solids were 10-60%. Adding 0.4% additive to slurry causes maximum
pipeline pressure decrease.
Most earlier studies focused on low or moderate solid particle concentrations, according to the
literature. When building a hydraulic transportation system, pressure drop is crucial. Pressure
drop depends on several factors, including particle size distribution, solid loading, and particle
mixing.
2.5 Simulation of pressure drop in a slurry pipeline
Literature study of experimental pressure drop studies shows that much research has been done
on experimental prediction of pressure drop for solid-liquid slurry flow via pipeline. In the 21st
century, high-performance computers are used to anticipate flow behaviour utilising CFD tools
and software. A complete literature evaluation is done on numerical simulations of pressure
drop characteristics.
Chen et al. (2009) used CFD to study coal slurry flow in a straight pipeline. They evaluated coal
water slurry flow using Eulerian multiphase technique and RNG k- turbulence model. They
verified the pressure drop simulation model with earlier investigations. They studied how
inflow velocity and grain composition affected pressure decrease. They tested slurry flow in
horizontal pipes in a pilot plant test loop. Simulation results accord well with experimental data.
Eesa et al. (2009) examined the flow of coarser particles in pipe using ANSYS CFX. They
employed Eulerian-Eulerian to mimic coarser particle flow in pipelines using positron emission
to monitor solid particles and particle motion. They observed that big particles' asymmetric
velocity profile increases with size. Pressure decrease raises slurry solid concentration.
Ekambara et al. (2009) used commercial CFD package ANSYS CFX with 3D transient
hydrodynamic model to study solid-liquid suspension flow in a pipeline. 50-500 mm was pipe
diameter.
Lahiri et al. (2010) investigated solid-liquid pipeline flow using CFD. To forecast particle drag
coefficient on concentration profile, they employed Eulerian-Eulerian model using typical k
turbulence scheme. Experiments were done with 125-440 m glass bead slurry at 1-5 ms-1. The
experiment used 10-50% solids (by volume). Pressure decrease predicted numerically and
experimentally agreed well. Results reveal that particle size and velocity affect concentration
profile asymmetry. Pressure decrease rises with velocity and concentration.
19
Hossain et al. (2011) studied solid particle flow in a four-bend horizontal pipeline. FLUENT 6.2
was used for numerical simulations. They solved multiphase flow for solids with varied particle
sizes. Governing equations were solved via mixture model. Deposition depends on particle
diameter and flow velocity. Pipe deposition is also noticed. High solid content was reported at
the bottom of the pipeline upstream and at 60o downstream.
Kaushal et al. (2012) simulated high-concentration solid-liquid pipeline flow using FLUENT.
They employed a 54.9 mm-diameter, 3 m-long horizontal pipe. Experiments were conducted
using 125-m glass beads and 5 m/s flow velocity. 0 to 50% solids (by volume). Hexagonal
cooper discretized the pipeline mesh. They employed Eulerian and mixture models to simulate
solid-liquid slurry flow for predicting pressure decrease and velocity distribution. They verified
numerical simulation models using Kaushal and Tomita's experimental data (2007). Simulation
findings match with experiments. Due to increasing inaccuracy at higher concentrations, the
mixture model failed to accurately anticipate pressure decrease.
Mazumder et al. (2012) used computational fluid dynamics to investigate elbow radius and
pressure drop (CFD). They simulated air-water flow via four 90-degree elbows. 12.7 and 6.35
mm was elbow diameter. Elbow r/D ratio is 1.5-3. Air velocity was 45.72 to 15.24 ms-1, while
water was 0.1-10 ms-1. Hexahedral approach discretized pipeline mesh. Empirical models like
Chisholm and Azzi-Friedel anticipated pressure decline. Numerical model matched empirical
and experimental data.
Bandyopadhyay et al. (2013) examined pipe elbow flow using FLUENT CFD. Simulating
pipeline flow using Elurian-Elurian. Pressure is greatest at the extrados wall and lowest at the
pipe's middle. 135o elbow had a greater pressure decrease than 45o. Cimzmadia et al. (2013)
calculated the friction factor in straight pipe lines for Bingham plastic fluid and power law fluid.
Carbopol 971, NaOH, and water make up 0.13, 0.05, and 99.82% of the solution. The
experimental setup includes 20mm and 298mm pipes. Validating experimental results using
CFD. The geometry comprises of 32000 parts and the pipe length is 10m. Simulating flow
using SST Turbulence. They examined the Headstrom number for Bingham fluid at varied
viscosities and pipe diameter, density, and yield stress. As the yield stress in Bingham plastic
fluid grows, the laminar section shifts to the right in the moody figure, i.e. the laminar-transition
appears at higher Reynolds numbers.
20
Kaushal et al. (2013b) simulated pipe-bend slurry flow. They evaluated silica-sand slurry flow
using Eulerian multiphase. Non-uniform hexagonal cooper was used to discretize the pipeline
mesh. The volumetric governing equations were solved using finite differences. Experiment and
simulation used a 53 mm pipe bend with a 148.4 mm radius. Silica sand particles are 450 m on
average. 1.15 is the g for the studied particle. 0-16 percent (by volume) concentrations and 1.7-
3.6 ms-1 velocities were simulated. Bend loss coefficient decreases with flow velocity but rises
with efflux concentration. Higher velocities result in more uniform volume fraction distribution.
Gopaliya and Kushal (2014) used GAMBIT and FLUENT 6.3 to study solid-liquid flow in
horizontal pipes. They've solidified water and sand. The mixture had four grain sizes (0.18mm,
0.29mm, 0.55mm, and 2.4mm) with velocities of 1.8-3.1 m/s. GAMBIT was used to model
slurry flow using a 53.2mm x 2.7m horizontal pipe. 357120 volume mesh hexahedrons are
created. They used 0.2mm pipe wall roughness and 10-3 convergence threshold. Last meter's
pressure decline. All grain concentrations and speeds enhance pressure drop. Central pipe core
has greater particle velocity.
Wu et al. (2015) explored solid-liquid flow pressure decrease using COMSOL Multiphysics.
They've solidified coal gangue, cement, and fly ash. At 60, 70, 80, and 90 m3/h, the
combination solid concentration ranged from 78-79.5 percent (by weight). They used a 35-m-
long, 120-mm-diameter test loop pipeline to study slurry flow. At high solid concentration, the
mixture acts as a Bingham Fluid. CFD Model compared simulated results with loop test.
Total and partial pressure drops rise with slurry flow rate, which increases Darcy friction factor
(fD) and frictional resistance loss. Pressure drop reduces with pipe diameter for a given
volumetric flow. Model simulation and loop test findings correspond well.
Rawat et al. (2016) simulated finer coal ash slurry at greater concentrations in FLUENT. They
employed SST (Shear Stress Transport) k-model to address pipeline pressure decrease.
Comparing experimental results confirmed the numerical simulation model. Higher quantities
of slurry exhibited non-Newtonian rheology. Pressure decrease depends on flow velocity.
Pipeline velocity reduces pressure drop.
Literature evaluation shows commercial CFD systems can forecast pressure drop for slurry
pipeline design. Based on the literature research, the performance of a slurry pipeline has been
anticipated using numerical approaches, and limited investigations have been done on pressure
drop characteristics of slurry pipelines for coal-water slurry flows.
21
CHAPTER 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL AND COAL ASH
22
CHAPTER 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL AND COAL ASH
3.1 INTRODUCTION
High-solids are used in energy generation. Thermal power stations use pulverised coal
generated by ball mills that reduce coal particles to micron size. During coal cleaning,
concentrated coal-water slurries are created and transferred to power plants. After studying its
features, coal-water slurry may be used in engineering. At increasing solid concentrations, coal-
water slurry's non-Newtonian behaviour is characterised by particle size distribution, proximal.
Previous chapter research shows that slurry flow behaviour varies on particle size distribution,
static settling concentration, specific gravity, and pH. Physical, chemical, and mineralogical
parameters must be studied to construct coal and coal ash slurry pipelines. Bench scale
experiments evaluate coal's physiochemical properties. This chapter also presents the findings
of coal characterisation testing.
3.2 BENCH SCALE TESTS

Coal and coal ash were chosen for physical, chemical, and mineralogical studies. The coal
samples are Guru Nanak Dev thermal power plant's fly ash and bottom ash were collected for
the investigation. Fly and bottom ash are collected from thermal power plant ESPs and hoppers.
Physiochemical qualities are studied using bench-scale experiments such hydrogen potential.
SEM determines coal and ash morphology (SEM).
3.2.1 Particle size distribution (PSD)

Particle size distribution shows the proportion of particles in a certain range. Particle size
distribution impacts static settling and viscosity of slurry, which affects pipeline pressure drop.
In this work, sieve analysis is used to estimate coal and coal ash particle size distribution. Coal
and coal ash with known solids weight are oven-dried. The dried sample is sieved through 1700,
1000, and Each sieve's retained coal and coal ash are weighed. Equation 3.1 calculates each
sieve's retained percentage.
(3.1)
24
Where, WR = Weight of solid particle retained (grams) and WT = Total weight of solid
particles (grams).
(3.2)
Where WR is the sieve's retained weight (grammes) and Xi is its average diameter.
The obtained then treated with a ball mill to below 500 m. Pulverized coal is oven-dried to
eliminate moisture. Coal is sieved using British Standards. demonstrate coal's particle size
distribution. About 38.39% of particles are 75
Figure 3.1: Coal particle size distribution

Table 3.1: Coal sizing
Particle size
1600 950 610 400 255 150 250 206 70 53
(µm)
Coal
(% Finer) - - - 90 82.68 75.85 80.64 74.72 48.39 3.18
25
Figure 3.2: Fly ash particle dispersion
Table 3.2: Fly and bottom ash sizing
Particle size
1700 1000 710 500 355 250 150 106 75 53
(µm)
Bottom ash 100 96.80 95.04 91.54 89.04 80.64 73.50 36.00 15.40 6.16
(% Finer)
Fly ash (% - - - 100 99.26 97.96 95.46 90.83 81.59 50.25
Finer)
26
Figure 3.3: Distribution of ash particles
3.2.2 Unmoving focus

Slurry pipeline transport depends on static settling concentration. Specific energy consumption
rises during slurry conveyance as solid concentration Static settling concentration of coal, fly
and bottom ash slurry suspension is 30-50%. (by weight). It's done using a 500-ml, 50-mm-
diameter graduated glass cylinder. The slurry is made and allowed to settle in a graduated
cylinder. So, interface readings are taken until no solid particles settle. This analysis is
conducted until solid particles stop settling, then the highest settled concentration is measured.
Equation 3.3 calculates maximum settled concentrations for varied.
(3.3)
Where = Static settled concentration (percent), Ws = solids in settled mass

(grammes), and Ww = water in settled mass (grams).
27
Fly and bottom ash undergo similar studies. The time-varying static settled concentration. Fly
and bottom ash slurries had maximum static settled concentrations of 60.12 and 54.35 percent
with an initial solid concentration of 30%. (by weight). Maximum static settled concentration of
fly ash at 40 and 50% initial solid concentration is 62.91 and 64.41 percent, whereas bottom ash
is 56.79 and 58.75 percent.
3.2.3 Specific gravity

Specific gravity is slurry density compared to water density. Specific gravity of solid materials
determines solid-liquid suspension concentration.
Standard pycnometer technique measures coal and coal ash specific gravity. First, a 50 ml
beaker is oven-dried for 1 hour before being cleaned with tap water. After baking, beaker
weight (Wb) is measured. Beaker containing 30 grammes of oven-dried sample is weighed
(Wbs). Pour distilled water into a beaker and stir for 5 minutes. After 1 hour, Wbsw is weighed
again. The sample is cleaned using tissue paper. After filling beaker with distilled water to
identical level, Wbw is remeasured. Equation 3.4 is used to compute coal and coal ash specific
gravity.
(3.4)
Wb = Beaker weight (grammes), Wbs = Beaker weight with solid, Wbw = Beaker weight with
water, and Wbsw = Beaker weight with solid and water (grams) Coal, fly ash, and bottom ash
have specific gravities of 1.45, 2.28, and 2.05, respectively.
3.2.4 Comparative analysis
Proximate analysis predicts coal's behaviour throughout energy production. In this research,
coal samples are proximately analysed using IS: 1350. Coal samples are tested for moisture,
ash, volatile matter, and fixed carbon. Weight loss indicates coal's free moisture. In a porcelain
silica crucible, 1 g of pulverised coal is placed. High-precision electronic scales weigh the coal-
filled crucible. The crucible is weighed and baked. The sample is weighed at regular intervals
until there is no weight change. 3.5 calculates moisture content.
28
Inherent moisture content (%) = (3.5)
Where, A is the weight of the empty capsule/crucible, B is the weight of the sample and
crucible before drying, and C is the weight after drying (grams).
For volatile matter, dry coal sample in crucible is put in 950 20 oC muffle furnace. The 10
minute-heated coal sample is cooled using a cold iron plate. The ultimate weight of the
crucible with its contents is computed using equation 3.6.
Volatile matter (%) = (3.6)
A muffle furnace heats coal to 700 oC for ash. Alcohol moistens the residue. Black particles
disappear after 15 minutes. 3.7 calculates ash sample.
Ash content (%) = (3.7)
29
D denotes capsule and residual weight after ignition (grams). Non-volatile fixed carbon is coal's
residual after volatile stuff is removed. Equation 3.8 calculates coal's fixed carbon.
Fixed carbon (%) = 100 [Moisture (%) + Ash (%) + Volatile matter (%)] (3.8)
Final analysis determines coal's main chemical components. It provides proximal and final coal
analysis findings.
Table 3.3: Proximate and ultimate analysis of coal sample
3.2.5 Potential of hydrogen (pH)

Digital pH metres measure the pH of coal, fly, and bottom ash at specific solid concentrations.
Distilled water moistens the pH metre electrode. To guarantee accurate readings, pH metre
electrodes are dipped into buffer solutions. Electrodes are cleaned with distilled water.
Immersing electrodes in a slurry suspension of samples at 30-60% solid content measures pH.
In this work, pH of coal-water slurry is evaluated to analyse coal loading.
30
Figure 3.4: Coal pH
The pH of 30-60% solids coal-water slurry is 5.98-6.17. Results show that solid coal content has
minimal influence.
Table 3.4: Different quantities of coal's pH
Fig. 3.5 illustrates the pH of fly and bottom ash slurry samples with 30-60% solids. the pH
values of fly and bottom ash slurry with varying solid concentrations (30-60%). Fly and bottom
ash pH ranges from 7.52-7.38 and 7.54-7.43 with solid concentration. Both samples' pH levels
indicate nonreactivity. Fly and bottom ash slurries' solid content has little influence on pH.
31
Figure 3.5: Fly and bottom ash pH
3.3 MINERALS
SEM-EDS provides information on the structure, size, and chemical composition of coal and
coal ash samples. Sample morphology and chemistry are determined. Morphology determines
particle shape and size for final use. Chemical composition reveals compound types.
3.3.1 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

High-resolution SEM pictures show particle size and structure. It's a sort of electron microscope
that delivers specimen information by creating high-resolution pictures of a sample surface up
to the nanoscale scale. High-energy electrons interact with sample atoms, creating signals that
reveal surface topography and composition. The 3-D SEM micrograph helps comprehend
surface structure. Using a JEOL 6510LV scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray
spectroscope, the morphology of coal, fly, and bottom ash samples is examined. Electrons
interact with sample and emit signals that may be detected to determine surface topography.
Chemical composition reveals the sample's components and compounds. EDXR determines
chemical composition. This operates on the spectroscopic principle that every element has a
unique atomic structure and collection of peaks on its electromagnetic emission spectrum. This
approach facilitates X-ray source and sample interaction. High-energy X-rays promote sample
32
X-ray emission. The energy-dispersive spectrometer detects the quantity and amount of X-rays
impacting a sample. X-ray energies measure elemental composition. Coinciding (overlapping)
peaks on spectrum may degrade EDS spectrum accuracy and sample nature. Amorphous coal is
also discovered. This SEM image analysis estimates coal porosity. lists element compositions.
Carbon (C) and oxygen (O) are abundant, but aluminium (Al) and silicon (Si) are scarce. Because
of abundant oxygen, C, Al, and Si exist as oxides. CO2 makes up 99.03 percent of the chemical,
while Al2O3 and SiO2 account for 0.46 and 0.56 percent. Aluminum and silica oxides are more
prevalent in fly and bottom ash samples than titanium, magnesium, iron, and calcium. lists both
samples' chemical constituents.
3.4 LEACHING CHARACTERISTICS
Ash slurry is usually dumped in surface water or on land. Trace elements in ash slurry
combine with ground water over time. Large amounts of hazardous metals in thermal power
plant ash disposal systems may harm human and plant health. After 12 hours at 120°C, the
sample is cooled. 5.7 ml glacial acetic acid is diluted with distilled water to make 1 litre of
extraction fluid. pH is 2.88 0.05. Final extracts are kept at 4°C until trace element analysis. that
trace element leachate concentration rises with L/S ratio. Mn, Mg, Cr, Zn, Cu, Ni, Pb, Fe, Co,
Hg, and Mo trace element concentrations rise from 112 to 135, 70 to 82, 55 to 63, 36 to 40, 33
to 36, 20 to 25, 7.50 to 9.50, 3.50 to 6, 0.22 to 0.40, and 1.50 to 1.57 mg/Kg with a 20:1 to 80:1
L/S ratio.
33
Figure 3.6: Variation of liquid to solid ratio affects leached element concentration in
bottom ash.
Figure 3.7: Concentrations of leached elements in fly ash with liquid-to-solid ratio
34
fly ash leaching properties are comparable to bottom ash's. Leaching studies for fly and bottom
ash show that, at 0.20 to 2.66 mg/kg. Mn leaches the most from fly and bottom ash, whereas Hg
leaches the least. Similar analyses of coal ash from other thermal facilities have been reported.
Figure 3.8: Groundwater leached element concentrations

the impact of fly ash and bottom ash leaching in an ash pond and a nearby settlement. Mg, Zn,
Hg, Mo, Cu, and Co are beneath the drinking water limits (IS 10500, 2009), however Cr, Pb,
Mn, Ni, and Fe exceeded them.
35
CHAPTER 4
RHEOLOGY OF COAL AND COAL ASH SLURRY
36
CHAPTER 4
RHEOLOGY OF COAL AND COAL ASH SLURRY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The rheological properties of slurry suspension affect pipeline flow. In power plants, coal
water slurry is piped for fuel production and coal ash is hydraulically piped to an ash pond for
disposal. Maximum slurry viscosity improves pipeline transit efficiency. Viscosity affects the
energy needed to carry slurry through a pipeline.
4.2 RHEOMETER
The Rheometer measures the electronically commuted synchronous motor and precision
encoder. Figure above depicts Rheolab Q-C (Rheometer). Different shear rates influence
rheological characteristics. Rheometers measure using a bob and cylindrical cup. Slurry is
Rotating bob shears slurry suspension. Table 4.1 lists rheometer specs.
Table 4.1: Rheometer specifications
4.2.1 Slurry sample preparation
Electronic pan balances with 0.0001 gramme precision are utilised to weigh materials, and
slurry suspensions are delicately produced with glass rods to reduce particle attrition and
spillage. Before experimenting, bob and cup are locked. The slurry suspension is placed into a
stationary cylindrical cup and swirled for 5-10 minutes to achieve homogeneity. Bob is
lowered into the fixed cylindrical cup while the mechanism is attached to the revolving
spindle. During spindle rotation, slurry is sheared between the stationary cylindrical cup and
37
bob, and shear stress is recorded as a function of shear rate. Rheoplus software installed on a
LAN-connected PC obtains the output data. Rheological experiments are performed at 0-600
s-1 and 25 °C.
4.3 Rheology of coal-water slurry

Coal-water slurry rheological tests are done at 30-60% solids (by weight). Viscosity and
shear stress are measured at 0 600 s-1. In this work, two instances are used to evaluate coal-
water slurry rheology.
4.3.1 53-75m coal-water slurry rheology

Experiments are done on coal samples with 30-60% solids (by weight). Below Figure shows
shear stress and apparent viscosity at varying solid concentrations (by weight). Rheological
data shows that solid concentrations alter shear stress and perceived viscosity. As solid
concentration increases, coal-water viscosity increases. Increased particle-to-particle
interactions may increase perceived viscosity with solid concentration. Increased viscosity.
Figure 4.1: Different solid concentrations affect shear stress-shear rate of 53-75 m coal-
water slurry.
38
Figure 4.2: Viscosity and shear rate of 53-75 m coal-water slurry at various
concentrations
Shear thinning lowers apparent viscosity over 30% solid concentration. Coal-water slurry with
40% solid content decreases in apparent viscosity up to 100 s-1 and then marginally further.
With 50-60% solid content of coal-water slurry, apparent viscosity decreases up to 300 s-1
shear rate.
4.3.2 coal affects 53-75 m coal-water slurry rheology.

The rheology of bimodal distribution of coal-water slurry is determined by mixing 53-75 m
coal with 106-150 m coal. the apparent viscosity of bimodal slurry at 100, 300, and 600 s-1.
Below Figure shows that adding 53 to 106 decreases apparent viscosity by 34.4 and 20.7% at
100 s-1. Adding 106- increases viscosity by 15.9%. At 300 s-1 shear rate, 20 and 30 percent
addition of 106- decreases apparent viscosity by 39 and 16.4%, respectively. Increasing the
addition of 106- from 30 to 40% increases apparent viscosity by 15.5%. At 100 s-1 shear rate,
adding 20 and 30% 106- d coal decreases apparent viscosity by 40% and 23%, respectively,
whereas adding more 106- increases it by 12.7%.
39
Figure 4.3: 53-75 m coal-water slurry containing 106-150 m coal at 30% solid content
40
41
Below Figure shows the apparent viscosity at 50 and 60% solids. At 50% solid concentration,
adding 20 and 30% 106- decreases apparent viscosity by 68 and 29.8%, respectively, while
adding more 106- at 100 s-1 shear rate increases it by 2.1%. below Figure shows that adding
20 and 30% 106-150 decreased apparent viscosity by 59.8% and 17.8%, respectively, while
adding 40% 106--1 increased it by 2.7%. Adding 106 to 53-75 m coal-water slurry reduces
perceived viscosity by 30%.
4.3.3 Rheological changes in a coal-water slurry as a result of incorporating coal

particles between 150 and 250 m in size
The apparent viscosity at 100 s-1 shear rate is lowered by 40.9%, 8.5%, and 9.2% with 20-
40% 150-. At 300 s-1 shear rate, 20 and 30% addition of 150- reduces apparent viscosity by
48.5% and 0.3%, respectively. With 20 and 30% 150- coal, the apparent viscosity at 600 s-1
shear rate decreases by 35.4% and 10.1%. The 40% increase in perceived viscosity.
Figure 4.7: Coal-water slurry with a 30% solid content and a particle size range of 53-75
m has an apparent viscosity of 150-250 m.
42
Figure 4.8: 53-75 m coal-water slurry with 150-250 m coal at 40% solid content
43
4.4 RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FLY ASH SLURRY

Fly ash slurry's rheology is examined to convey its high solid content in a pipeline. Bottom ash
is added to fly ash slurry in 10-20-30% proportions (by weight). Experiments are conducted at
0 600 s-1 shear rate.
4.4.1 Fly-ash slurry rheology
Fly ash slurry is rheologically tested at 30, 40, 50, and 60% solid concentrations (by weight) to
determine shear stress with shear rate. During the experiment, a thermostatically-controlled
water bath keeps the slurry sample at 25 oC.
44
Figure 4.11: Different concentrations of fly ash slurry shear stress-shear rate.
4.4.2 Bottom ash affects fly ash slurry rheology.
As a result, the ash disposal pipeline operation is uneconomical due to high water and
electricity consumption. Fly ash slurry with added bottom ash at greater solid concentrations
has been investigated for pipeline transport. Experiments were conducted to assess the
rheological behaviour of slurry samples with concentrations of 30, 40, 50, and 60%, generated
by adding 10, 20, and 30% bottom ash to fly ash.
According to the findings, fly ash slurry shear stress decreases more at high shear rates. similar
trends for 40, 50, and 60% solid content of fly ash slurry. At 100 s-1, adding 10, 20, or 30%
bottom ash decreases shear stress by 6.60, 15.60, and 8.95% for 40% solid concentration,
13.67, 18.54, and 7.85% for 50% solid concentration, and 13.18, 11.23, and 8.89% for 60%
solid concentration.
45
Figure 4.12: Fly ash slurry shear stress-shear rate with 30% bottom ash
46
47
CHAPTER 5
EVALUATING PRESSURE DROP IN SLURRY
PIPELINE NUMERICALLY
48
CHAPTER 5
EVALUATING PRESSURE DROP IN SLURRY PIPELINE NUMERICALLY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Slurry pipeline pressure decrease is difficult. Experimental examination of slurry pipeline
pressure decrease is expensive and time-consuming. With cheaper high-speed computers and
user-friendly computational fluid dynamics, considerable strides in recent years (CFD) This
helps the design engineer optimise a slurry transport system. This reduces the cost and time of
prototyping and testing. Many pipe designers utilise CFD to estimate head loss and flow field
analysis. Visualizing pipeline flow by adjusting dependent parameters gives useful design
information.
All CFD codes have three parts:

• A component pre-processor. Geometry, mesh, and boundary conditions are generated.
• A flow solver that solves flow equations. Three solutions are used.
• Differential calculus The FEM FV Method
• A post-processor that produces data, graphs, vector plots, etc.
5.2 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
Three principles influence fluid flows: MASS CONSERVATION
Inertia Energy-saving
5.2.1 Mass Conservation
Mass conservation equation:
. ( ) Sm (6.1)
t
Valid for incompressible and compressible flows. Source (Sm) is mass addition from scattered
second phase to continuous phase.
For steady-state incompressible fluid flow, use:
( ) 0
Where, i j and V u i u j j uk k
xi k xi xi
i
49
5.2.2 Momentum conservation
Momentum conservation equation::
( ) .( ) p ( ) g F (6.2)
t
Where,
The stress tensor is given as:

T
[( )] 2 . I (6.3)
3
Momentum conservation equation for steady-state incompressible fluid flowby
.( )p .( ) g F
50
k and are the inverse effective Prandtl numbers for for k and , respectively. The
model constant values are:
C1 =1.42, C2 = 1.68
5.2.3 Realizable k- Model

The Differences between the k-standard model and the realizable k-model are substantial.
means that the Reynolds stresses are well constrained, in a way that agrees with the physics of
turbulent flows. Realizable k- model transport equations are as follows:
k ku j Gk YM (6.11)
t xi G S
t kb k
xj k xj
and
2
uj t C1 C G (6.12)
t xi x C1S C2 k 3 b
k x k v
j
j S
Where
0.43, k
C1 S ,S 2Sij Sij
ma ,
x 5
C2 and C1 , are constants. The model constant values are:
C1 =1.44, C2 = 1.9, k = 1.0 and = 1.2.
5.2.4 k-
The k- -way transport model which solves the kinetic energy and turbulent
51
k ku k
I Gk Yk
k (6.13)
t xi Sk
i
j x xj
and
ui I G Y S (6.14)
t xi xj xj
The variable Gk in these equations stands for the kinetic energy produced by the turbulence as
a result of the mean velocity gradients. In this context, turbulence is represented by the
effective diffusivity of k, and G is the production of Ik. User-defined words Sk and S are used
in the context of source material.
52
5.3 A MODEL FOR MULTIPHASE FLOW
In Euler-Lagrange, liquid phase is continuous. Eulerian framework uses time-averaged Navier-

Stokes equations to solve mass and momentum equations with extra coupling terms. Lagrangian
framework solves dispersed phase by monitoring bubbles, drips, solid particles. One-way or
two-way coupling between the scattered and liquid phases may interchange mass, momentum,
and energy. Two frames are related by continuous and distributed phase interaction forces. This
makes Eulerian-Lagrangian technique appropriate for small volume dispersed phase issues like
fuel combustion, spray dryers, and particle-laden flow.
This method employs volume fraction, which implies the sum of time and space equals 1.
Conservation equations give the empirical connection answered for each phase by comparable
equations. Euler-Euler multiphase method has three models.
Fractional volume (VOF) Blending
Model Eulerian
VOF model is used for separation flows having a defined interface between continuous and
scattered phases. Modeling homogeneous two-phase flow with high coupling requires mixture
multiphase models. The Eulerian model is complicated. Eulerian model solves both mass and
momentum equations.
5.3.1 Instances of the Eulerian Model
In Eulerian model, slurry flow has bulk solid (b) and continuum (c) phases. Bulk solid and
continuum concentrations are and. Solid phase coal concentration is a decisive element for
multiphase method. Hypothetically, each suspension phase obeys mass and momentum
conservation principles. Multiphase model governing equations:
This is the Continuity Equation.

The continuity equation for bulk solid phase (b) used to estimate the weight % of continuum
phase (c) is provided by:
(6.17)
53
Equilibrium of Momentum
Equation (6.18) gives the momentum equation for bulk solid and continuum phases (6.19).
For fluid phase
(6.18)
The term is the virtual mass force in which (virtual
mass force coefficient) = 0.5.
In equation (6.21), radial distribution function ( ) evaluates the probability between
collision of particles which is given below:
(6.21)
In equation (6.18) and (6.19) symbol, is the Reynolds stress tensor, whereas is
viscous stress tensor for bulk solid and is for continuum, are stated as below:
(6.22)
(6.23)
(6.24)
Bulk viscosity ( of solid phase given below:
(6.25)
54
5.4 Tight Pipeline Modeling
Modeling the slurry pipeline using ANSYS R15.0 Design Modeler (DM). 50 mm pipe is 3 m
long. Pipe length allows for full flow.
Figure 5.1 shows a pipeline schematic. Pipeline material is 7850 kg/m3 mild steel. Multiphase
Eulerian model determines pipeline mixed flow. Solid-liquid pipeline flow simulation using
SST k- turbulence modelling.
x D = 50 mm
L=3m
Figure 5.1: Slurry pipeline schematic illustration.
5.4.1 Preconditions for a Boundary
Inlet, outflow, and pipe wall are boundary conditions. Inlet boundary conditions are solid
volume fraction and solid concentration. Pipeline output pressure boundary condition. Pipeline
walls don't slide. During CFD simulation, pipe wall roughness is 0.5. (Dewan, 2011). First order
scheme corrects pressure and solves Simulating coal-water suspension using 3D segregated
solver.
5.4.2 Grid independency test
Figure 5.2 shows tetrahedral-cooper mesh used to calculate solution pressure drop. Grid
independency tests analyse complete mesh elements. Table 5.1 lists mesh quality for various
mesh sizes. Optimal mesh with good domain has skewness between 0-0.25 for all mesh sizes.
Also, the orthogonality index is 0.86, which suggests a decent mesh.
Table 5.1: There are a variety of mesh sizes available, and each one affects the pipe's
quality.
Mesh size 4 5 6 7 8
Skewness 0.218 0.217 0.217 0.22 0.221
Orthogonality index 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.856 0.858
55
Figure 5.2: Tetrahedral-cooperative mesh grid
The grid independence test employs 59 m solid coal-water slurry. 2 ms-1 solids. Figure 5.3
displays pressure decrease vs. mesh size. Figure 5.3 demonstrates when pressure drop becomes
independent. Roache (1997) developed the grid convergence index model.
(6.39)
Figure 5.3: Effect of increasing or decreasing the number of components on the pressure
decrease
p=2, r=(N1/N2)1/3, and ea=two grid size relative error. f1 and f2 reflect pressure decrease on
56
two grid sizes. GCI evaluates the difference between CFD-simulated pressure levels for two
grid spacings. GCI tests four mesh sizes. Figure 5.4 compares GCI levels. Increased element
count reduces pressure drop. Level 4-5 GCI is 0.958 and pressure drop is 15.07 to 16.53
mWc/100m. GCI is 0.818, 0.654, and 0.11 for levels 3-4, 2-3, and 1-2, while pressure drop is
12.74 to 15.07, 12.55 to 12.74, and 12.27 to 12.55 mWc/100m. Level 1-2's minimum GCI is
0.11, which deviates less than level 2-3's 0.65. Mesh size with 5 mm cell size provides least
inaccuracy between grid mesh sizes and least pressure drop.
Figure 5.4: Cell size-dependent changes in the GCI index across various meshes
5.4.3 Pressure loss in a slurry pipeline may be predicted using a turbulence model.
Using multiple turbulence models, numerical simulations are used to determine coal-water
slurry pipeline pressure loss. 50 mm pipe numerical simulations. Slurry solids are 61%.
2-5ms-1. Numerical simulations compare pipeline pressure decrease compares simulation and
experiment findings. Maximum pressure drop is 10.07, 11.40, 13.37, 10.07, 5.25, and 7.90
percent for Realizable k- k-, Standard k-, SST k-, and Standard k- turbulence models,
respectively. 7.90% variance in SST k- simulation findings. SST k-s vs. other models. In this
study, 50 mm pipe numerical simulations are done utilising
57
Figure 5.5: Experimental verification of numerical simulation results
5.5 Predicting coal-water slurry pipeline pressure decrease characteristics

Pressure drop is determined 1 m from pipe exit and coal particle volume fractions are recorded
5.5.1 Coal-water slurry pressure decrease

Figure 5.6 shows the changes in slurry pipeline pressure drop (mWc/100m) with As particle flow
velocity rises, kinetic energy increases, which increases impact forces and localised pipe wall
assaults, resulting in larger pressure drop. Fly ash slurry exhibits a similar phenomena.
58
Figure 5.6: Different coal-water slurry concentrations affect pressure drop.
The smallest pressure drop in a pipeline is 12.34 mWc/100m at 30% solid concentration and 2
ms-1 flow, while the highest is 83.33 mWc/100m with 60% solid concentration and 5 ms-1
flow. Pressure drop rises with solid concentration at a given flow velocity. Increasing solid
concentration increases the slurry suspension's density and viscosity. Investigators see similar
behaviour.
5.5.2 Coal-water slurry volume fraction
Figure 5.7 shows that at 5 ms-1 solid concentration, the bottom settling zone and top lean
concentration region decline (d). Red represents higher volume fraction. Higher volume fraction
zone leaves at lower solid concentration, 2 ms-1, occupying more space. Increasing flow
velocity pushes the volume fraction zone further from the wall.
Figures 5.8-5.10 illustrate Figure 5.8-5.10 shows that solid concentration increases volume
fraction distribution. Maximum volume fraction at pipe outlet is 0.261, 0.334, 0.399, and 0.458
at 30, 40, 50, and 60% .
59
Figure 5.7: Coal-water slurry contours at 30% solids
Figure 5.8: 40% coal-water slurry volume fraction contour
60
Figure 5.9 : 50% solids coal-water slurry volume fraction contours
Figure 5.10: Coal-water slurry volume fraction contours at 60% solids
61
5.5.3 Effect of particle size on pressure drop characteristics of coal-water slurry
Pressure drop characteristics in slurry pipelines are quantitatively studied for 59,109,
159, and 209 m coal particles with 2-5 ms-1 flow velocity. Particle size impacts pressure
drop and dispersion.
Figure 5.11: Particle size affects pressure drop in 60% coal-water slurry.
Figure 5.11 shows the fluctuation of pipeline pressure loss with particle size at various flow
velocities 2-5 ms-1 at 60% solid concentration. At all speeds, particle size increases pressure
loss. Coal particles larger than 209 m have a bigger pressure drop. Coarser coal particles strike
pipe walls more than finer coal particles, causing more pressure loss. pressure drop increases
moderately with particle size, but increases steeply at 5 ms-1 flow velocity.
62
Figure 5.12: Particle size affects coal-water slurry pressure drop at 5 ms-1 flow.
5.5.4 Particle size affects coal-water slurry volume distribution.
Figure 5.13-5.16 shows the influence of particle size on vertical pipe outlet volume fraction
distribution at 30% solid concentration and 2-5 ms-1 flow velocity. Red indicates greater
concentration at pipe output, whereas blue indicates lesser concentration. Figure 5.13 shows
that particle size affects volume fraction. Lower-to-upper settling on vertical central diminishes.
63
Figure 5.13: Effect of particle size on coal-water slurry volume fraction contours at 30%
solids and 2 ms-1 flow.
Figure 5.14: Effect of particle size on coal-water slurry volume fraction contours at 30%
solids and 3 ms-1 flow.
64
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
65
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter summarises the preceding chapters' outcomes. Different solid concentrations and
flow velocities were used to analyse Finer coal particles sink more than coarser ones. Fly and
bottom have same static settling concentration. The irregular form of bottom ash particles
reduces static settled concentration, whereas fly ash particles increase it. Up to 30% solid
content, coal-water slurry rheology is Newtonian; after that, it's pseduplastcis. Fly ash slurry
suspensions follow Bingham fluid flow characteristics beyond 30% solid content (by weight).
53- water slurry apparent viscosity decreases with 106-150 and 150- with 30% coarser particles.
The addition of bottom ash to fly ash decreases its viscosity. The highest apparent viscosity
decrease of fly ash suspension is 20 percent bottom ash, whereas 10 and 30 percent have
minimal effects. Bottom ash suspension decreases rheological characteristics and saves energy.
Experiments demonstrate that adding coarser particles to finer particles reduces pressure loss.
SST k- outperformed other models. SST k- simulation results.
Numerical simulations demonstrate that pipeline pressure drops Particle size dominates inflow
velocity and concentration in pipeline pressure decrease. Fine particles settled more than bigger
ones. Size-dependent settling concentration.Varying parameters' influence.
66
REFERENCES
1. American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard methods for

examination of water and wastewater 19th Ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health
Association.
2. Ahmad, M. Singh, S.N. and Seshadri, V. 1995. Pressure drop in a long radius
90º horizontal bend for the flow of multi sized heterogeneous slurries, International
Journal of Multiphase Flow, 2(2): 329-334.
3. Aktas, Z. and Woodburn, E.T. 2000. Effect of addition of surface active agent on
the viscosity of a high concentration slurry of a low rank British coal in water. Fuel
Processing Technology, 62: 1 15.
4. Assefa K.M. and Kaushal, D.R. 2015. A new model for the Viscosity of Highly
Concentrated Multi-sized Particulate Bingham Slurries, Particulate Science and
Technology, 35(1): 77-85.
5. Aude, T.C. Thompson, T.L. and Wasp, E.J. 1974. Economics of slurry pipeline
system, 3rd International Conference on the Hydraulic transport of Solids in Pipe,Golden,
Color., USA, 2-13.
6. Babcock, H. A. 1971. Heterogeneous flow of heterogeneous solids. Advances in
Solid Liquid Flow in Pipes and its Application, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 125-148.
7. Bandhyopadhyay, T.K. and Das, S.K. 2013. Non-Newtonian and Gas-non-
Newtonian Liquid Flow through Elbows -CFD Analysis, Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics,
6(1): 131-141.
8. Bbraganca, S.R. Goncalves, M.R.F. Bergmann, C.P. and Rubio, J. 2009. Coal ash
transportation as paste like highly loaded pulps in Brazil: characterization and main features,
International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 29: 203-215.
9. Biswas, A. Gandhi, B.K. Singh, S. N. and Seshadri, V. 2000. Characteristics of coal
ash and their role in hydraulic design of ash disposal pipelines, Indian Journal of
Engineering and Material Science, 7: 1-7.
67
10. Blissett, R. and Rowson, N. 2012. A review of the multi-component utilisation of
coal fly ash, Fuel, 97: 1 23.
11. Boylu, F. Dincer, H. and Atesok, G., 2004. Effect of Coal Particle Size
Distribution, Volume Fraction and Rank on the Rheology of Coal-Water Slurries, Fuel
Processing Technology, 85: 241 250.
12. Bunn, T.F. and Chambers, A.J. 1993. Experiences with dense phase hydraulic
conveying of vales point fly ash, International Journal of Powder Handling and Processing,
5(1): 35-44.
13. Buranasrisak, P. and Narasingha, M.H. 2012. Effects of Particle Size Distribution
and Packing Characteristics on the Preparation of Highly-Loaded Coal-Water Slurry,
International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, 3: 31-35.
14. Carleton, A.J. French, R.J. James, J.G. Broad, B.A. and Streat, M. 1978.
Hydraulic transport of large particles using conventional and high concentration conveying,
Proceedings, 5th International Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes,
Hanover: 15-28.
15. Chandel, S. Singh S.N. and Seshadri, V. 2010. Transportation of High
Concentration Coal Ash Slurries through Pipelines, International Archieve of Applied
Sciences and Technology, 1(1): 1-9.
16. Chen L. Duan Y. Liu M. and Zhao C. 2010. Slip flow of coal water slurries in
pipelines,Fuel, 89: 1119 1126.
17. Cheng, D.C.H. 1980. Viscosity-concentration equations and flow curves for
suspensions.
18. Chen, L. Duan, Y. Pu, W. and Zhao, C. 2009. CFD Simulation of Coal-Water
Slurry Flowing in Horizontal Pipeline, Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 26(4):
1144-1154
19. Chhabra, R.P. and Richardson, J.F. 1983. Hydraulic transport of coarse gravel
particles in a smooth horizontal pipe, Chemical Engineering Residual Design, 61: 313-317.
20. Convery, M. Downing, L. Yin, C.Y. Goh, B.M. and Sharifah, A.S.A.K. 2010.
Characterization of glass-ceramics produced from vitrification of class f Malaysian coal fly
ash, International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, 5(1): 1-4.
68
21. Csizmadia, P. and Hos C. 2013. Predicting the friction factor in straight pipes in the
case of Bingham plastic and the power-law fluids by means of measurements and CFD
simulation, Chemical Engineering, 57/1(2): 79 83.
22. Das, D. 2008. Effect of organized assemblies. part 4 formulation of highly
concentrated coal-water slurry using a natural surfactant, Energy & Fuels, 22: 1865 1872.
23. Darby, R. and Melson, J. 1981. How to predict the friction factor for the flow of
Bingham plastics, Chemical Engineering Journal, 88(26): 59-61.
24. Dewan, A. 2011. Tackling turbulent flows in engineering, Springer Science &
Business Media, London.
25. Eesa, M. and Barigou, M. 2009. CFD Investigation of the Pipe Transport of
Coarse Solids in Laminar Power Law Fluids, Chemical Engineering Science, 64: 322-333.
Einstein, A. 1956. Investigation on the theory of the Brownian movement, Dover
a. Publications, New York.
26. Ekambara, K. Sanders, R.S. Nandakumar, K. and Masliyah J.H. 2009.
Hydrodynamic Simulation of Horizontal Slurry Pipeline Flow Using Ansys-Cfx,
Industrial & Engineering Chemical Residue, 48, 8159-8171.
27. Gahlot, V.K. Seshadri, V. and Malhotra, R.C. 1988. A method for the experimental
determination of the rheological parameters of multi-sized course particulate slurries,
International symposium on hydraulic transportation of coal and other minerals, IIT Delhi,
283-295.
28. Gahlot, V.K. Seshadri, V. and Malhotra, R.C. 1992. Effect of Density, Size
Distribution, and Concentration of Solid on the Characteristics of Centrifugal Pumps, Journal
of Fluid Engineeing, 114(3): 386-389.
29. Gandhi, B.K. Singh, S.N. and Seshadri, V. 1998. Predictions of performance
characteristics slurry pump handling clear liquid, Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials
Sciences, 5: 91-96.
30. Gandhi, B.K. Singh, S.N. and Seshadri, V. 2001. Performance characteristics of
centrifugal slurry pumps, Transaction actions of ASME, Journal of Fluid Engineering,
123:271-280.
31. Gay, E.C. Nelson, F.A. and Armstrong, W.P. 1969. Flow properties of suspensions
with solid concentration, American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, 15(6): 815.
Ghanta, K.C. and Purohit, N.K. 2002. Effect of particle size distribution (psd) on the
69
viscosity of suspension of bi-dispersed particles, Proceedings Hydro transport 15,
32. Gillies R.G. and Shook C.A. 1994. Concentration Distributions of Sand Slurries in
Horizontal Pipe Flow, Particulate Science and Technology, 12(1): 45-69.
33. Gillies R.G. Shook C.A. and Xu J. 2004. Modelling Heterogeneous Slurry Flows at
High Velocities, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 82: 1060-1065.
34. Gopaliya M.K. and Kaushal D.R. 2014. Analysis of Effect of Grain Size on
Various Parameters of Slurry Flow through Pipeline Using CFD. Particulate Science and
Technology, 33:4, 369-384.
35. Gupta, R. Singh, S.N. and Sehadri, V. 1995. Prediction of uneven wear in a slurry
pipeline on the basis of measurements in a pot tester, Wear, 184: 169-178.
36. Hasan, A.R. Baria, D.N. and Rao, A.V. 1986. Rheological behaviour of low-rank
coal water slurries, Chemical Engineering Communications, 46: 227-240.
37. Heywood, N.I. Mehta, K.B. Poplar, D. and Moore, C.D. 1993. Assesment of the
flow characteristics of pulverised fuel ash slurries at higher concentration. 12th

International conference on slurry handling and pipeline transport, Hydrotransport-12,
Belgium,
38. Kaushal D.R. and Tomita Y. 2002. An improved method of predicting pressure
drop along slurry pipeline. Particulate Science and Technology. 20: 305-324.
39. Kaushal, D.R. Sato, K. Toyota, T. Funatsu, K. Tomita, Y. 2005. Effect of Particle
Size Distribution on Pressure Drop and Concentration Profile in Pipeline Flow of Highly
Concentrated Slurry, International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 31: 809- 823.
40. Kaushal, D.R. Thinglas, T. Tomita, Y. Kuchii, S. and Tsukamoto, H. 2012. CFD
Modeling for Pipeline Flow of Fine Particles at High Concentration, International Journal of
Multiphase Flow, 43: 85-100.
41. Kaushal D.R. and Tomita Y. 2013a. Prediction of concentration distribution in
pipeline flow of highly concentrated slurry, Particulate Science and Technology, 31: 28-34.
Kaushal, D.R. Kumar, A. Tomita, Y. Kuchii, S. and Tsukamoto, H. 2013b. Flow of
Mono-Disperesed Particles Through Horizontal Bend, International Journal of
42. Krampa-Morlu, F.N. Bergstrom, D.J. Bugg, J.D. Sanders, R.S. and Schaan, J.,
2004. Numerical simulation of dense coarse particle slurry flows in a vertical pipe, In: 5th
International Conference on Multiphase flow, Yokohama, Japan.
70
43. Kumar U. Gandhi B.K. Singh S.N. Seshadri V. and Gupta V.K. 2000.
Performance characteristics of demonstration unit for transportation of solid-liquid flow at
high concentration setup at NCPP, Dadri, Proceedings International Seminar on Material
handling Systems Indian Institute of Plant Engineers, November16-18, New Delhi: 126-
136.
44. Kumar, U., Mishra, R., Singh, S. and Seshadri, V. 2003. Effect of particle gradation
on flow characteristics of ash disposal pipelines, Powder Technology, 132 (1): 39-51.
45. Kumar, S. Mohapatra, S.K. and Gandhi, B.K. 2013. Effect of addition of fly ash and
drag reducing on the rheological properties of bottom ash, International Journal of
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, 8(1): 1-8.
46. Kumar, S. Mohapatra, S.K. and Gandhi, B.K. 2014. Performance Characteristics of
Centrifugaol Slurry Pump with Multi-sized Particulate Bottom and Fly ash Mixtures,
Particulate Science and Technology, 32, 466-476.
47. Kumar U. Singh S.N. and Seshadri V. 2015. Experimental Investigation on Pressure
Drop Characteristics of Bi-Modal Slurry Flow in a Straight Horizontal Pipe, International
Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 6(11): 153-158.
48. Kumar K., Kumar. S. Gupta, M. and Garg H.C. 2016. Effect of addition of bottom ash
on the rheological properties of fly ash slurry at varying temperature, Materials Science and
Engineering, doi:10.1088/1757-899X/149/1/012044.
49. Kumar K., Kumar. S. Gupta, M. and Garg H.C. 2017. Measurement of flow
characteristics for multiparticulate bottom ash water suspension with additives, Journal of
Residuals Science & Technology, 14(1):11-17.
50. Krieger, I.M. 1968. Shear rate in the couetta viscometer, Transaction Society of
Rheology, 12: 5-13.
51. Landel, R.F. Moser, B.G. and Baumann, A.J. 1965. Rheology of concentrated
suspension: effect of surfactant, 4th International Congress on Rheology, 663-673.

52. Lazarus, J.H. and Sive, A.W. 1984. A novel balance beam tube viscometer and
rheological characteristics of high concentration fly ash slurries, Ninth International
Conference on Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes, Rome, Italy, 207-226.
53. Leong, Y.K. Creasy, D.E. Boger, D.V. and Nguyen, Q.D. 1987. Rheology of
browncoal- water suspensions, Rheology Acta, 26: 291 300.
54. Li L., Usui H. and Suzuki H. 2002. Study of pipeline transportation of dense fly
71
ash- water slurry, Coal Preparation, 22(2): 65-80.
55. Ling, J. Skudarnov, P.V. Lin, C.X. and Ebadian, M.A. 2003. Numerical investigations
of liquid-solid slurry flows in a fully developed turbulent flow region, International Journal
of Heat and Fluid Flow, 24: 389-398.
56. Lin, C.X. and Ebadian, M.A. 2008. A numerical study of developing slurry flow in
the entrance region of a horizontal pipe, Computers& Fluids, 37: 965-974.
57. Link, J.M. Faddick, R.R. and Lavingia, N.J. 1974. Slurry pipeline economics, Society
of Mining Engineering, AIME Annual meeting, Dallas Texas.
58. Lorenzi, L.D. and Bevilacqua, P. 2002. The Influence of particle size distribution
and nonionic surfactant on the rheology of coal water fuels produced using Iranian and
Venezuelan coals, Coal Preparation. 22: 249-268.
59. Maclnnes, M.A. 2002. Investigation into effects of slurry thinners on the rheology
of chalk slurries, Proceeding Hydrotransport 15, BHRA Group, Fluid Engineering,
Cranfield, Bedford, England, 375-384.
60. Mandal, S.S. Ojha, C.S.P. and Bhargava, P. 2005. Wind turbulence modeling at
near wall zone using k-e model: A review, Journal of Wind Engineering, 2(1): 52-59.
61. Matousek V. 2009. Predictive model for frictional pressure drop in settling slurry
pipe with stationary deposit, Powder Technology, 192: 367-374.
62. Mazumder, Q.H. 2012. CFD Analysis of the Effect of Elbow Radius on Pressure Drop
in Multiphase Flow, Modelling and Simulation in Engineering, doi:10.1155/2012/125405.
63. Menter, F.R. 1994. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal, 32(8): 1598-605.
64. Moreland, C. 1963. Viscosity of suspensions of coal in mineral oil, Canadian Journal
of Chemical Engineering, 41: 24-28.
65. Mosa E.S. Saleh A.H.M. Taha T.A. and El-Molla A.M. 2008. Effect of chemical
additives on flow characteristics of coal slurries, Physicochemical Problems of Mineral
Processing, 42: 107-118.
66. Mishra, R. Singh, S.N. and Seshadri, V. 1998. Improved model for the prediction
of pressure drop and velocity field in multi-sized particulate slurry flow through horizontal
pipes, Powder handling & processing, 10(3): 279-287Mishra, R. Fabien, C. Singh, S. and
Seshadri, V. 2001. Holdup in multisized particulate solid- liquid flow through horizontal
pipe, Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences, 8: 84-89.
72
67. Mishra, S.K. Senapati, P.K. and Panda, D. 2002. Rheological Behavior of Coal-
Water Slurry, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 24:
159-167.
68. Nabil, T. El-Sawaf, I. and El-Nahhas K. 2013. Computational Fluid Dynamics
Simulation of the Solid Liquid Slurry Flow in a Pipeline, Seventh International Water
Technology Conference, IWTC 17, Istanbul.
69. Naik, H.K. Mishra, M.K. and Rao K.U.M. 2011.Infkuence of Chemical Regants
on Rheological Properties of Fly Ash-Water Slurry at Varing Temprature Enviorment, Coal
Combustion and Gasification Products, 3: 83-93.
70. Nayak, B.D. Mallick, P.K. and Dey, D.N. 1999. Studies on agglomeration of fly ash
for refractory applications, Proceedings of International Symposium on Beneficiation,
Agglomeration and Environment, Bhubaneswar, Jan 20 22, pp. 265 271.
71. Nguyen, Q.D. Logos, C. and Semmler, T. 1997. Rheological Properties of South
Australian Coal-Water Slurries, Coal Preparation, 18: 185-199.
72. Panda, D. and Pradhan, B. 2014. Hydraulic transport of fly ash and fly ash- bottom
ash mixtures at high concentrations, International Journal of Chemical Engineering and
Applied Sciences, 4(1): 1-4.
73. Pani, G. K. Rath, P. Barik R. and Senapati, P.K. 2015. The effect of selective
additives on the rheological behaviour of power plant ash slurry, Particulate Science and
Technology, 33(4): 418-422.
74. Parida, A. Panda, D. Mishra, R.N. Senapati, P.K. and Murthy, J.S. 1995.
Transportation of fly ash slurry, Proceeding of workshop on the fly ash management,
Bhubaneswar, 51-63.
a. Parida, A. Senapati, P.K. and Mishra, B.K. 2006. Slurry pipelines for fly ash-a
design method for energy efficient fly ash disposal by hydraulic conveying, Bulk solids
handling, 26(8): 556-562.
75. Pavel V. and Zdenek C. 2011. Effect of Particle Size Distribution and Concentration
on Flow Behaviour of Dense Slurries. Particulate Science and Technology, 29: 53-65.
Praharaj, T. Swain, S.P. Powell, M.A. Hart, B.R. and Tripathy, S. 2002. Delineation of
groundwater contamination around an ash pond: Geochemical and GIS approach.
a. Environmental International, 27: 631 638.
76. Rabinovich, E. and Kalman, H. 2011.Threshold velocities of particle-fluid flows in
73
horizontal pipes and ducts: Literature review, Reviews in Chemical Engineering, 27(5): 215-
239.
77. Rawat A. Singh S. N. and Seshadri, V. 2016. Computational methodology for
determination of head loss in both laminar and turbulent regimes for the flow of high
concentration coal ash slurries through pipeline, Particulate Science and Technology, 34(3):
289-300.
78. Reddy, G.V. Mohapatra, S.K. and Sinha, R.K. 1994. Rheological properties of coal
oil mixtures: influence of coal properties, Fuel Science and Technology International, 12 (9):
1257-1270.
79. Roache, P.J. 1997. Quantification of uncertainity in computation fluid dynamics,
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 29: 123 160.
80. Roh, N. Shin, D.H. Kim, D.C. and Kim, J.D. 1995. Rheological behaviour of coal-
water mixtures effects of coal type, loading and particle size, Fuel, 74: 1220-1225.
81. Roscoe, R. 1952. The viscosity of suspension of rigid spheres, British Journal
Applied Physics, 3: 267-274.
82. Round, G.F. and Hessari, A.R. 1987. Rheology of coal slurries, pH and size
distribution effects, Particulate and Multiphase Processes, 3: 329 340.
83. Rutger, R. 1962. Relative viscosity of concentrated suspensions of rigid spheres in
Newtonian fluids, Rheology, Acta, 2: 202-209.
84. Sahoo, B.K. De, S. Carsky, M. and Meikap, B.C. 2010. Enhancement of
Rheological Behavior of Indian High Ash Coal-Water Suspension by Using Microwave
Pretreatment, Industrial & Engineering Chemical Research, 49, 3015 3021.
85. Schrick, W. Smith, L.G. Hass, D.B. and Husband, W.H.W. 1972. Experimental
studies on the hydraulic transport of coal. Engineering Division of Saskatchewan Research
Council, Canada.
86. Senapati, P.K. Panda, D. and Parida, A. 2005. Studies on high concentration fly ash-
bottom mixture slurry, Bulk Solid Handling, 25(6): 386-290.
87. Senapati, P.K. Das, D. Nayak, A. Mishra, P.K. 2008. Studies on Preparation of
Coal Water Slurry Using a Natural Additive, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization,
and Environmental Effects, 30: 1788-1796.
88. Senapati, P.K. Mishra, B.K. and Parida, A. 2010. Modeling of viscosity for power
plant ash slurry at higher concentrations: Effect of solids volume fraction, particle size and
74
hydrodynamic interactions, Powder Technology, 197: 1-8.
89. Senapati, P.K. Mohapatra, R. Pani, G.K. and Mishra, B.K. 2012. Studies on
rheological and leaching characteristics of heavy metals through selective additive in high
concentration ash slurry, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 229-230: 390 397.
90. Senapati, P.K. Mishra, B.K. and Parida, A. 2013. Analysis of friction mechanism
and
a.
91. mixture slurry using rheological and pipeline experimental data, Powder
Technology, 250: 154-163.
92. Senapati, P.K. and Mishra, B.K. 2015. Bulk Hydraulic Disposal of Highly
Concentrated Fly Ash and Bottom Ash-Water Slurries, Particulate Science and
Technology, 33(2): 124-131.
93. Seshadri, V. Singh, S.N. Jain, K.K. and Verma, A.K. 2008. Effect of additive on
head loss in the high concentration slurry disposal of fly ash, Journal of Institution of
Engineers, 89: 3-10.
94. Shao S. Chen X. Liu H. and Wang F. 2012. Preparation of Coal Slurry with
Alcohol Fermentation Wastewater, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects, Part A, 34, 919 928.
95. Singh, R.K. Gupta, N.C. and Guha, B.K. 2012, The leaching characteristics of
trace elements in coal fly ash and an ash disposal system of thermal power plants,
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 34: 602-608.
96. Singh, M.K., Ratha, D., Kumar, S. and Kumar, D. 2016. Influence of particle
size distribution and temperature on rheological behavior of coal slurry, International
Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 36: 44-54.
a. Sive, A.W. and Lazarus, J.H. 1987. Hydraulic transport system design for high
concentration fly ash slurries, Ash a Valuable Resource, Pretoria, South Africa.
97. Skudarnov, P.V. Lin, C.X. Ebadian, M.A. 2004. Double-Species Slurry Flow in a
Horizontal Pipeline, Journal of Fluid Engineering, 126: 125-132.
98. Slatter P. 2000. The Role of Rheology in the Pipelining of Mineral Slurries,
Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review,20: 281-300.
99. Slatter P. 2011. The Engineering Hydrodynamics of Viscoplastic Suspensions,
Particulate Science and Technology, 29: 139 150.
75
100. Taguchi, G. 1990. Introduction to Quality Engineering, Asian Productivity
Organization, Tokyo.
101. Thomas, D.G. 1965. Transport characteristics of suspensions, a note on the viscosity
of Newtonian suspension of uniform spherical particles, Journal of Colloid Science, 20:
267-273.
102. Tian-ye G.U. Guo-gang W.U. Qi-Hui L.I. and Xian-Liang M.E.N.G. 2008.
Blended coals for improved coal water slurries. Journal of China University of Mining and
Technology, 18(1): 50-54.
a. Tiwari, K.K. Basu, S.K. Bit, K.C. Banerjee, S. and Mishra, K.K. 2003. High-
concentration coal-water slurry from Indian coals using newly developed additives, Fuel
Processing Technology, 85: 31-42.
b. Toda, M. and Kuriyami, M. 1988. The influence of particle size distribution of coal
on fluidity of coal water mixtures, Powder Technology, 55: 241 247.
103. Tripathy P.S.M. and Mukherjee S.N. 1997. Perspectives on Bulk Use of Fly Ash.
CFRI Golden Jubilee Monograph. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Limited, 123.
104. Turian, R.M. Hsu, F.L. Avramidis, K.S. Sung, D.J. and Allendorfer R.K. 1992.
Settling and Rheology of Suspensions of Narrow-Sized Coal Particles, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers Journal, 38(7): 969-975.
105. Usui, H. Sano, Y. Sawada, M. and Hongoh, T. 1986. Adjustment of particle size
distribution for the preparation of highly loaded coal-water slurries with reduced viscosity,
Society of Chemical Engineers, Japan, 12: 51 56.
106. Vlasak P. and Chara Z., 2009. Conveying of solid particles in Newtonian and
non- Newtonian carriers, Particulate Science and Technology, 27(5), 428-443.
107. Verma, A.K. Singh S.N. Seshadri V. 2006. Pressure Drop for the Flow of High
Concentration Solid-Liquid Mixture Across 90o Horizontal Conventional Circular Pipe

Bend, Indian Journal of Engineering & Material Sciences, 13: 477-483.
108. Vlasak, P. and Chara, Z. 2011. Effect of particle size distribution and concentration
on flow behavior of dense slurries, Particulate Science and Technology, 29(1): 53-65.
109. Wang, L. and Zeng, F. 1998. Effect of ash in coal on the properties of coal water
slurry,
a. Coal Processing and Comprehensive Utilization, 3: 18 21.
110. Ward, A. Bunn, T.F. and Chambers, A.J. 1999. The bays water fly ash
76
transportation system, Journal of Coal Preparation, 21: 125-147.
111. Wasp, E.J. Aude, T.C. Seiter, R.H. and Thompson, T.L. 1968. Hetro-homogeneous
solid-liquid flow in turbulent regime, ASCE Int. Symp, on solid-liquid flow, Univ. of
Pennsyluania, , U.S.A.
112. Williams, P.S. 1953. Flow of concentrated suspensions, Journal of Applied Chemistry,
3: 120-127.
113. Wilson, K.C. 1982. A dense phase option for coarse coal pipelining, Journal of
Pipelines, 5: 251-257.
114. Wu, D. Yang, B. and Liu, Y. 2015. Pressure drop in loop pipe flow of fresh
cemented coal gangue-fly ash slurry: Experiment and simulation, Advanced Powder
Technology. doi: 10.1016/j.apt.2015.03.009.
a. Yavuz, R. and Kucukbayrak, S. 1998. Effect of particle size distribution on rheology
of lignite-water slurry, Energy Sources, 20(9): 787 794.
115. Yong-gang, W. Yan, Y. Xiang-kun, G. and De-ping, X. 2009. Rheological behavior
of Shengli coal-solvent slurry at low temperatures and atmospheric pressure, Mining
Science and Technology, 19: 779 783.
116. Yuchi, W. Li, B. Li, W. and Chen, H. 2005. Effects of coal characteristics on
the properties of coal water slurry, Coal Preparation, 25: 239-249.
117. Zhou, M. Pan, B. Yang, D. Lou, H. and Qiu, X. 2010. Rheological Behavior
Investigation of Concentrated Coal-Water Suspension. Journal of Dispersion Science and
Technology, 31: 838-843.
77

Investigation Into The Flow Properties of The Slurry Transportation System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation Into The Flow Properties of The Slurry Transportation System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada

Kakinada - 533003, Andhra Pradesh

INVESTIGATION INTO THE FLOW PROPERTIES OF THE

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY IN TANSPORTATION ENGINEERING

YERRABOLU RAMI REDDY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

A.M. REDDY MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi, Affiliated to JNTUK, Kakinada)

VinukondaRoad, Petlurivaripalem (V), Narasaraopeta (M), Guntur (Dt.) 522601,

Andhra Pradesh 2018.

(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi, Affiliated to JNTUK, Kakinada) Vinukonda Road,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Project guide External Examiner

Head of the department Principal

YERRABOLU RAMI REDDY

1 Table 3.1: Coal Sizing 25

2 Table 3.2: Fly and Bottom Ash Sizing 26

3 Table 3.3: Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Coal Sample 30

4 Table 3.4: Different Quantities of Coal's Ph 31

5 Table 4.1: Rheometer Specifications 37

6 Table 5.1: There Are a Variety of Mesh Sizes Available 55

1.2 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

1.2.1 Slurry system components

2. Pipeline, pumping stations

1.2.2 Slurry system design

Investigating physical, chemical, and mineral characteristics. Different solid concentrations

2.2 COAL ASH SLURRY RHEOLOGY

2.3 COAL WATER SLURRY RHEOLOGY

2.5 Simulation of pressure drop in a slurry pipeline

3.2 BENCH SCALE TESTS

3.2.1 Particle size distribution (PSD)

Figure 3.1: Coal particle size distribution

Table 3.2: Fly and bottom ash sizing

3.2.2 Unmoving focus

Where = Static settled concentration (percent), Ws = solids in settled mass

3.2.3 Specific gravity

3.2.4 Comparative analysis

Volatile matter (%) = (3.6)

Ash content (%) = (3.7)

3.2.5 Potential of hydrogen (pH)

Table 3.4: Different quantities of coal's pH

3.3.1 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

Figure 3.8: Groundwater leached element concentrations

4.2.1 Slurry sample preparation

4.3 Rheology of coal-water slurry

4.3.1 53-75m coal-water slurry rheology

4.3.2 coal affects 53-75 m coal-water slurry rheology.

4.3.3 Rheological changes in a coal-water slurry as a result of incorporating coal

4.4 RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FLY ASH SLURRY

4.4.2 Bottom ash affects fly ash slurry rheology.

All CFD codes have three parts:

The stress tensor is given as:

Momentum conservation equation for steady-state incompressible fluid flowby

5.2.3 Realizable k- Model

C2 and C1 , are constants. The model constant values are:

C1 =1.44, C2 = 1.9, k = 1.0 and = 1.2.

In Euler-Lagrange, liquid phase is continuous. Eulerian framework uses time-averaged Navier-

5.3.1 Instances of the Eulerian Model

This is the Continuity Equation.

For fluid phase

Bulk viscosity ( of solid phase given below:

Figure 5.1: Slurry pipeline schematic illustration.

5.4.1 Preconditions for a Boundary