Document Type : Research Article
Authors
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Thapar University, Patiala, Punjab, India
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, 8410501, Israel
Abstract
This paper presents results of an ongoing investigation into the modelling of pressure losses through bends during pneumatic conveying of fly ash. For the reliable design of pneumatic conveying systems, an accurate prediction of bend pressure drop is of paramount importance as the same can significantly influence the total pipeline pressure loss. In the present study, seven existing bend models (Schuchart, Singh and Wolf, Rossetti, Westman, Bradley, Pan, Pan and Wypych, Das and Meloy models) were used to predict the total pipeline pressure drop for conveying fine fly ash through two test rigs: 63.5 mm I.D. x 24 m long and 54 mm I.D. x 70 m long. Comparisons between the predicted pneumatic conveying characteristics using the seven bend models and the experimental data have shown that the trends and values of the total pipeline pressure drops can significantly vary depending on the choice of bend model. While some models have provided increasing values of bend pressure drops with rise in air flows, some other models have produced reversed characteristics. It is concluded that the parameter grouping used in the existing bend models are not generally capable of predicting bend pressure drop reliably and therefore, further research is required to better understand the flow mechanisms of gas-solids flows across bends towards developing improved bend models. Copyright © 2017 VBRI Press.
Keywords
DOI:10.1002/cite.330300311
2.Stegmaier, W.; Fordern and Heben, 1978,28, 363.
3.Weber, M.; Bulk Solids Handling, 1981,1,57.
4.Pan, R.; Improving scale-up procedures for the design of
pneumatic conveying systems. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Wollongong, Australia, 1992.
Materials Storage and Transportation, Wollongong, NSW,
Australia, 1998, 183.
6.Jones, M. G.; Williams, K. C.; Particulate Science and
Technology, 2003,21, 45
DOI:10.1080/02726350307495
7.Schuchart, P.; Symposium series no. 27 (The Institution of
Chemical Engineers),1968, 65.
DOI:10.1002/cite.330402107
8.Singh, B.; Wolfe, R. R.; Transaction of the ASAE, 1972, 246.
9.Rossetti, S. J.; Handbook of Fluids in Motion, Nicholas, P.;
Cheremisinoff; Gupta, R. (Eds.); Ann Arbor Science Publishers:
1983.
10.Chambers, A. J.; Marcus, R. D.; In Proc. of 2ndInt.l Conf. on Bulk
Materials Storage and Transportation, Wollongong, Australia,
1986, 49.
11.Das, P. K.; Meloy, J. R.; Particulate science and technology, 2002,
20, 253.
DOI:10.1080/02726350216186
12.Bradley, M. S. A.; Mills, D.; In Proc. of 13thPowder and Bulk
Solids Conf., Rosemont, Illinois, United States, 1988, 705.
13.Bradley, M. S. A.; In Proc. of 3rdInt. Conf. on Bulk Materials
Storage and Transportation, Newcastle, Australia, 1989, 282
14.Mills, D. Pneumatic conveying design guide, 2nd ed. Oxford:
Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004.
15.Chaudhry, A.R.; Bradley, M. S. A.; Hyder, L. M.; Reed, A. R.;
Farnish, R. J.; InProc. of 7thInt. conf. on bulk materials storage,
handling and transportation, Newcastle, Australia, 2001, 899.
16.Mallick, S.S.; Modelling of fluidised dense-phase pneumatic
conveying of powders. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Wollongong, Australia, 2010.
17.Klinzing, G. E.; Marcus, R. D.; Rizk, F.; Leung, L. S.; Pneumatic
Conveying of Solids -A Theoretical and Practical Approach. Publ.
Chapman & Hall, 1997.
18.Marcus, R. D.; Hilbert Jr, J. D.; Klinzing, G. E.; Journal of
Pipelines, 1984,4, 103.
DOI: 10.1080/07373939308916871
19.Ito, H. Trans. ASME, 1959, 59, 4.
DOI:10.1115/1.3662501
20.Westman, M. A.; Michaelides, E. E.; Thomson, F. M.; Journal
of Pipelines,1987, 7, 1, 15
21.Tripathi, N.; Sharma, A.; Mallick, S.S.; Wypych, P. W.;
Particuology,2015, 21, pp. 65-73.
DOI:10.1016/j.partic.2014.09.003
22.Williams, K.C.; Jones, M.G.; InProc. of 8th Int. Conf. on Bulk
Materials Storage and Transportation, Wollongong, NSW,
Australia, 2004, 354.
)