Estimation of Pressure Drop in Pneumatic Conveying of Agricultural Grains
Estimation of Pressure Drop in Pneumatic Conveying of Agricultural Grains
Estimation of Pressure Drop in Pneumatic Conveying of Agricultural Grains
net/publication/292685470
CITATIONS READS
5 1,510
2 authors, including:
Hifjur Raheman
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
91 PUBLICATIONS 4,044 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
1. Power generation with reduced emission using de-oiled cake and biodiesel from non-edible oil seeds View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hifjur Raheman on 05 May 2016.
H. Raheman, V. K. Jindal
ABSTRACT. Experiments on horizontal pneumatic conveying of rough rice, milled rice, and soybean indicated that the total
pressure drop gradient is a function of air velocity, solid–to–air ratio, and particle and pipe diameter. Total pressure drop
gradients were analyzed by summing the contributions of individual components for pressure drop due to air and solids
separately. Fanning’s equation was used to estimate the pressure drop due to air in all experiments. An equation analogous
to Fanning’s equation involving a solid friction factor, dispersed solids density, and solid velocity was assumed to represent
the pressure drop due to solids. A generalized equation comprising of selected dimensionless parameters – velocity ratio
(Vt /Vs ); particle to pipe diameter ratio (dp /D); Froud’s number based on terminal velocity (Vt 2/gD) as well as air velocity
(Va 2/gD); solid–to–air ratio; and particle Reynold’s number (ra Vslip dp /ma ) – was developed for estimating the solid friction
factor. Applicability of the developed equation was verified for horizontal pneumatic conveying of corn and mungbean.
Experimental and estimated values were found to be in good agreement showing the average absolute variation within 2 to
12% thus validating the developed correlations and the approach for estimating the pressure drop gradients for general use
for particles ranging in size from approximately 2 to 7 mm.
Keywords. Solid–to–air ratio, Velocity ratio, Diameter ratio, Single–phase flow, Pressure drop due to solids.
T
he basic step in design of pneumatic conveying The terms appearing in equation 2 have been defined
systems is the correct estimation of total pressure differently by different researchers based on the assumptions
drop in the conveying line and is estimated by made in their analyses. Pinkus and Troy (1952) provided a
either summing the individual contributions of air convincing theory for predicting pressure drop in horizontal
and solid or by using empirically developed equations. The pneumatic conveying of sand particles. Crane and Carleton
first method considers contributions associated with wall (1957) followed their approach and developed a relationship
friction, particle friction, particle acceleration, and support for estimating pressure drop in pneumatic conveying of
of particles. Cramp and Priestly (1924) proposed this wheat in pipes of any inclination as follows:
approach and it has been followed notably by Vogt and White
(1948), Hariu and Molstad (1949), Pinkus and Troy (1952), f r V 2 L 2 f V Lm m gL sin Θ
Capes and Nakamura (1973), Crane and Carleton (1957),
∆Pt = a a a + s s s + s (3)
D D Vs
Mehta et al. (1957), Klinzing (1979), Weber (1981), Yang et
al. (1987), and many others either in horizontal or vertical and
pneumatic conveying. In general, the pressure drop in
horizontal pneumatic conveying lines is represented by the D[ r aCd Ap (Va − Vs ) 2 − 2gv p r s sin Θ]
following equation :
fs = 2
(4)
4v p r sVs
DPt = DPaa + DPas + DPfa + DPfs (1)
Zenz and Othmer (1960) considered both solid flow rate
Under steady state operation, the acceleration losses drop as well as air velocity for determining the pressure drop in
out and equation 1 reduces to horizontal pneumatic conveying by using the following
DPt = DPfa + DPfs (2) relationship:
Va ra 2f a r aV a L
2 2
m sV s
DP = + +
t
2 g D
Article was submitted for review in November 2000; approved for (5)
publication by Food & Process Engineering Institute of ASAE in May f sV s m m s gL
2001 . (1 +
s
)+
The authors are Hifjur Raheman, Assistant Professor, Department of f aV a V ar a Vs
Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, India, and Vinod K. Jindal, ASAE Member Engineer,
Professor, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. Corresponding 3raCd D Va − Vs 2
author: H. Raheman, Department of Agricultural & Food Engineering, fs = ( )
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, India; phone: 2r s d p Vs (6)
0322–83160; fax: 0322–82244; e–mail: [email protected].
Table 1. A summary of published correlations for estimating solid friction factor for both agricultural grains and other materials.
Investigator Flow Direction[a] ∆Pfs Friction Factor (fs)
Agricultural Grains
Crane and Carleton (1957) H, V 2fsVsmsL/D D[ρaCdAp(Va–Vs)2–2gVpρssinθ]/4VpρsVs2
Weber (1991) H,V 4fsρaVa2L/2D 1.315µ0.711(Va2/gD)–1.047
Other Materials
Pinkus and Troy (1952) H 2fsρdsVs2L/D CdρagD{(Va–Vs)/Vs}2/(4ρsdp)
Hinkle (1953) H,V 2fsρdsVs2L/D 3CdρaD{(Va–Vs)/Vs}2/(8ρsdp)
Mehta et al. (1957) H 4fsρdsVs2L/2D 3CdρagD{(Va–Vs)2/Vs}/(8ρsdp)
Jones et al. (1967) H 2fsρaVa2L/D bµn, where b and n are empirical constants
Capes and Nakamura (1973) H,V 2fsρs(1–ε)Vs2L/D 0.048(1/Vs)–1.22
Yousfi and Gau (1974) H,V 2fsρs(1–ε)Vs2L/D 0.0015
0.0293{(1–ε)/ε3}{(1–ε)Vt.
Yang et al.(1987) H 2fsρs(1–ε)Vs2L/D Va/{(gD)0.5(Va–Vs)}}–1.15
Mathur and Klinzing (1984) H,V 2fsρs(1–ε)Vs2L/D 55.5D1.1/(Va0.64dp0.26ρs0.91)
[a] H = Horizontal; V = Vertical.
motion on a smooth angle iron with side collars in order to using ‘U’ tube manometers with water as the working fluid
align either of the two pipes with the conveying pipeline. Two across the section of 0.5 m (19.7 in.) apart along the convey-
steel balls were provided on the lower side of each mild steel ing line to ensure the zone of steady–state operation (constant
plate to reduce friction while sliding. This device was posi- pressure drop per unit length of the pipe). After the blower
tioned in such a way that one pipe was always aligned with was switched on, the air velocity was adjusted with the regu-
the conveying pipe line. This device was swiftly moved lating valves with no solids present in the conveying line.
manually from one aligned position to the other so that the Pressure drop due to air alone was then determined by record-
second sample pipe was aligned with the conveying pipeline ing the corresponding shift in liquid levels in the manome-
without disturbing the flow. The mass of the sample trapped ters. Next, grain was introduced into the pipe by switching on
in the first pipe was immediately collected in a plastic bag the feeder conveyor, which was set to maintain the desired
and weighed. Dispersed solids density was then determined solid flow rate. Grain was allowed to flow for 5 min. to reach
by dividing the weight of sample collected by the volume of the steady–state operation. The total pressure drop gradient
pipe section. Similar procedures were used for various com- was then measured again by the manometer. Manometer
binations of air and solid flow rates for all the grains tested. readings were taken at least five times to determine average
A minimum of three replications was made for all observa- values of the pressure drop gradient. A similar procedure was
tions.
Under steady–state operation, the total pressure drop
gradient in pneumatic conveying was the sum of pressure
drop gradients due to air alone and that due to the presence
of solids. The pressure drop gradients were measured by
where
(Vt/Vs) = velocity ratio
(dp/D) = diameter ratio
µ = solid–to–air ratio
(Vt2/gD) = Froud’s number related to solids Figure 7. Comparison of experimental and estimated values of solid
(Va2/gD) = Froud’s number related to pipe friction factor and pressure drop gradient in pneumatic conveying of
agricultural grains.
(ra Vslipdp/ ma ) = particle Reynold’s number
a1 to a5 = regression coefficients
The results of stepwise multiple regression analysis
(SPSSX) for estimating the solid friction factor is presented values of coefficient of determination indicate good agree-
in table 3. The coefficient of determination could not be ment between experimentally determined and estimated val-
improved beyond 0.93. In general, the determination of ues.
pressure drop due to solids only and the solid friction factor
is not very accurate due to experimental errors involved. The GENERAL APPLICABILITY
generalized relationships developed in the form of The general applicability of the correlations developed for
equation 13 clearly showed the contribution of each fs was verified for the pneumatic conveying of corn and
dimensionless group. The results of this analysis showed that mungbean. The experimental values of total pressure drop
a velocity ratio (Vt/Vs), diameter ratio (dp/D), and solids gradient and calculated values of pressure drop gradient due
Froud’s number (Vt2/gD) played the dominant roles along to solids and solid friction factor were compared with the
with the solid–to–air ratio, particle Reynold’s number values predicted using the relationship developed and
(raVslipdp/µa) and pipe Froud’s number (Va2/gD) in presented in the table 4. The low values of the percent
determining the solid friction factor. The experimentally variations presented support the general applicability of the
determined and estimated values of solid friction factor, developed correlation for solid friction factor and the
pressure drop gradients due to solids and total pressure drop approach for estimating the total pressure drop gradient.
gradients are compared infigure 7. These plots and high
CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES
Total pressure drop gradients observed for rough rice, Capes, C. E., and K. Nakamura. 1973. Vertical pneumatic
milled rice, and soybean in horizontal pneumatic conveying conveying: An experimental study with particles in the
increased with air velocity and solid–to–air ratio. A reduction intermediate and turbulent flow regimes. Ca. J. of Chem. Eng.
in pressure drop gradient was observed in all cases with an 51(1): 31–38.
Cramp, N., and A. Priestly. 1924. Pneumatic grain elevator. The
increase in conveying pipe diameter. The data obtained on
Engineer 137(1): 112.
pressure drop gradients for different grains were analyzed by Crane, J. W., and W. M. Caleton. 1957. Predicting pressure drop in
summing the contributions of individual components for pneumatic conveying of grains. Agricultural Engineering 38(3):
pressure drop due to air and solids. Fanning’s equation was 168–171,180.
used to estimate the pressure drop due to air in all Hariu, O. H., and M. C. Molstad. 1949. Pressure drop in vertical
experiments. An equation analogous to Fanning’s equation tubes in transport of solids by gasses. Industrial and
involving a solid friction factor (fs), dispersed solids density Engineering Chemistry 41(6): 1148–1160.
(rδσ), and solid velocity was assumed to represent the Hinkle, B. L. 1953. Acceleration of particles and pressure drops
pressure drop due to solids. The computed values of solid encountered in horizontal pneumatic conveying. Ph. D. thesis,
friction factor were found to be dependent on selected Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga: Georgia Institute
of Technology.
dimensionless parameters: velocity ratio (Vt/Vs), particle to
Jones, J. H., W. G. Barun, T. E. Daubert, and H. D. Allendorf. 1967.
pipe diameter ratio (dp/D), and Froud’s number based on A.I. Chem. Eng. J. 13: 608 (as cited by Govier and Aziz, 1972).
terminal velocity (Vt2/gD) as well as air velocity (Va2/gD), Klinzing, G. E. 1979. Vertical pneumatic transport of solids in the
solid–to–air ratio, and particle Reynold’s number minimum pressure drop region. Industrial and Engineering
(raVslipdp/µa). A generalized equation was developed for the Chemistry Process Design and Development 18(3): 404–408.
solid friction factor and its applicability was verified for Mathur, M. P., and G. E. Klinzing. 1984. Flow measurement in
horizontal pneumatic conveying of corn and mungbean. pneumatic transport of pulverized coal. Powder Technology 40:
Experimental and estimated values for total pressure drop 309–321.
gradient are found to be in good agreement showing the Mehta, N. C., J. M. Smith, and E. W. Comings. 1957. Pressure drop
average absolute variation within 2 to 12% and thus in air–solid flow systems. Industrial and Eng. Chem. 49(6):
986–992.
validating the developed correlations for general use for
Perry, R. H., and D. W. Green. 1984. Chemical Engineering Hand
particles ranging in size from approximately 2 to 7 mm. Book, 5.24 and 5.45–5.62. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.
Pinkus, O., and N. Y. Troy. 1952. Pressure drop in pneumatic
Table 4. Results showing percent variations in experimental conveyance of solids. J. Applied Mech. 19(4): 425–431.
and estimated parameters in horizontal pneumatic Raheman, H. 1991. Solid velocity and pressure drop in pneumatic
conveying of corn and mungbean.
conveying of agricultural grains. Dissertation AE–91–2, Asian
Variations (%) Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
Corn Mungbean Richards, P. C., and M. A. S. Wiersma. 1973. Pressure drop in
Avg. Avg. vertical pneumatic conveying Pneumotransport 2, Pub. BHRA
Parameter Min. Max. (abs)[a] Min. Max. (abs) Fluid Eng., Cranefield, Bedford, England: A111 – A115.
Statstical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Version 6.01. SPSS
Solid friction factor (fs) –11 10 8 10 13 12
Inc., 233 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Ill.
Pressure drop gradient Vogt, E. G., and R. R. White. 1948. Friction in the flow of
due to solids (∆Pfs) –15 14 9 –13 11 9 suspensions. Industrial and Eng. Chem. 40(9): 1731–1738.
Total pressure drop Weber, M. 1981. Principles of hydraulic and pneumatic conveying
gradient (∆Pt) –4 1 2 –3 4 2 in pipes. J. of Bulk Solids Handling 1(1): 1–7.
[a] Average variation (abs) = _____. 1991. Friction of the air and the air/solid mixture in
pneumatic conveying. J. of Bulk Solids Handling 11(1): 99–102.
100 n Experimental – Predicted
∑
n i =1 Experimental
Wiedmann, H. G. R., and K. G. K. Wagner. 1976. Pneumatic
transport of agricultural grain. CSIR Report No. ME1471,
Pretoria, South Africa, 1–27.
Yang, W. C., T. C. Anestis, R. E. Gizzie, and G. B. Haldipur. 1987.
Pneumatic transport in a 10 cm horizontal loop. Powder
Technology 49: 261–269.
Yousfi, Y., and G. Gau. 1974. Aerodynamics of vertical flow of
concentrated gas–solid suspensions–2, pressure loss and relative
gas–solid velocity. Chem. Eng. Sci. 29(9): 1947–1953.
Zenz, F. A., and D. F. Othmer. 1960. Fluidization and Fluid
Particle Systems, 313–373. New York: Reinhold Pub.