Abstract:

The concept of sedimentation involved in the processes of thickening and

clarification was tested in an experiment involving 5 suspensions of
limestone in water at different concentrations one with the addition of
flocculant. The particle and bulk densities of limestone were calculated
prior to the suspensions being mixed and allowed to settle in front of a
video camera and type 1 sedimentation (3 different zones of
concentration) was observed therefore deeming Kynchs theory invalid.
The change in height of the interface between the layers of different
concentrations over time was measured to determine that the velocity of
the interface or the batch settling rate decreased with higher
concentration and also decreased when the suspension contained
flocculant.

Contents
Abstract:......................................................................................................1
Contents......................................................................................................2
Background:................................................................................................3
Objectives:..................................................................................................3
Approach:....................................................................................................3
Experimental Setup:....................................................................................4
Methodology:...............................................................................................4
Results and Discussion:...............................................................................5
Conclusions:................................................................................................9
References:................................................................................................10
Appendices:...............................................................................................10

Background:
The operations of thickening and clarification are very important then the
objectives of increasing the concentration of a slurry (thickening) or
attaining a clear fluid stream from a dilute slurry (clarification) are
considered. Both of these processes are designed using the concept and
theory of sedimentation or in other words the batch settling of multiple
particles in suspension. The effect of particle concentrations on the
settling rates of the slurries is important in predicting the behavioural
characteristics of thickeners and clarifiers in the industry and so
correlations must be investigated experimentally to better the accuracy of
the designs of these processes.

Objectives:
1. The first objective is to define and calculate the bulk and particle
densities of limestone.
2. The second objective was to measure batch settling rates for
increasing starting concentrations and to evaluate the effect of the
concentrations on these rates.
3. The third objective was to test whether Kynchs theory was valid for
the types of sedimentation experienced in the experiment.
4. The final objective was to compare batch settling rates with and
without the addition of a flocculant to the slurry.

Approach:
Particle density was measured using a dry equi-mixture of two different
sizes of limestone particles. The mixture was weighed and poured into a
volumetric cylinder. From these two quantities the density could be
calculated. A similar process using now a pre measured amount of
limestone and water was added to a flask and the total density was
calculated obtaining the bulk density.
Three suspension concentrations were prepared low, medium and high
and were allowed to settle with the height being visually measured at a
set interval for half an hour. From a height time curve of each
concentration the settling rate or settling velocity could be calculated and
compared.
Kynchs theory is valid for Type 2 sedimentation so purely from
observation the type of sedimentation could be defined and if the theory
was valid then flux plots could be drawn using the experimental height

time curves with Kynchs theory and could be compared to the experiment
for validity.
Two more suspension concentrations were prepared now adding flocculant
to the one and using the same method of measuring the height at set
time intervals the rates could be calculated and compared using the
height time curves.

Experimental Setup:
The limestone consisted of two separate containers of 2 and 5 micron
powders. Specific amounts were measured using plastic weigh boats and
a scale and the limestone was added to the flasks using a paper funnel. All
of the suspensions were made to a volume of 1 litre, this was measured
out from a large container of de-mineralized water and poured into the
various volumetric flasks all of which had tape measures attached to read
of the height of the suspension in centimetres. The flasks were placed
against a black background for the monitoring of the settling by the
students and using the video camera. A stop watch was used for the time
intervals.

Methodology:

A 120g approximate mixture of equal amounts of 2 and 5 micron

limestone powders were weighed on the scale and added to an
empty volumetric cylinder. The cylinder was twisted around until the
powder was as flat as possible without compressing the limestone
and the volume was read off.
160ml of water was measured out as well as a 40g mixture of equal
amounts of 2 and 5 micron limestone powders. Part of the water as
added to a volumetric cylinder followed firstly by the powder then
the rest of the water to ensure all the powder was in contact with
water so as not to fault the level of the mixture. The volume was
then read off in order to calculate bulk density.
The same technique off adding a known mass of limestone between
two volumes of water was then used to measure out three different
concentrations low, medium and high all of a volume of 1 litre into
volumetric cylinders. These cylinders were well mixed using
stoppers at the open end and were placed simultaneously in front of
the black screen and allowed to settle. The initial height was noted
for each and the heights of the interface between the clear zone and
the zone of initial concentration were noted every minute for a 30.5
minute period. This timeframe was also captured by a video camera
directed on the three cylinders.

This same process was then carried out for two medium
concentrations one with no flocculant and one with about 7 drops of
flocculant.

Results and Discussion:

Particle and bulk densities:
TABLE 1

EXPERIMENTAL PARTICLE AND BULK DENSITIES OF LIMESTONE

2
microns(
g)
dry particles no
water
water
particles with
water

5
microns(g
)

V(ml)

59.92

59.39

130
160

20.85

19.94

177

particles
(kg/m^3)

bulk
(kg/m^3)
1134.406
917.7692308
78

The densities obtained are summarised in the table above. The particle
densities obtained from literature re as follows: crushed: 1522kg/m^3 and
dust: 1089kg/m^3 (Densities of some common materials, 2015); ground:
945kg/m^3 and pulverised 1089kg/m^3 (Bulk density chart, 2015). From
these values our experimental value of 918 kg/m^3 seems to be quite
close to the value of ground limestone density of 945kg/m^3. The other
values and specifications of limestone powder size vary quite a bit from
crushed to pulverised etc. and so an accurate comparison without the
knowledge of the exact diameter of the limestone in literature is hard to
discuss in this experiment.
Repeatability of the experiment:
This experiment is independent of the environmental conditions such as
gravitational acceleration and atmospheric pressure, viscosity of fluids is
affected by temperature but under the conditions of room temperature
this should not affect results from experiment to experiment. Densities
cannot change for these specific substances and so particle and bulk
densities should remain constant making this a repeatable aspect of the
experiment. Hence due to the density and gravitational pull being
constant and with little affect on viscosity by temperature change the

settling rates of these suspensions should be repeatable as long as the

methodology is followed closely. The only real external factor that could
affect this is the diameter of the volumetric cylinder as the closer the
particle diameter comes to the diameter of the tube hindrance of settling
is increased but if the size of the particles are maintained at very small
diameters such as ours this should not affect the repeatability of the
experiment.
Comparing the video data to our experimental data:
Height vs time curves were obtained from the video camera at each of the
concentrations. The curves obtained from the experiment were then
superimposed on these video data curves as seen below to see how
closely they fit:

F IGURE 1 LOW

CONCENTRATION CURVES
MEDIUM CONCENTRATION CURVES

FIGURE

FIGURE 3

HIGH CONCENTRATION CURVES

F IGURE 4

MEDIUM

NO FLOCCULANT CURVES

F IGURE 5

MEDIUM

WITH FLOCCULANT CURVES

The solid lines representing the experimental curves fit quite closely to
the line separating the blue and yellow regions representing the level of
the initial concentration zone on each of the videos. The line is always
slightly lower which is understandable due to the delay in response
between the visual reading of the height and the recording of the time.
The error becomes greater in the medium 2 curves which was most likely
caused by the change over which could have resulted in the incorrect
setting up of the camera. All in all though this comparison is close enough
to validate the experimental results.
Effect of starting concentrations on batch settling rates:
T ABLE 2 S TARTING

concentration
High

CONCENTRATIONS AND THE INTERFACE VELOCITIES

concentrati
on (g/l)
0.031

velocity
(m/s)
down
0.000347
167

Medium

0.025

Low

0.017

0.000361
167
0.000430
5

From table 2 above it is obvious that with decreasing concentration the

interface velocity (the velocity of the top of the initial concentration layer
as it drops into the sedimentation zone) increases. When we use the term
batch settling rates this velocity is the rate at which the suspension
settles so this relationship is what weve determined. This relationship is
proven from the following statements from previous work on batch
settling rates: From an experiment in the stokes range for clay particles in
concentrations of 10 to 100kg/l used at all size classes every test proved
that higher initial concentrations reduced settling velocities. Errors only
occurred when tube diameter was<45mm (Lovell et al, 2006). It is proven
once again in a similar experiment to our own by (Shannon et al, 1964) on
Batch and continuous thickening where height time curves and flux plots
were drafted for different concentrations and the slopes of the height vs
time curves became increasingly steeper with increase in concentration.
The same behaviour is seen in the figure below of our experimental height
vs time curves:

height vs time curves for low,medium and high conentrations

60
40

height (cm)

20
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

time (min)
low

medium

high

low

medium

high

Logarithmic (high)

F IGURE 6

COMPARISON OF HEIGHT TIME GRADIENTS FOR

EACH CONCENTRATION

Kynchs theory validity:

For all of the runs made in the experiment only 3 different layers of
different concentrations were observed clear fluid, initial concentration
and sediment hence pointing to type 1 sedimentation thus making

Kynchs theory invalid to model this data. This observation is validated

from the low concentration flux plot below. The curve has a positive
gradient and so is in the region of type 1 sedimentation

low concentration flux plot

0
0
0

Ups (g/m2*s)

0
0
0
0
0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

concentration (g/m3)

FIGURE 7

LOW CONCENTRATION FLUX PLOT

Effect of flocculant on the batch settling rate:

When comparing the curves of the second medium concentrations below:

med 2
40
30

height (cm) 20
10
0

500

1000

1500

2000

time (s)

F IGURE 8

MEDIUM

CURVE WITHOUT FLOCCULANT

med 2 + F
40
30

height (cm) 20
10
0

500

1000

1500

2000

time (s)

F IGURE 9

MEDIUM

WITH FLOCCULANT CURVE

The curve with flocculant clearly has a smaller gradient as the linear part
of this curve ends after the curve with no flocculant and from the
calculated velocities of 0.000385 m/s for figure 7 and 0.00017 for figure 8
this is proven analytically and the conclusion that flocculant hinders the
settling rate can be drawn.

Conclusions:
Particle and bulk densities fell within the range of the values specified in
literature yet due to the fact that in literature values for the exact particle
size could not be found the validity of our experimental results are
inconclusive and the accuracy of the method used is not credible enough
to make a valid comparison.
The experiment was deemed to be repeatable due to the method being
unaffected by environmental changes and being independent of
interfering external factors. The resulting height vs time curves obtained
were deemed valid as they closely matched those taken from video data
with the small error resulting from human error which can be expected
and assumed negligible.
A clear conclusion from the settling velocities obtained at different
concentrations that the higher the initial concentration of the suspension
the slower the batch settling rate. This was a constant throughout the
experiment and throughout all the literature sources describing previous
experiments of similar conditions.
Kynchs theory was not tested as the assumption that the sedimentation
of the suspension must be of type 2 for this theory to be valid rules out
this experiment as all suspensions were observed to be of the three zone
type 1 sedimentation.
The addition of flocculant decreased the settling velocity of the
suspensions prepared in this experiment.

References:
Densities of some Common Materials. 2015. Densities of some Common
Materials. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-materials-d_1652.html.
[Accessed 20 March 2015].
Bulk Density Chart. 2015. . [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.anval.net/Downloads/Bulk%20Density%20Chart.pdf. [Accessed
20 March 2015].
Lovell C J, Rose W C. 2006. The effects of sediment concentration and
tube-diameter on particle settling velocity measured beyond Stokes'
range; experiment and theory. American Geological Institute
Shannon P T,' Robert D. Dehaas R D, Elwood Z, Stroupe P, Tory E M,
1964. Batch and Continuous Thickening. Independant. Enineering.
Chemical Fundamentals. Volume 3 (3), pp 250260

Appendices:
Sample calculations:
Particle density:
p=

mp
Vp

mp = mass of particles = 59.92g + 59.39g = 119.31g; Vp = Volume

particles = 130ml
p=

119.31 g 0.9178 g
=
= 917.8kg/m3
130 ml
ml

Bulk density:

[1]

b=

mtot
Vtot

[2]

Mtot = mass of particles + mass of water ; Vtot = volume of suspension

b=

40.79 g+160 g 1.134 g

=
177 ml
ml

Setlling velocities from height vs time curves:

v=

h
t
[3]

h=changeheight

t=change time

For low concentration profile:

v=

33.5 cm18 cm
=2.583 cm/min down
2.5 min8.5 min

= 0.0004305m/s down

Concentration of suspensions:
C=

mp
Vtot

[4]

For low concetration:

C=

17 g 0.17 g
=
=0.000017 g /m
1l
l

Flux :
Ups=Cv
For low concetration:
0.000017 g
0.0004305 m
m3
= 7.1385*10-9g/m2*s
Ups=
s
[5]

Raw and processed data:

1L
(c concen
m) tration

m
as
s(
g)

49
.1 High

31

41 Mediu
.3 m
40 Low
med no
34 floccul
.7 ent
med
with
34 floccul
.3 ent
video
data

Circum concen concent

ference tration ration
(cm)
(g/l)
(g/m^3)
17.3

velocit
y (m/s)
down

0.031

0.00003
1

0.0003
4717
0.0003
6117

25

19.2

0.025

0.00002
5

17

19.1

0.017

0.00001
7

0.0004
305

0.031

0.00003
1

0.0003
805

31

25

28

20.8

0.025

0.00002
5

0.0001
9867

0.0003
321
0.0003
597
0.0004

49
.1 High

31

17.3

0.031

0.00003
1

41 Mediu
.3 m
40 Low

25
17

19.2
19.1

0.025
0.017

0.00002
5
0.00001

Ups
(g/m concent
^2*s ration(g
)
/m^3)
1.07
62E- 0.00003
08
1
9.02
92E- 0.00002
09
5
7.31
85E- 0.00001
09
7
1.17
96E- 0.00003
08
1
4.96
67E09
1.02
95E08
8.99
25E09
7.47

0.00002
5

0.00003
1
0.00002
5
0.00001

7
med no
34 floccul
0.00003
.7 ent
31
28
0.031
1
med
with
34 floccul
0.00002
.3 ent
25
20.8
0.025
5
FIGURE 10 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUSPENSIONS

0.0003
559

15E09
1.10
33E08

0.00003
1

0.0002
747

6.86
75E09

0.00002
5

395

OF DIFFERENT

CONCENTRATIONS

Hi
(cm)
low
med
high
med2
med2+
f
FIGURE 11

Time
(min)
0
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10.5
11.5
12.5

vi(m/s)
co*ho
ci (g/m3)
Ups (g/m2*s)
0.0001531
6.39261E17
5 0.00070958 0.00004174
09
0.0001474
5.06293E7.46691E20.5
8
0.0010379
05
09
0.00157114
5.23714E8.77733E30 0.0001676
2
05
09
0.0002058 0.00108100
5.14762E21
8
1
05
1.0598E-08
0.00087622
4.61171E7.33243E19
0.000159
5
05
09

PARAMTERS FOR THE CALCULATION OF FLUX

Time
(s)
0
150
210
270
330
390
450
510
570
630
690
750

Low
height
(cm)
41.74
35.74
33.24
30.24
27.74
24.24
21.74
20.24
17.24
14.74
12.24
9.74

Mediu
m
height
(cm)
41.516
36.016
34.016
31.516
29.516
27.516
25.016
23.016
21.016
19.016
16.816
14.916

High
height
(cm)
50.682
45.882
44.082
41.582
39.482
37.282
35.682
33.382
31.882
29.682
27.882
26.082

13.5
14.5
15.5
16.5
17.5
18.5
19.5
20.5
21.5
22.5
23.5
24.5
25.5
26.5
27.5
28.5
29.5
30.5
FIGURE

810
870
930
990
1050
1110
1170
1230
1290
1350
1410
1470
1530
1590
1650
1710
1770
1830
12 TIMES

7.24 13.116 24.082

4.74 11.016 22.382
2.74
8.516 20.282
2.74
6.516 18.582
2.74
5.016 16.682
2.54
4.016 14.882
2.49
3.716 13.282
2.44
3.516 11.582
2.44
3.516
9.582
2.39
3.416
8.082
2.39
3.316
6.682
2.39
3.316
6.382
2.34
3.216
6.182
2.34
3.216
5.882
2.34
3.216
5.682
2.24
3.116
5.382
2.24
3.116
5.182
2.24
3.116
4.982

AND HEIGHTS FOR LOW MEDIUM AND HIGH

CONENTRATION SUSPENSIONS

med 2
height
time(s) (cm)

time
(min)

med 2 +
F height
(cm)

34.871

35.049

1.5

90

31.371

31.849

2.5

150

28.871

29.849

3.5

210

26.871

27.849

4.5

270

24.371

25.849

5.5

330

22.371

23.849

6.5

390

19.371

21.349

7.5

450

17.371

19.849

8.5

510

15.171

18.349

9.5

570

13.371

16.349

10.5

630

11.371

14.349

11.5

690

8.871

12.349

12.5

750

7.071

10.349

13.5

810

5.171

8.349

14.5

870

3.271

6.349

15.5

930

2.971

4.849

16.5

990

2.771

3.649

17.5

1050

2.671

3.349

18.5

1110

2.671

3.149

19.5

1170

2.571

3.049

20.5

1230

2.571

3.049

21.5

1290

2.571

3.049

22.5

1350

2.471

2.949

23.5

1410

2.471

2.849

24.5

1470

2.471

2.849

25.5

1530

2.471

2.849

26.5

1590

2.471

2.849

27.5

1650

2.371

2.749

28.5

1710

2.371

2.749

29.5

1770

2.371

2.749

30.5

1830

2.371

2.749

FIGURE 13 TIMES AND HEIGHTS FOR SECOND MEDIUM CONCENTRATIONS

WITH AND WITHOUT FLOCCULANT

low
50
40
30
20
10
0

FIGURE 14

500

1000

1500

2000

LOW CONCENTRATION HEIGHT TIME CURVE

medium
50
40
30
20
10
0

FIGURE 15

500

1000

1500

2000

MEDIUM CONCENTRATION HEIGHT TIME CURVE

high
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

FIGURE 16

500

1000

1500

2000

HIGH CONCENTRATION HEIGHT TIME CURVE

med 2
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

FIGURE 17

MEDIUM

500

1000

1500

2000

NO FLOCCULANT HEIGHT TIME CURVE

med 2 + F
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

FIGURE 18

MEDIUM

500

1000

1500

2000

WITH FLOCCULANT HEIGHT TIME CURVE