Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1, 50–67
doi: 10.1093/ce/zkx007
Advance Access Publication Date: 14 December 2017
Homepage: https://academic.oup.com/ce
Research Article
Experimental study on dense-phase pneumatic
Abstract
Clean utilization and conversion of coal resources is significant to China’s energy sustainable development.
Entrained-flow coal gasification technology is an important method used for clean and efficient conversion of
coal. The characteristics and stability of high-pressure dense-phase pneumatic conveying of pulverized coal
is crucial to the safe and stable operation of dry-feed entrained-flow coal gasifiers. Dense-phase pneumatic
conveying experiments were carried out using a high-volatile bituminous coal in pipes with diameters of 25,
15 and 10 mm, respectively, and at back pressures of 1.0–4.0 MPag. The conveying characteristics and effects of
operating and structure parameters were studied. Pressure drop models were established for horizontal and
vertical upward conveying. The prediction uncertainty was within ±30% for the horizontal conveying and ±20%
for the vertical upward conveying. The relative standard deviation of solid flow rate was proposed to explain
conveying stability. The effect of operating parameters on conveying stability was systematically analyzed. The
gas velocity-related criterion was proposed for stable conveying.
Key words: dense-phase pneumatic conveying; pulverized coal; high pressure; pressure drop; stability
and pumping of coal–water slurry is a simple and proven with pressure at constant total differential pressure and
technology. In contrast, conveying dry pulverized coal to fluidizing gas [17]. The experimental results of Lu et al.
gasifiers is more complicated and has a higher capital also showed that the mass flow rate of coal particles and
cost. However, gasifiers with dry pulverized coal feed have concentration increased at high pressures [18]. The past
advantages. The gasifiers can produce a higher content of research mainly focused on macroscopic characteristics at
CO and H2 in raw syngas with lower consumption of coal high pressures with particle flow and mechanism research
and oxygen and longer service life of burners due to less seldom reported.
erosion caused by the pulverized coal. The pipeline pressure drop is one of the most important
In dry pulverized coal-fed gasification processes, coal parameters of pneumatic conveying, and the additional
is pneumatically transported by N2 or CO2 from high- pressure drop model developed by Barth [19] was widely
pressure feeding vessels to gasifiers. A stable conveying used:
of the feedstock with minimum transport gas is import-
ant to increase the content of CO and H2 in raw syngas ρg Ug2 ρg Ug2
λg = 4160 < Re
cated gas–solid two-phase flow process. Suspension flow, D
2
2e / D (2c)
dune flow, slug flow, plug flow and fluidized dense-phase 1.74 + 2lg 2e
flow phenomena may be observed as gas and solid flow
through horizontal pipes [4], and suspension flow, annu-
lar flow, turbulent fluidization flow, bubbly flow, slug flow where, e is the roughness of pipe wall, Re (= ρgUgD/μg) is
and separated plug flow can be found as gas and solid flow Reynolds number.
through vertical upward pipes [5]. The flow pattern transi-
tions are complicated with large differences in flow mech- Determination of the coefficient of the additional pressure
anisms between different flow patterns. There is currently drop λz is key to calculate the total pressure drop of two-
no matured theory to guide the design and operation of phase flow. To calculate λz some researchers [20] used power
dense-phase pneumatic conveying systems. Therefore, functions with several nondimensional parameters derived
many researchers have built experimental facilities to from experimental data. For the suspension flow in horizon-
study the dense-phase pneumatic conveying process tal pipes, the additional pressure drop of the particle clusters
[6–16]; however, only a few facilities operate at high pres- can be expressed as the sum of pressure drop caused by par-
sures [6, 7, 10–13]. The characteristics of dense-phase ticle friction and that caused by keeping the particles sus-
pneumatic conveying may differ from dilute-phase char- pended and then was applied to dense-phase conveying [21,
acteristics due to increased gas density and enhanced 22]. Based on Yang’s unified theory [23], Wang [16] put for-
gas–solid interactions. The influence of pressure on ward implicit equations to calculate λz. The gas–solid flow for
dense-phase pneumatic conveying needs further study. dense-phase flow of fine powder in horizontal pipes tends to
The experimental results of Liang et al. showed that mass be stratified. Setia et al. [24] used a ‘two-layer’ model (two dif-
flow rate of coal particles and concentration increased ferent models) that showed good prediction performance for
52 | Clean Energy, 2017, Vol. 1, No. 1
Stegmaier and
Weber [25] λz = 2.1µ −0.3Frt0.5Fr −1.21 ( D / dp )−0.1
ut Ug
Frt = , Fr =
gdp gD
0.4
µ m
Gs 1
∆P / L = K
ρg D Ug
K = 106, m = 0.83 Gs / D < 47 000kg / (m3s)
K = 0.838, m = 1.2 8Gs / D > 47 000kg / (m3s)
ρs (1 − ε )us2
Ps / L = fs
2D
−0.902 −1.95
(1 − ε )−0.057 Ret Ug
fs = 1.98
ε3 Rep gD
us = Ug −
(
4 ρs − ρg gdp ) fsus2 4.7
ε
3ρg CD 2gD
Wang [16] −1.80 D = 15 mm, dp = 69 µm, carrier gas is
ρ
λz = e6.35Fr −1.34 s N2, P < 1.5 MPa, Ug = 5.94–13.68 m/s,
ρg Gs = 15.8–32.8 kg/(m2·s)
He et al. [20] us 2β D = 10 mm, bituminous coal, dp = 63 µm,
λz = λs* + = 0.005 + 0.88 × 10 −4 Fr + Fr −2.16 or
Ug (us / Ug )Fr 2 P < 2.45 MPa
0.005 + 0.63Fr
−1.89
4 < Fr < 13.2
λz = −0.19
0.016Fr 13.2 < Fr < 40
m / ρ a U b * us 2β
λz = τ 1 K s s
+ τ 2 λs
f
+ 2
mg / ρg Ug
U ( u / U )Fr
g s g
Fr − Frmin Fr − Frmin
τ1 = 1 − ,τ 2 = ,
Frmax − Frmin Frmax − Frmin
Frmin = 3 − 4, Frmax = 50, β = Uf / Ug ,
K = 8.04, a = −0.22, b = 1.48, Uf = 0.06 m / s, λs* = 0.0043
Setia et al. [24] D = 69 and 105 mm, fly ash (ρs = 2300 kg/
m3, ρb = 700 kg/m3, dp = 30 µm), carrier
gas is air, P is atmospheric pressure
Guan et al. | 53
P
3
2 11 7
8
P P
1 15
4 5
12 17
16
9
13 14
Fig. 2 Flow diagram of the dense-phase conveying system. 1, nitrogen tank; 2, pressure reducing valve; 3, storage vessel; 4, delivery vessel; 5, receiv-
ing vessel; 6, conveying pipeline; 7, dust collector; 8, pressurizing gas; 9, fluidizing gas; 10, supplementary gas; 11, relieving gas; 12, load cell; 13,
pressure transducer; 14, differential pressure transducer; 15, solid mass flowmeter; 16, gas flowmeter; 17, regulating valve
1 dP
Pipe material 20# carbon steel
P dP
P
dP
dP
a bag filter. The delivery vessel and receiving vessel are inter- Table 5 Proximate and ultimate analysis of Shanbei coal
changeable, and coal powder is circulated inside the convey-
External moisture content (%) 4.84 Median particle diameter (µm) 35.3
Internal moisture content (%) 1.60 Compressibility (%) 39.2
Particle density (kg/m3) 1449 Angle of repose (°) 48
Tap density (kg/m3) 852 Angle of wall friction (°) 27
Loosely packed density (kg/m3) 518 Flow function 3.1
5 Diameter of pipe mm 25 15 10
Volume percentage (%)
Fig. 4 Particle size distributions of coal particles with total differential pressure, as shown in Fig. 5a and b.
It is worth noting that critical velocity increased with solid
flow rate (total differential pressure), which is the same as
2 Results and discussion the conclusion of former researcher [42].
At back pressures of 2.5 and 4.0 MPag, no remarkable
2.1 Characteristics of high-pressure dense-phase
effects of back pressure on solid mass flux curves and solid
conveying
concentration curves were found in the region of low gas vel-
Diagram of conveying was widely used to investigate the ocity, and back pressure hardly affected the value of critical
characteristics of high-pressure dense-phase conveying. In velocity, as shown in Fig. 5a and b. However, in the region of
the diagram, the pressure drop per unit length was plotted high gas velocity, solid flow rate was lower at high back pres-
against the superficial gas velocity with the solid flow rate sures, which was due to higher pressure drops of gas phase
as a parameter, or the solid flow rate was plotted against as gas density increased at high back pressures, as shown in
the superficial gas velocity with the total differential pres- Fig. 5a. Thus, conveying of coal powder would be affected by
sure as a parameter. The latter method was chosen in this pressure through gas density, especially in the dilute-phase
article because it is convenient to control the pressure dif- region.
ference between the delivery vessel and receiving vessel in At back pressure of 1.0 MPag, first of all, the trend of
the experimental facility. a slow increase followed by a rapid increase of solid con-
Fig. 5 showed the effect of operating parameters on centration with decreasing gas velocity was more notice-
conveying characteristics. At a constant back pressure and able, as shown in Fig. 5b; second, solid mass flux was lower
total differential pressure, the solid flow rate increased to for 1.0 MPag at the region of low gas velocity, as shown
a maximum and decreased as the superficial gas velocity in Fig. 5a. One possible explanation was that coal parti-
decreased, as shown in Fig. 5a. The superficial gas velocity cles were more likely to deposit in the bottom of hori-
at the maximum solid flow rate was a critical velocity. When zontal pipes at 1.0 MPag, due to larger density differences
superficial gas velocity was high, the flow was in a dilute- between solid particles and gas. Therefore, the transition
phase region with low solid concentrations, and the pres- of flow patterns from dilute-phase suspension flow to non-
sure drop of the gas phase was the main part of the total uniform stratified flow gave rise to more sharp transitions
pressure drop. As the gas velocity decreased, the pressure of solid concentration curves. Moreover, the effective sec-
drop of the gas phase decreased and the solid flow rate tional area of pipes decreased as coal particles deposited,
increased. As gas velocity decreased further, solid concen- which resulted in lower solid mass fluxes at 1 MPag.
tration increased rapidly and the inter-particles and par- Fig. 6 showed the effect of operating parameters on
ticle–wall friction resistance, which resulted in an increased particle velocity. The results showed that the particle vel-
pressure drop due to particles and decreased solid flow rate. ocity decreased with decreasing local superficial gas vel-
Total differential pressure was the main driver for con- ocity, and the particle velocity was lower than the local
veying coal particles. At a constant back pressure and gas superficial gas velocity. The variation of velocity differ-
velocity, solid flow rate and solid concentration increased ence between local superficial gas velocity and particle
Guan et al. | 57
of 2.5 and 4.0 MPag, the transition took place at critical vel-
14
ocity, whereas at a lower back pressure and lower solid flow
12 rate, the transition was more obvious and took place at a gas
Particle velocity (m/s)
5 5 5
1.0MPag 1.0MPag 1.0MPag
Velocity difference between
2 2 2
critical velocity critical velocity critical velocity
1 1 1
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Average superficial gas velocity (m/s) Average superficial gas velocity (m/s) Average superficial gas velocity (m/s)
2000
1.0MPag 4000 10mm
2.5MPag 15mm
25mm
3000
L=108m
1200 2000
0
400 3 6 9 12 15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Average superficial gas velocity (m/s)
Average superficial gas velocity (m/s)
Fig. 9 Effect of pipe diameter on solid flow rate (L = 108 m, P = 2.5 MPag,
Fig. 8 Effect of conveying distance on solid mass flux (D = 25 mm,
∆P = 0.75 MPa)
∆P = 0.75 MPa)
near atmospheric pressures, while in this article, the carrier loading ratio (µ), the density ratio of solid to gas ( ρs / ρg ), the
gas was nitrogen and conveying pressure exceeded 1 MPa. Reynolds number (Re), the Froude number (Fr) and the diam-
It should be noted that pipe diameters were in the range of eter ratio ( dp / D ). The solid loading ratio was correlated with
15–26 mm in Guo et al.’s experiments, which was very simi- the solid concentration: a higher solid loading ratio indicated
lar to those in this article. In addition, in Mittal et al.’s and a higher solid concentration, and thus higher frequencies of
Setia et al.’s experiments, carrier gas was also air, conveying particle–particle and particle–wall inelastic collisions, which
material was fly ash, conveying pressure was near atmos- would result in larger momentum losses. The density ratio of
pheric pressure and pipe diameter was 69 and 105 mm. solid to gas was used to represent the particle-carrying cap-
While the experimental conditions were very different from acity in dilute suspension flow [44]. The Reynolds number rep-
those in this article, those models still gave better results. resented the ratio of inertia forces to viscous forces and could
Comparisons of pressure drop per unit length between be used to represent the change of turbulent kinetic energy
experimental data and model calculations from Table 2 for of the carrier gas as operating parameters varied. The Froude
vertical upward pipes are shown in Fig. 11. It was shown that number represented the ratio of inertia forces to gravity and
Zhou et al.’s and Wang et al.’s model underpredicted the pres- could be used to represent the effect of gravity on conveying.
sure drop, while predictions of Pu et al.’s and He et al.’s model The effect of gravity was larger at lower gas velocities; thus,
diverged for pipes of different diameters. Guo’s model was solid particles were more likely to deposit on the bottom of
in agreement with experimental data within the deviation horizontal pipes and flow backward along the wall of vertical
of ±50%, which is the best among all the models investigated upward pipes, which could affect the pressure drop of the gas–
although it was developed from very different experimental solid mixture. The diameter ratio in fact represented merely
conditions from this article, as shown in Table 2. the effect of pipe diameter, such as those due to wall rough-
Since the predictive ability of existing models was not yet ness of different pipes, since the particle size was constant in
adequate for engineering applications, a new additional pres- this article.
sure drop model was developed in this article. Several non- The coefficient of the additional pressure drop was
dimensional parameters were analyzed, including the solid regressed with experimental data using the power
Guan et al. | 59
30 30 30
25mm +50% 25mm +50% 25mm +50%
15 15 15
5 5 5
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Experimental measurement (kPa/m) Experimental measurement (kPa/m) Experimental measurement (kPa/m)
(a) Stegmaier and Weber (b) Geldart and Ling (c) Pan
15 15 15
5 5 5
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Experimental measurement (kPa/m) Experimental measurement (kPa/m) Experimental measurement (kPa/m)
30 30 30
25mm +50% 25mm +50% 25mm +50%
Model calculation (kPa/m)
15 15 15
5 5 5
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Experimental measurement (kPa/m) Experimental measurement (kPa/m) Experimental measurement (kPa/m)
Fig. 10 Comparisons of pressure drop per unit length between experimental data and model calculations from Table 1 for horizontal pipes
18 18 18
25mm +50% 25mm +50% 25mm +50%
Model calculation (kPa/m)
9 9 9
3 3 3
0 0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Experimental measurement (kPa/m) Experimental measurement (kPa/m) Experimental measurement (kPa/m)
9 9
6 -50% 6 -50%
3 3
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Experimental measurement (kPa/m) Experimental measurement (kPa/m)
Fig. 11 Comparisons of pressure drop per unit length between experimental data and model calculations from Table 2 for vertical upward pipes
0.12 0.12
Experiment (25 mm) Experiment (25 mm)
0.10 Experiment (15 mm) 0.10 Experiment (15 mm)
Experiment (10 mm) Experiment (10 mm)
0.08 Calculation 0.08 Calculation
0.06 0.06
λz
λz
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0.00 0.00
-0.02 -0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fr Fr
high-pressure conveying. It was likely that pressure could In horizontal pipes, additional pressure drop was
influence the pressure drop of gas–solid two-phase flow mainly solid frictional pressure drop, while in vertical
only through gas density and dynamic head. Comparisons upward pipes, additional pressure drop also included solid
of pressure drop per unit length between experimental gravitational pressure drop. Thus, solid frictional pressure
data and model calculations are shown in Fig. 13. It was drop could be calculated from total pressure drop as in
shown that the developed models from this article agreed Equations (12) and (13):
with experimental data within ±30% for horizontal pipes
and ±20% for vertical upward pipes, which showed better
∆PsfH / ∆L = ∆Ps / ∆L = ∆PT / ∆L − ∆Pg / ∆L (12)
performance than previous models.
Guan et al. | 61
30 15
25mm +20%
25 25mm +30% 15mm
12
0 0
Fig. 13 Comparisons of pressure drop per unit length between experimental data and model calculations
9 1.5
6 1.0
0.5
3
0
0 −0.5
−3 0 3 6 9 12 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
∆P Vsf/∆L (kPa/m) Fr
Fig. 14 Comparisons of solid frictional pressure drop between horizontal and vertical upward pipes
∆PsfV / ∆L = ∆Ps / ∆L − ∆Psg / ∆L = ∆PT / ∆L − ∆Pg / ∆L − ∆Psg / ∆L due to the increased normal stress resulted from grav-
ity. In addition, the difference of solid frictional pres-
(13) sure drop between horizontal pipes and vertical upward
pipes was larger at a lower Froude number as shown in
where solid gravitational pressure drop was calculated by Fig. 14b due to more coal particles tending to deposition.
Equation (14) When the Froude number was very low, negative values
occurred for the solid frictional pressure drop in vertical
Ms g 1 Gs g
∆Psg / ∆L = ≈ upward pipes, as shown in Fig. 14a. That was considered
A us Ug (14)
to be the result of a change of the direction of the shear
force due to the backflow of particles in vertical upward
Comparisons of solid frictional pressure drop between flow when gas velocity was very low [15]. The phenom-
horizontal and vertical upward pipes are shown in enon had been observed during experiments [45].
Fig. 14, where solid frictional pressure drop of horizontal
pipes was calculated from Equation (10) and that of verti-
cal upward pipes was calculated from Equations (13) and 2.3 Conveying stability
(14). It was shown that solid frictional pressure drop of Unstable conveying of coal powder always occurred
horizontal pipes was larger than that of vertical upwards with simultaneous signal fluctuations. For discrete sig-
pipes, except for some data from 25 mm pipeline. That nal data series ( y1 , y2 , yN ) , the average fluctuation
was because the deposition of coal particles on the bot- amplitude was represented by its RSD as calculated by
tom of horizontal pipes increased particle–wall friction Equation (15), and its maximum FR was calculated by
62 | Clean Energy, 2017, Vol. 1, No. 1
0.25 250%
y=5.9x
0.02 0.20 200%
RSD(Ph)
RSD(∆ Ph)
FR(Ms)
0.15 150%
0.05 50%
0 0 0%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
RSD(Ms) RSD(Ms) RSD(Ms)
P1 1400 1200
Ph 4
4.2 1200 3
1000
∆Ph/∆L (kPa/m)
Pressure(MPag)
Ms 1000 3 800
C(kg/m3)
Ms(kg/h)
us(m/s)
4.1 800 2
us 2 600
600
∆Ph/∆ L 400
4.0 P2
400 1
1
200 200
C
3.9 0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(min)
Fig. 16 Signal fluctuations of experimental condition A (D = 25 mm, P1 = 4.25 MPag, P2 = 4 MPag, Qf = 20 Nm3/h, Qs = 188 Nm3/h)
Ms 1000 3 800
C(kg/m3)
Ms(kg/h)
us(m/s)
4.1 800 2
us 2 600
600
∆Ph/∆ L 400
4.0 P2 400 1
1
C 200 200
3.9 0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3
Time(min)
Fig. 17 Signal fluctuations of experimental condition B (D = 25 mm, P1 = 4.25 MPag, P2 = 4 MPag, Qf = 20 Nm3/h, Qs = 168 Nm3/h)
Equation (16). RSD and FR were used to represent the Three representative signals were investigated to study
fluctuation of signals. the conveying stability, including the pressure of a hori-
zontal pipe (Ph), the pressure drop per unit length of a hori-
1 zontal pipe (ΔPh/ΔL) and solid flow rate (Ms). Comparisons
∑ ( y − y)2
N
N − 1 i=1 i 1 N (15)
RSD( y) =
y
, y= ∑yi
N i=1
of fluctuation calculated from the three signals are shown
in Fig. 15. It was shown that RSD(Ph) was the smallest and
was one magnitude smaller than RSD(ΔPh/ΔL) and RSD(Ms).
The value of pressure fluctuations was small compared
max( yi ) − min( yi ) with the value of the pressure itself. The fluctuation of pres-
FR( y) = × 100% (16)
y sure drop and solid flow rate was in the same order of
Guan et al. | 63
RSD(us) or RSD(C)
while RSD(Ms) was substantially correlated with FR(Ms). The
0.4 0.4
L=197m 25 L=197m 25
L=108m L=108m
RSD(Ms)
15 15
0.2 0.2
10 10
0.1 0.1
5 5
0 0 0 0
0.4 15 0.4 15
L=197m L=197m
L=108m L=108m
Solid loading ratio, µ(kg/kg)
RSD(Ms)
0.2 0.2
6
5
0.1 0.1
3
0 0 0 0
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 12
Superficial gas velocity, Ug(m/s) Superficial gas velocity, Ug(m/s)
0.4 8 0.4 10
L=197m L=197m
L=108m L=108m
Solid loading ratio, µ(kg/kg)
RSD(Ms)
0.2 4 0.2
4
0.1 2 0.1
2
0 0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 2 4 6 8
Superficial gas velocity, Ug(m/s) Superficial gas velocity, Ug(m/s)
facility using 25, 15, and 10 mm pipes and at back pres- and structure parameters were studied. Pressure drop
sures of 1.0–4.0 MPag. The conveying characteristics and models for horizontal pipes and vertical upward pipes
the influencing mechanism of operating parameters were established. The indicator and criterion for stable
Guan et al. | 65
RSD(Ms)
200 200
0.08 0.08
100 100
0.04 0 0.04 0
0 -100 0 -100
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8
RSD(Ms)
300
0.2 300
0.08 200
200
100
0.1
0.04 100
0
0 -100 0 0
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 12
Superficial gas velocity, Ug(m/s) Superficial gas velocity, Ug(m/s)
(c) ∆P=0.50MPa, L=108m (d) ∆P=0.75MPa, L=108m
(4) Experimental data of pressure drop from horizontal [6] Geldart D, Ling SJ. Dense phase conveying of fine coal
and vertical upward conveying of coal powder were at high total pressures. Powder Technol 1990; 62:243–52.
obtained. The previous models calculate pressure drop [7] Geldart D, Ling SJ. Saltation velocities in high pressure
of dense two-phase flow with prediction deviations no conveying of fine coal. Powder Technol 1992; 69:157–62.
better than ±50%, while the additional pressure drop [8] Zhou J, Zhang S, Wang B. Experimental study on the
model developed in this paper through dimensional pressure drop of pneumatic conveying pulverized coal
analysis yielded prediction deviations within ±30% for in a pipeline (I). J Iron Steel Res 1993; 5:1–7. (in Chinese)
horizontal conveying and ±20% for vertical upward con- [9] Zhou J, Zhang S. Experimental study on the pressure
veying. Solid frictional pressure drop was larger in hori- drop of pneumatic conveying pulverized coal in a
pipeline (II). J Iron Steel Res 1994; 6:1–7. (in Chinese)
zontal pipes than that in vertical upward pipes, and the
[10] Shen X, Xiong Y. Experimental study on dense-phase
difference between them increased as the Froude num-
pneumatic conveying of pulverized coal at high pres-
ber decreased.
sures. Proc CSEE 2005; 25:103–7. (in Chinese)
(5) The value of pressure signal fluctuations was one mag-
[23] Yang WC. Correlations for solid friction factors in ver- [32] He C, Shen X, Zhou H. Stability analysis of dense phase
tical and horizontal pneumatic conveyings. Aiche J pneumatic conveying of pulverized coal at high pres-
1974; 20:605–7. sure. J Chem Ind Eng 2014; 65:820–8. (in Chinese)
[24] Setia G, Mallick SS, Pan R, et al. Modeling solids friction [33] Ma Y, Luo C, Jing Y, et al. Conveying problem of GSP
factor for fluidized dense-phase pneumatic transport gasification pulverized coal and optimizing measures.
of powders using two layer flow theory. Powder Technol China Powder Sci Technol 2015; 21:96–9. (in Chinese)
2016; 294:80–92. [34] Carnavas PC, Page, NW. Particle shape factors and
[25] Stegmaier W, Weber M. Untersuchungen zur pneuma- their relationship to flow and packing of bulk materi-
tischen dichtsromfoerderung in horizontalen und ver- als. Mech Eng Congr 1994; 2:241–6.
tikalen rohren. Verfahrenstechnik 1978; 12:794–8. [35] Mills D. Pneumatic Conveying Design Guide, 3rd edn.
[26] Pan R. Improving Scale-up Procedures for the Design Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016.
of Pneumatic Conveying Systems. Ph.D. Thesis. New [36] Xie X, Shen X, Tang X, et al. Study on some factors
South Wales, Australia: University of Wollongong, impacting flowability of pulverized coal. J China Coal