YOUR

PNEUMATIC

PROPEL
MOVING
42
www.aiche.org/cep/ April 2001

CONVEYING

SYSTEM TO

HER HIG

Herman Purutyan, Thomas G. Troxel, and Francisco Cabrejos, Jenike & Johanson, Inc.

BULK GRANULAR SOLIDS and powders around chemical process industries (CPI) plants is always challenging. While uids can be transported practically anywhere in a plant through a pipe, granular solids are usually moved by mechanical equipment such as belt, screw, aeromechanical, or drag conveyors. These methods impose severe limitations on layout and routing, provide (in most cases) only limited containment of material, and expose the product to direct contact with moving mechanical parts. Pneumatic and hydraulic conveying offers the containment and exibility of pipeline transport for bulk solids. In principle, pneumatic conveying is simple: disperse a powder or granular solid into a moving uid stream, send it through a pipe to the desired destination, and then remove the solid from the uid.

Benets and drawbacks Both pneumatic and hydraulic conveying have been used to transport bulk solids for many years, but pneumatic conveying is far more common and is found in nearly every industry where bulk solids are handled. One of the earliest recorded uses was for unloading wheat from barges to our mills at the end of 19th century in London (1). Grains, as well as other cargo, such as alumina, cement, and plastic resins are still unloaded using the same basic methods. Other common applications include unloading trucks, railcars, and barges, transferring materials to and from storage vessels, injecting solids into reactors and combustion chambers, and collecting fugitive dust by vacuum. In addition to the primary benet of exibility in routing, pneumatic conveying also offers these important advantages: 1. Cleanliness and containment properly constructed and maintained pneumatic systems can be virtually dust-free. Vacuum systems offer the advantage that leakage is into the pipeline, so that

CEP

CY IEN FIC EF
Pneumatic Conveying

For new and existing installations, there are many system and component choices available. Heres how to narrow down the options to make the appropriate selection for optimal performance.

CEP

April 2001

www.aiche.org/cep/

43

Pneumatic Conveying

even damaged or leaky systems contain all of the product. particles have been conveyed in straight runs. In some un2. Low contamination Sealed systems can prevent derground mining applications, vertical lifts have been most forms of contamination, and contact with moving meused to pneumatically convey ore containing 23 in. partichanical components is minimal. Pressure systems prevent cles hundreds of feet to the surface. inward leakage and can use dry, inert gas for conveying to Cohesive or sticky materials are often difficult to conexclude oxygen and moisture. vey pneumatically. Moist substances that are wet enough to However, pneumatic conveying has limitations and is stick to the walls of the pipeline usually cannot be handled not suitable for every application. One of the primary successfully. Materials with high oil or fat contents can drawbacks is high power consumption. Taken on the basis also cause severe buildup in pipelines such that conveying of cost per unit weight per unit distance conveyed, pneuis not practical, although this can sometimes be overcome matic conveying is by far the most expensive method of with temperature control or exible pipelines. transporting materials. But, in many cases, the higher cost Understanding pneumatic conveying systems requires a is justied, because the alternatives are not practical due to knowledge of the properties of the bulk solid to be conlayout limitations, containment or cleanliness issues, as veyed, ow of compressible gas in a pipeline, and dynamwell as the low maintenance needed for these setups. ics of solid particles in a gas stream. Pneumatic conveying systems are also limited in overall Material characteristics conveying distance and conveying capacity. The largest common ones are generally restricted to about 300 tons/h Particle characteristics, as well as bulk properties of the and 3,000 ft (not simultaneously). A few systems with solid, are important variables in the design of a pneumatic longer conveying distances and conveying system. Among the higher capacities have been key particle characteristics are built. On the other hand, hyparticle size and distribution, draulic conveying can be used shape, density, hardness, and to transport solids over much friability. Bulk properties that greater distances and has been are important include bulk denused for long-distance coal sity and compressibility, per(slurry) transportation. Recently, meability, cohesive strength, hydraulic conveying has been segregation tendency, explosiused for long-distance transport bility, toxicity, reactivity, and of plastic pellets and copper electrostatic effects. concentrate. Pneumatic conveying is also Particle characteristics hampered by the potential for Particle size, distribution, and severe wear of equipment and Pneumatic conveying is simple in principle. shape are known to be among attrition or degradation of the the most signicant variables bulk solid particles, if the system is not properly designed affecting pneumatic conveying. For example, uniformly and operated. sized round and smooth particles are easier to convey than Despite these limitations, pneumatic conveying is an angular, rough ones having a wide size distribution. Anothimportant and practical form of transport with applications er rule of thumb is that, to prevent mechanical plugging of in almost every part of the CPI. The range of materials that conveying lines, particularly when conveying materials can be transported is nearly unlimited. Powders and granucontaining large particles, the pipe diameter must be at lar materials of nearly every type can be conveyed: nleast 35 times the maximum particle dimension. ished products as diverse as bathroom tissue, candy, and Much work has been done to characterize key conveymetal components; stringy materials such as chopped ing parameters, such as minimum conveying velocity, as a bers, as well as metal particles from grinding operations. function of particle size. While there are at least a dozen The limitations on what can be conveyed depend more models that include the effect of particle size on the miniupon the physical nature of the material than on its generic mum conveying velocity for a suspension of solids in a classication. Particle size, hardness, resistance to damage, gas stream, there is no general agreement about which and cohesive properties are key parameters in determining provides the most reliable prediction (2). Since many of whether a material is suitable for pneumatic conveying. these models produce signicantly different results for the Not surprisingly, larger particles of heavy material require same initial data, experience is often required in using a higher gas velocity to become entrained in an air stream. them. One of the challenges is to express particle size in a The practical limits of simply increasing the air velocity to way that can be used in a predictive model. For a monoconvey ever larger and heavier particles extend to particles sized material, it is easy to dene the particle size. Howof about 15 in. for most granular materials. Much larger ever, for a material with a wide range of sizes, dening a

44

www.aiche.org/cep/

April 2001

CEP

particle size to use as a design parameter is more difficult. First, particle-size data are highly dependent upon the measurement method. Data obtained by sieve analysis, by far the most common technique, are certain to differ from those generated using laser diffraction. Even measurements made by different machines, using the same method, can give different results. Particle size is often expressed as a mean diameter, which does not capture the range of sizes. The nature of the size distribution may vary depending on the process used to produce the particles. For example, most materials created by crushing or grinding have a log-normal distribution, whereas condensation processes produce Gaussian distributions, again making a standard denition of particle size difficult. Particle density affects the minimum conveying velocity and pressure drop required for transport. Particle shape is another parameter that is difficult to define. Shapes vary from near-spherical to angular, irregular, platelike, or fibrous. The study of particle properties is a science in itself and one of the ways particle shape has been incorporated into analytical models is by assigning a sphericity value to particles to account for their shape relative to spherical particles. While virtually all of the analytical and empirical models used to predict the behavior of pneumatic conveying systems include particle size and density, it is still difficult to capture all of the pertinent particle properties in a general model.

The compressibility and permeability of a bulk solid determine how readily the material will deaerate

tive use. Operators found that when they were forced to use unconveyed material in the reactor, the time required to dissolve the soda ash increased dramatically and limited production. In this case, the attrition that occurred in the conveying line was benecial and essential in meeting production schedules. On the other hand, the conveyed product was more difficult to handle and perceived as lower quality by customers who purchased it. Fines generation can also affect the flow properties of the material. Materials typically become more difficult to handle as the particle size decreases. This can result in flow problems in downstream bins and silos. Attrition can increase the propensity of some materials to cake. For example, attrition of sugar crystals can expose fresh surfaces, which are more prone to caking. Lastly, excessive fines result in a dustier material that can increase the risk of a dust explosion, or, for toxic materials, the exposure risk for workers. Particle friability cannot be dened easily by an index or value derived from tests. Work has been done to classify materials for comminution purposes (e.g., the Hardgrove grindability index for coal), but these indices apply to a particular mechanism of comminution and, to our knowledge, this type of classication has never successfully transferred to particle attrition in pneumatic conveying systems. Overall, attrition in a pneumatic conveying system can only be accurately assessed by conducting a series of attrition tests that simulate conditions in the lines, as well as other handling steps in the system, such as free-fall and ow through a silo.

Particle friability Attrition of particles in a pneumatic conveying system can affect the material being conveyed in several ways, usually with undesirable results. Attrition may alter product performance. For example, coarse and ne particles may have different dissolution rates. If the product conveyed is to be fed to a reactor, excessive nes could be a problem. Fines generation can also impair product quality. Most products are sold with a set of specications that includes a particle-size range. If the size specication is achieved by screening, then any attrition that occurs during transfer from screening to packaging may make it difficult or impossible to meet the products specication. In some cases, attrition can be both a blessing and a curse. For example, at a soda ash plant, some of the product was sold and some was used internally to make another product. Pneumatic conveying was used to transfer the material to both the packaging area and to the reactor for cap-

Particle hardness One of the disadvantages of pneumatic conveying is the potential for accelerated line wear, which is a direct function of the hardness of the particles conveyed, as well as the conveying velocity. One common way of classifying particle hardness is the Mohs scale, ranging from 1 (talc) to 10 (diamond). Bulk characteristics Bulk properties, such as compressibility, which describe the bulk density as a function of consolidation and gas permeability, affect how bulk solids behave in pneumatic lines, particularly in systems operating at high-solids loadings and low conveying velocities. The compressibility and permeability of a bulk solid determine how readily the material will deaerate, and how gas owing through a bed or plug of material will affect the bulk solid.
45

CEP

April 2001

www.aiche.org/cep/

Pneumatic Conveying

The direct effect of the cohesiveness of a bulk solid on pneumatic conveying can be buildup in the lines. Indirectly, however, cohesive solids cause other serious problems. The challenge is to be able to feed the conveying line uniformly. Flow stoppages, or erratic flow through equipment upstream of a conveying line, such as in a bin, feeder or a chute, can be a roadblock to achieving the desired transfer rates. Other bulk properties that must be considered during design include explosivity and toxicity. Materials that may contain residual hydrocarbons, such as newly reacted polyethylene or polypropylene powders, may have to be conveyed using nitrogen to limit exposure to oxygen. Static electricity may be a source of ignition for materials prone to explosion, in which case the charge must be either dissipated by proper grounding, or neutralized. Materials that are toxic or need strict containment may require a vacuum system, in which any leak will be into the line, rather than out to the environment. Double-walled pipelines under positive pressure have been used to convey materials such as contaminated soils. Since particle size affects the pneumatic conveying characteristics of a material, segregation that occurs in a handling system, which separates the material into coarse and ne fractions, can impact pneumatic conveying. If the system is designed for a mixture of nes and coarse particles, conveying only one of them can be a problem. The segregation potential of a given bulk solid can be determined by conducting tests (3).

at any two points in the line becomes proportional to the absolute gas pressure: V2/V1 = P1/P2 (4)

where P1 and P2 are absolute pressures. Example In a line with an 8 psig pressure difference between the feed and end points, the gas velocity at the end of the line will be about 1.5 times the velocity at the beginning of the line: V2/V1 = P1/P2 = (8 + 14.7)/14.7 = ~1.5 (5)

Similarly, in a line with a 22 psig total pressure drop, the gas velocity at the end of the line will be about 2.5 times the beginning velocity. The relationship between gas velocity and pressure drop in a straight pipe is found by a simple calculation: P = f (L/D) (g U2)/2 (6)

Single-phase ow Flow of gas in a pipeline is well understood. The conveying gas obeys the ideal gas law, and its density is a function of pressure and temperature, as given by:
= P/RT (1)

where f = friction factor, a function of Reynolds number and pipe roughness, given in Moodys chart and others for turbulent ow, L = pipe length, D = pipe dia., g = gas density, and U = gas velocity. As Eq. 6 indicates, the pressure drop in a pipe is approximately proportional to the square of the gas velocity. Even in systems with a modest pressure drop of 8 psi, the increase in velocity from one end of the line to the other results in a difference in pressure drop per unit length of more than 2. This illustrates the signicance of density changes in the gas as ow progresses from the beginning to the end of the conveying line. In addition to the pressure drop, changes in the gas velocity also affect the suspension of solids in the gas stream. At low velocities, particles may be sliding on the bottom of the pipe, while at higher ones, they will be fully suspended in the gas.

where = gas density, P = absolute pressure, R = gas constant, and T= absolute temperature. Mean gas velocity in a pipeline is a function of mass-flow rate of the gas, as well as the density and the flow area: V = M/A (2)

where V= mean gas velocity, M = gas mass-ow rate, = gas density, and A= ow area. Combining Eq. 1 and 2, it becomes evident that the mean gas velocity is a function of gas pressure: V = M R T/P A (3)

Assuming that the gas mass-ow rate and the ow area are constant, as well as the gas temperature, then velocity

Two-phase ow While single-phase ow in a pipe is well understood, adding solids into the moving gas stream complicates matters immensely. As solid particles are introduced into a moving stream of gas, the pressure drop in the line begins to increase, as momentum is transferred to the particles to accelerate them to the conveying velocity. However, a number of investigators have found that, in fact, the pressure drop of a owing suspension actually decreases slightly at low concentrations with small-sized particle materials. The total pressure drop consists of two components: the pressure drop due to gas ow alone, and that required for transporting the particles. In addition to the gas velocity, the pressure drop is also a function of a number of other parameters including: The amount of solids in the pipeline, typically, the mass ratio of solids to gas, which is known as the solids loading ratio or phase density; and

46

www.aiche.org/cep/

April 2001

CEP

50 Minimum Velocity, m/s 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 Internal Diameter of Horizontal Pipe, mm

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01

Minimum Velocity, m/s

0.1

10

Particle Diameter, mm

Figure 1. Different correlations do not agree on predicting the minimum

conveying velocity.

Figure 2. Predicting minimum conveying velocity based on particle size

gives conicting results

The velocity of the solids relative to the gas Relevant particle properties are the size distribution, density, shape, and frictional interaction with the pipe wall.

Conveying velocities The moving gas stream applies drag and lift to the particles. These forces are a function of gas velocity. Terms such as pickup velocity, saltation velocity, and minimum conveying velocity are used to describe the correlation of gas velocity to the behavior of solid particles in a line. Consider a layer of particles lying at the bottom of a horizontal pipe, with the gas ow slowly increasing. At a certain velocity, there will be enough lift on some particles to pick them up out of the bed, entrain them in the moving gas, and blow them downstream. The velocity at which this occurs is referred to as pickup velocity. A number of investigators have shown that the minimum pickup velocity is a function of the density of the gas and the solids, as well as particle and pipeline diameter. Empirical correlations have been developed based on tests conducted with a limited number of materials (4). The velocity below which entrained solid particles begin falling out of suspension and start settling at the bottom of a horizontal pipe is the saltation velocity. This is also a function of particle and gas density, as well as particle and line diameters (4). In addition, there is a direct relationship between the saltation velocity and solids loading ratio (SLR). In general, saltation occurs at higher velocities at higher solids loading. Perhaps, the most important velocity for the designer of a pneumatic conveying system is the minimum conveying velocity. This is, the lowest velocity that must exist in a given system for a given material to prevent plugging the line. Some investigators have suggested using the saltation velocity with a factor of safety, while

others have developed empirical correlations; however, these correlations often predict widely differing velocities for the same set of conditions. A study done by Peter Wypych at the University of Wollongong in Australia (2) provides useful insight into the state of currently available correlations. Figure 1 shows the predicted minimum conveying velocities for wheat calculated using nine different correlations. Each line represents calculations of a particular investigator, as is so for Figure 2. Individual investigators are not noted; only the trend is important here. The minimum conveying velocity is calculated as a function of pipe diameter. As can be seen, the minimum calculated values can vary by as much as a factor of two. Note that all of the models predict the same general trend that increasing the pipe size requires an increase in conveying velocity. Figure 2 shows minimum velocity calculations as a function of particle size, using the same set of correlations. The range of calculated velocities is much wider here, but, what is most apparent is that some of the models predict an increase in the minimum velocity if the particle size is decreased, while others predict a decrease, and still point at virtually no change over a wide range of particle sizes. This clearly illustrates that use of these correlations requires a thorough understanding of the basis on which they were developed, and experience in applying them to real applications. One reliable method of determining minimum conveying velocities is to obtain data from an existing system conveying the same material. However, this does present a chicken or the egg dilemma when such a system is not available. In these cases, the best solution is to nd the minimum conveying velocities by conducting tests in a pilot conveying loop and then scaling up the results. Since scale-up is not without its challenges, ensure that the test

CEP

April 2001

www.aiche.org/cep/

47

Pneumatic Conveying

Pressure Drop, P/L

No Flow

Stable DensePhase

Unstable Dense-Phase Dilute-Phase

Lines of Constant Solids Flow Rate Mean Gas Velocity, U

Increasing Solids Flow

Figure 3. General state diagram for solids ow in a pipe. loop and the full-scale system are not too different, and that test conditions in the pilot system cover an adequate range of velocities and solids loadings.

Conveying pressures In addition to the minimum velocities required to convey a specified amount of bulk solids in a given system, the designer must also know the required pressure drop. This requirement is closely coupled with the rate of solids and gas flow. In fact, the same amount of solids can be transported in a line using a number of velocity and pressure drop combinations. This is best illustrated graphically in a general state diagram, which is a plot of pressure per unit length of pipe as a function of conveying gas velocity, with constant solids flow rate as a parameter (Figure 3). At high gas velocities, solids parFeed Hopper ticles are generally suspended in air. Under these conditions, the solids Inlet loading ratio is relatively low, typiFilter cally below 15. This is dilute-phase conveying. If the gas velocity is slowly decreased, the pressure reAirlock quired to convey a constant amount Feeder of solids also drops. After reaching a minimum, a further reduction in gas Blower velocity results in an increase in pressure, as particles begin to fall out of suspension and interparticle collisions increase. This region, where the solids loading ratio is typically higher than 15 and the velocity is below the saltation velocity, is that of dense-phase conveying. With many materials, there is no distinct boundary that separates the dilutefrom the dense-phase regions, and conveying can occur over a continu- Figure 4. Typical positive-pressure system.

ous range from fully suspended to a slow moving bed. With other materials, very distinct boundaries define regions of stable and unstable conveying. Typically, very ne powders, such as cement, lime, and y ash, t into this category, which can cover a wide range of conveying conditions. Coarser materials, such as perlite, sugar, and plastic pellets, t into the other category that has a distinct region where conveying is unstable or impossible. Theoretically, the most efficient conveying can be achieved at the velocities that result in the lowest pressure drop, or at the pressure minimum points. However, as can be seen in the general state diagram for coarse particles, it is not always possible to get stable flow at the theoretical pressure minimums. For some materials, flow in this region becomes extremely erratic with severe pressure fluctuations, as the solid particles continuously fall out of suspension and get reentrained by the conveying gas. Generally, the designer must decide whether the system will operate in the low-velocity or high-velocity region. The advantages and disadvantages of such systems are discussed below. It is relatively simple to calculate the pressure drop when there is only gas flow in a line, but including the effect of the conveyed solids is considerably more complicated. A large amount of work has been done to predict the pressure drop analytically, but there is still significant disparity among various methods. The most reliable method of determining the pressure drop requirement is to use experimental data derived from test loops with the actual material to be conveyed, followed by scaling up of the data. There are a number of references that outline various calculation methods in detail (5, 6).

Multiple Delivery Points

Storage Silo

48

www.aiche.org/cep/

April 2001

CEP

Storage Silos Vacuum Receiver Inlet Filter Filter

Multiple Feed Points Airlock Feeder Filter

In general, these correlations provide more reliable results when applied to fully suspended dilute-phase systems and are subject to the same caveats as the correlations described above for minimum conveying velocity. In all cases, use of these correlations requires an iterative calculation procedure that must be performed in steps along the pipeline to account for the change in velocity, making it impractical to achieve useful results without employing a computer calculation procedure.

Exhauster

Figure 5. Vacuum systems are ideal for hazardous solids.

Storage Silos

Filter

Multiple Feed Points

Filter

Multiple Delivery Points

Types of systems Systems can be congured and classied in a number of ways depending on their function, operating pressure (positive, negative, combined, or closed-loop), and magnitude of operating pressure. The most common and often misunderstood categories are dilute- and dense-phase. Conveying can occur over a wide range of conditions bounded on one end by gas alone with no entrained solids, and at the other extreme by a completely full pipe where the solids are essentially extruded through the line. Dust collectors are an example of conveying systems that operate at very low solids loading, where the performance is governed almost entirely by the gas ow. Most industrial conveying systems run somewhere in between these two extremes and are ranked broadly as either dilute- or dense-phase, depending upon the relative solids loading and velocity of the system. Positive-pressure systems These are above atmospheric pressure and ideal for a single feed point and multiple delivery points (Figure 4). Positive-pressure arrangements may be low-pressure, dilute-phase, or high-pressure dense-phase. They can have higher capacities and longer conveying distances than negative pressure systems. Negative-pressure systems Negative pressure or vacuum systems are ideal when the product must be picked up from a number of different lo49

Exhauster/Blower

Storage Silos

Figure 6. Combined systems often use vacuum for feeding and positive pressure for conveying
over long distances.

CEP

April 2001

www.aiche.org/cep/

Pneumatic Conveying

cations and conveyed to a single destination (Figure 5). Also, since the pressure in the conveying line is lower than atmospheric, and leakage is into the line, these schemes are better suited for toxic or hazardous materials. For the same reason, negative-pressure systems are used as dust collectors for fugitive dusts. Vacuum systems are usually limited to shorter distances than positive ones and typically operate with a dilute, lowsolids loading. However, it is possible to achieve highsolids loading and low velocity conveying over short distances (less than 200 ft). The required conveying velocity is often higher in a vacuum system than in a positive one, because the gas density is lower in a vacuum system.

Filter

Filter

Makeup Gas Blower

Storage Silo Receiver Airlock Feeder

Combined systems By combining both types in the same setup, the advantages of each can be exploited (Figure 6). These arrangements consist of two sections. A typical one is a pull/push system with a negative-pressure front end, followed by a positive-pressure loop. The benet is that they capitalize on the ease of feeding into a vacuum and combine this with the higher capacity and longer conveying distance when using positive pressure. One common example is vacuum unloading of rail cars with transfer to a receiver. From the receiver, the material is transported to the destination using positive pressure. Combined systems can be either pull/push or push/pull. Closed-loop systems When the conveying gas is other than air, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, argon, or steam, there may be good reason for recirculating the gas (Figure 7). In these cases, a closed loop is used. Since inevitably some leakage will occur, provisions are needed for makeup gas. Also, since the gas will heat up as it is compressed, heat buildup requires heat exchangers to prevent overheating. Through-the-fan systems When the conveyed solid or the solids loading is relatively light, these systems offer the benets of a combined system, but with less equipment (Figure 8). Here, all of the conveyed material travels through the fan. If longer conveying distances are required, the line can be extended by adding more fans. Pneumatic conveying system components A pneumatic conveying system consists of four basic components: the gas mover, the solids feeder, the pipeline, and the separator. While their placement may vary depending on whether the system is in vacuum or pressure, their basic functions remain the same. The gas mover provides the proper ow rate of gas required for the transport at the right velocity and pressure. The solids feeder introduces the solid particles at a controlled rate into the pipeline where they are mixed with the

Heat Exchanger

Figure 7. Closed-loop systems are employed when the gas must be

recirculated.

Conveyor

Filter

Radial-Blade Open-Wheel Fan

Figure 8. Through-the-fan operation is simple, requiring less equipment

than a blower-based setup.

conveying gas. Positive-pressure systems require devices to feed material from atmospheric pressure into a pressurized pipeline, while negative-pressure systems can call for feeders with a good seal to minimize leakage of gas into the pipeline. An acceleration zone is required right after the feed point to speed up the solids to the steady transport velocity in the pipeline. The pipeline consists of straight sections, both horizontal and vertical, connected together with bends. In the separator, the solids are decelerated and recovered from the gas stream and then stored in a silo or fed into another unit. The gas is typically released into the atmosphere. Controls, safety equipment, and instrumentation are also required. A challenge for every designer is to combine the different types and models of equipment on the market so that the system operates efficiently over its specied range. Reliable

50

www.aiche.org/cep/

April 2001

CEP

% of Rated Discharge Pressure

100 80 60 40 20 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 % of Rated Flow Discharging to Atmosphere Radial Blade Fan Roots-Type Blower Compressed Gas/Nozzle

Figure 9. How fans, blowers, and compressed gas stack up. ow from the bin/silo through the solids feeder and into the pipeline is an absolute necessity as a starting point. Unfortunately, most bin/silo and feeder suppliers do not consider the effects of downstream equipment, while many pneumatic conveying suppliers often overlook the need to design or specify a bin or feeder to provide reliable material ow.

store a volume of compressed gas and allow the compressor to operate intermittently. To use compressed gas for conveying requires some means to control both the ow rate and pressure. Flow rate control can be accomplished by using a feedback ow-control device, or a static owcontrol orice or choked-ow nozzle. A comparison of the typical relationship between ow rate and operating pressure for fans, blowers, and compressed gas systems is shown in Figure 9. Since most conveying systems experience a range of operating pressures between the extremes of an empty line and a fully loaded network, the gas ow through the system will change according to the characteristics of the supply system. It is apparent from Figure 9 that a system driven by a fan may experience a signicant change in gas-ow rate for small changes in pressure, while one supplied with compressed gas may operate at an essentially constant ow rate over a wide range of pressures. The ability of compressed gas and lobe-type machines to produce a nearly constant ow of gas over a wide range of pressures offers stability and allows these systems to recover from upsets that may cause momentary rises in pressure.

Gas movers By far, the most common device for moving gas in a pneumatic conveying system is the Roots-type rotary lobe blower. This blower is prevalent, because it provides an economical source of gas ow that meets the pressure (or vacuum) and ow requirements of the largest category of systems, namely those that operate at less than 15 psig for pressure systems and 6 psig for vacuum systems. A key feature is that the Roots blower delivers a nearly constant volume over its operating pressure range. This is important, since control of the gas ow in a pneumatic conveying system is critical for stable operation. Fans are used for low-pressure systems, and compressors (or plant compressed air or process gas) for higher pressures. Fans are generally limited to high-volume, lowpressure applications (ow > 1,000 cfm; presure < 2 psi), and require careful design because of their inherent operating characteristics. The most common fans used in conveying applications are radial blade machines, which have maximum pressure ratings of 2040 in. of water (0.72 psig). In many cases, they are operated as through-the-fan systems. For applications handling very light material, such as chopped textile ber, recycled foam, sawdust, and other light nonabrasives, fans offer a simple and effective way of transporting material. Compressed gas can be used for any positive-pressure duty, but it is usually not cost-effective for pressures less than 20 psig, unless a source of free process gas is available that is suitable for the conveying requirements. In the case of fans and rotary blowers, the ow rate is a function of the speed of the machine and the operating pressure. Most compressed gas systems use a pressure receiver to

Solids feeders and pressure seals For proper operation of a pneumatic conveying system, the solids fed into the line must be controlled. Frequently, problems of nonuniform feed into the pneumatic conveying lines are thought to cause difficulties with pneumatic conveying systems, whereas they really originate in the upstream equipment (7). Feeding solids into a positive-pressure system requires a means of sealing against the pressure in the pipeline. Devices used for this purpose include rotary valves, double dump-valves, specially designed screws, and eductors. Some of these devices control the rate of solids ow into the line and, hence, are truly feeders, while others only provide a pressure seal, but do not meter solids. Rotary valves can be used to provide a seal, as well as meter solids into a line. As feeders, they are placed at the outlet of hoppers of silos and bins, and their speed determines the solids throughput. While they are primarily used for systems at less than 15 psig, specially designed rotary valves exist that seal up to 100 psi. While using a rotary valve both as a feeder and a pressure seal reduces the amount of equipment needed, it also restricts the opening of the hopper feeding the line to the size of the valve. When handling cohesive solids, this may lead to ow stoppages due to arching and ratholing in the hopper above. This can be avoided by properly designing the hopper with an appropriate feeder that can provide uniform ow, and using a rotary valve not as a feeder, but as a pressure seal only. Rotary valves used as feeders can also cause ow problems by nonuniformly drawing material across the outlet of the hopper. Solids enter the rotary valve on the side of the
51

CEP

April 2001

www.aiche.org/cep/

Pneumatic Conveying

outlet where the empty pockets are rst exposed to the course, depends upon the application. However, the bulk solid. In addition, internal convergence of some rotary amount of debate is often out of proportion to the signivalves can reduce the active hopper opening, again resultcance of the difference between the various types of bends. ing in nonuniform discharge from the hopper. These probIn many systems, the type of bend makes relatively little lems can destroy mass ow in the hopper, even if the hopdifference in the performance and operation. For systems per itself is properly designed. handling nonabrasives that do not degrade during conveyIn positive-pressure systems handling fine materials, ing, the type of elbow is not a critical decision and should pressure sealing and venting at the feed point are critical. probably be made based on cost. Fine powders often flow out of hoppers at rates much The key factors to consider in selecting pipe bends are: lower than do coarse granular materials. When designing Abrasive wear vessels that handle fine powders, it is essential that the Product degradation maximum discharge rate from an unrestricted outlet be Product buildup calculated to ensure that the opening is large enough to Pressure loss feed the downstream process. This calculation is a strong Abrasive wear is by far the most critical element in function of the permeability and compressibility of the selecting an elbow. Since virtually all of the wear occurs powder (8). If the hopper opening is too small, then flow at the bends, abrasives will quickly wear through an rate limitation, independent of how fast a feeder is run, elbow. Pipeline wear is a strong function of the conveywill occur. ing velocity. Since the velocities in a line are typically This problem is exacerbated by gas leakage up from the higher near the discharge, most wear is found near the pneumatic conveying line into the end of the conveying lines. hopper. The amount of leakage Many investigators have shown through a rotary valve is a function wear to be proportional to veof the total pressure drop across the locity raised to a power bevalve, and the size of the valve, as tween 2 and 4. well as the clearance between the Wear is also a function of relrotor tips and the valve body. ative hardness of the particles For example, a 12in. rotary being conveyed, as well as the valve operating at a 10 psi differimpact angle. In general, wear in ential pressure could have as much steel and aluminum elbows is at as a 100 cfm leakage. This amount a maximum for impact angles of gas going into a conical hopper around 20 deg., which occur at with a 12 in. dia. results in a gas the entrance of long-radius elvelocity of approximately 2 ft/s at Figure 10. Product attrition (left photo) takes place mainly at bows. Wear can be reduced by the hopper outlet. This ow can pipeline bends. using short-radius elbows, or impose a signicant body force on blind tees, but these options the particles trying to ow down, and can retard ow. both increase the pressure drop, and perhaps more imporLeakage through a rotary valve can be reduced by entantly, particle attrition. For mildly abrasive materials, the suring that the valve is properly vented and that the vent is use of hard, wear resistant elbows may provide reasonable not blocked; the pressure drop across the valve is not too wear life, but for highly abrasive solids, even these types high for the type and size of valve used; and that the valve of elbows can be worn out quickly. is properly maintained such that a tight t is kept between The most effective means of reducing wear is to dethe rotor tips and the valve body. crease velocity. Abrasive wear is one of the primary reaIn high-pressure systems, blow tanks or transporters sons for using a low-velocity dense-phase system. With are often used to introduce the solids into the line. A cerlow velocity, the problem can be reduced to the point tain amount of solids is transferred into the transporter, where expensive wear-resistant components are not which is then sealed and pressurized. The entire contents needed and standard bends can be used without excesof the blow tank are fed into the line, then the pressure is sive damage. vented and another batch of solids is transferred in. Product degradation also occurs primarily at bends in the While this results in a batch operation, using two blow pipeline (Figure 10). As with wear, decreasing the velocity tanks and alternating between them can provide near is the most effective way to minimize attrition of particles. continuous feed. This can be done by minimizing and controlling the velocity in dilute, fully suspended conveying systems, or by using Pipeline components a low-velocity dense-phase scheme. In many cases very Perhaps the single most debated question regarding the fragile materials can only be successfully conveyed in low pipeline is what type of elbow is best. The answer, of velocity systems. Typically, smooth radius bends produce

52

www.aiche.org/cep/

April 2001

CEP

 Figure 11. Elbows are a place for product buildup. lower attrition than blind tees or mitered bends. Certain types of buildup also can occur primarily at elbows (Figure 11). When handling plastic pellets, a problem is formation of thin strips, often referred to as stringers or snakeskins. These cause difficulties in downstream handling equipment. The strips build up as pellets deposit thin molten layers of plastic on the pipes (primarily at the elbows), which periodically break loose. This is due to localized melting. The sources of heat can be residual heat from the extrusion process, hot conveying air, ambient conditions, or particle friction. Using pipe with a rough interior surface that causes the particles to tumble, rather than slide, can reduce the amount of heat generated. The rough surface can be achieved by sand blasting or shot peening, or by using specially made grooved pipe components. Since these surfaces are likely to become smooth again over time, periodic surface treatment is usually necessary to ensure roughness. Pressure loss in pipeline bends is generally greater in blind tees and short radius bends than in smooth, long radius bends. Most investigators have found that increasing the bend radius much beyond 46 pipe dias. provides diminishing returns, because the added length of pipe necessary to make the bend offsets any benet of the more gradual turn. Also, it has generally been found that the difference in pressure loss between a long-radius bend and a blind tee is relatively small when compared to the total pressure drop in a system. This, of course, depends upon the system layout. In a short system with a large number of bends (for example, a 200 ft line with 9 bends), the contribution of each bend will be much more signicant that in a long pipeline with only a few bends (say, a 1,200 ft line with 4 bends). In the latter case, changing the bends from blind tees to long radius sweeps may not make a signicant difference in the operating conditions.

where the solids settle by gravity, to pulse-jet cleaned fabric lters. In most circumstances, it is nearly impossible to discharge gas from a conveying system without using a high-efficiency fabric lter to meet environmental regulations. Usually, separation actually occurs by a combination of inertia and ltration. Since many of the materials conveyed encompass a wide range of particle sizes, the larger particles separate as the gas stream enters the receiving vessel and the smaller ones at the lter surface. When material is delivered to several receiving bins, it is not uncommon to use an inertial or cyclone separator at each delivery point and direct all of the conveying gas to a single fabric lter. This is more economical than providing a fabric lter at each delivery point, but it does allow for cross-contamination between the bins. The selection of a gas-solids separator should be based on the material characteristics degree of separation required, environmental regulations, the concentration of solids and cost. The efficiency of various types of separators for various size particles is given in the table below.

Selecting a pneumatic conveying system Selecting the best system for your application depends on the process requirements and the characteristics of the material to be conveyed. Answers to the following questions could be used in determining which type of conveying system is appropriate: Can the material be conveyed pneumatically? While most materials can be conveyed in a dilute-phase system, not all are suitable for dense-phase conveying. In addition to determining the required conveying velocities and pressures, conducting lab-scale tests can answer questions such as whether particle attrition and line buildup will be problems. Analysis based on the permeability and compressibility of the solids can be used as a rst-pass determination of whether the material can be conveyed in dense phase. What are the layout restrictions? Although pneumatic conveying allows more exibility in routing than do mechanical conveyors, it is best to limit the number of bends and avoid placing them close together. If the layout requires a large number of turns, and closely placed elbows, then the pneumatic conveying line will be susceptible to plugging due to loss of solids velocity.
The efficiency of different types of separators varies with particle size. Efficiency of separator, % Inertial collector Medium-efficiency cyclone High-efficiency cyclone Shaker-type fabric filter Reverse-jet fabric filter 50 micron 95 94 98 >99 100 5 micron 16 27 42 >99 >99 1 micron 3 8 13 99 99

Disengagers, lter receivers Separating the solids from the gas can be accomplished in a number of ways ranging from inertial separation,

CEP

April 2001

www.aiche.org/cep/

53

Pneumatic Conveying

Also, reducing the number of elbows will reduce system pressure, hence, velocities, which can reduce line wear, as well as particle attrition. What is the maximum transfer rate required? The maximum vacuum in most conveying lines is 57 psig, whereas pressures of up to an order of magnitude higher than this can be found in positive-pressure systems. Because of the availability of higher pressure drops, positive-pressure systems can provide higher conveying rates than do vacuum arrangements. As a general rule, there is no upper limit on the transfer rate for a vacuum conveying system, but the conveying distance becomes much shorter and the line size much larger at high transfer rates, because of the limited pressure differential available. In contrast, rates of up to several hundred tons per hour can be achieved with positive-pressure systems.
Two Related AIChE Courses April 2327, 2001 Houston # 032 Flow of Solids in Bins, Hoppers, Chutes, and Feeders For those who want to keep all types of bulk solids owing smoothly and reliably throughout the plant with minimum downtime and maximum quality control. Intended for design, project, and research engineers, as well as any plant operations personnel who are responsible for solving and preventing ow problems or purchasing solids handling equipment. Experts youll hear from: Author Herman Purutyan, Tom Baxter, John W. Carson, Eric Maynard, James Prescott, and David A. Craig. #033 Pneumatic Conveying of Bulk Solids For those experiencing problems with existing pneumatic conveying systems or plan to design or specify a new system. You will learn how individual components join together to form a system that operates effectively. Attendees will gain a better understanding of common problems, be able to identify problems in their plants and apply various solutions, evaluate your in-plant systems and determine their effectiveness, understand system layout based on proper operation, and learn how to choose system components. Expert youll hear from: Eric Maynard. For more information: www.aiche.org/education

(800) 242-4363

What is the required conveying distance? The range of operating pressures for vacuum systems not only limits the conveying rate, but also the conveying distance. Vacuum systems are limited in general to less than 300 ft. Longer distances are possible with combined systems. How many feed and discharge points are required? As mentioned above, vacuum systems have the advantage of accommodating multiple feed points, since the gas mover is located at the discharge end. Therefore, a vacuum system may be appropriate when feeding from multiple silos or bins to a day bin or a receiving hopper. If the process requires the product to be delivered to multiple locations, for example, a single silo feeding several receiving bins, then a pressure system may be advantageous, since the air mover is located upstream of the solids feed point. Both pressure and vacuum systems can unload material received in trucks, rail cars, barges, or ships. Vacuum has the advantage of requiring little or no conveying components built into the transportation devices. However, it is limited to relatively free owing materials that can be easily fed into the conveying line, as well as transporting across only short distances. To transfer materials over longer distances, a combination, pull/push, or push/pull system can be used. Is a conveying gas other than air required? If the material reacts with oxygen, then an inert gas, such as nitrogen, may be used as the conveying gas. To reduce the cost, a closed-loop system can be used. In such systems it is important to ensure that there is a supply of makeup gas to prevent a drop in pressure, since some gas will inevitably be lost. Also, a heat exchanger is generally needed to prevent the buildup of heat in the line. If an inerting environment is needed, then a pressure system is preferred to keep oxygen from entering the line. Is the material hazardous? If exposure to the material or release to the environment is a concern, then a vacuum system should be considered, since any leaks that occur will be into the line. Is the material friable? Is particle attrition a concern? If so, then a low-velocity system may be appropriate, since attrition is a strong function of velocity. If you or your supplier do not have experience conveying this material, then it may be necessary to run pilot tests to determine the level of attrition expected. Is the material abrasive? Wear, similar to attrition, is a strong function of velocity; therefore, if the material is abrasive, use a low-velocity system. Wear is often difficult to assess in pilot tests, because it occurs slowly and it is often not practical to accumulate enough run time in a lab to determine wear life. However, as a rule of thumb, if your material is greater than a 5 on the Mohs hardness scale, it is likely that abrasive wear will be significant in fully suspended dilute-phase systems.

54

www.aiche.org/cep/

April 2001

CEP

 Is the material hygroscopic? Hygroscopic materials exposed to humid air often become more difficult to handle. Buildup in the lines may become a problem. Perhaps, more importantly, ow problems may develop in the solids handling equipment downstream of the pneumatic conveying system. If the material is hygroscopic, then dry air may be needed. Tests can be run to determine how much moisture your material is likely to absorb during transit and while in storage. Is the material temperaturesensitive? Heat is generated as the conveying gas is compressed. When conveying materials that are sensitive to temperature, the amount of heat generated can cause line buildup, as well as downstream handling problems. If the material is sensitive to temperature, then it may be necessary to include a heat exchanger in the line. Pilot conveying tests can provide valuable insight into potential problems when other operating experience is not available.

early design stages, and making decisions based on process requirements and the characteristics of the material will increase the potential for success. But, the pneumatic conveying system is only a part of a process, and successful operation will require all parts of the process to work efficiently. Adopting a systems view, understanding not only the operation of the pneumatic conveying system, but also its interaction with the solids handling equipment upstream CEP and downstream, must be carefully considered.

< Discuss This Article! >

To join an online discussion about this article with the author and other readers, go to the ProcessCity Discussion Room for CEP articles at www.processcity.com/cep.

To sum up Processes that work as intended from the day of startup deliver the most economical value to the user. For new installations, being able to produce the target capacity and establishing a market position can mean the long-term viability of a business. When upgrading systems, extended production interruptions can mean not only a brief loss in revenue, but also an opportunity for the competition to make inroads. Therefore, careful planning upfront, rather than troubleshooting in the eld, is more important than ever. Understanding the fundamental operating principles of pneumatic conveying, asking the right questions at the

HERMAN PURUTYAN is vice president for Jenike & Johanson, Inc., Westford, MA ((978) 392-0300; Fax: (978) 392-9980; E-mail: hpurutyan@jenike.com; Web: www.jenike.com). Since joining Jenike & Johanson in 1991, he has designed reliable handling systems for a wide range of materials for the food, pharmaceutical, and chemical industries. He lectures frequently on the subject at AIChEs continuing education series, as well as at in-house courses to individual companies. He has published numerous articles on the field of bulk solids handling. He is the holder of two patents. Purutyan received his bachelors and masters of science in mechanical engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, MA, and his MBA from Babson College in Wellesley, MA. THOMAS G. TROXEL is vice president for Jenike & Johanson, Inc., San Luis Obispo, CA ((805) 541-0901; Fax: (805) 541-4680; E-mail: tgtroxel@slo.jenike.com). After graduating from college in 1981, he went to work at General Dynamics Co., prior to joining Jenike & Johanson. He helped to open the firms San Luis Obispo facility in 1982. Troxel has been involved in many aspects of the firms consulting and research activities on a wide range of projects, including flow properties, testing, modeling, blending, pneumatic conveying, and fluidization. He has been a major force behind the firms expansion of services in the areas of mechanical design engineering and supply of custom built equipment. The latter includes mass-flow screw feeders, portable antisegregation bins for pharmaceuticals, BINSERT tumble blenders, and storage bins for a wide variety of applications. He has published numerous articles and papers in the field of bulk solids handling, and lectures frequently on the subject both through professional organizations, such as AIChE, as well as to individual companies. Troxel is a graduate of California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) in San Luis Obispo, with a BS in engineering science. He was named the Outstanding Senior in the Engineering Science program. FRANCISCO CABREJOS is a consulting engineer for Jenike & Johanson Chile in Via del Mar, Chile ((+56) 32 690 59; Fax: (+56) 32 690 596; E-mail: jenikechile@entelchile.net). He has been consulting with the firm since 1995, and has undertaken more than 70 projects, mainly in the mining and materials handling industries. He is also a part-time professor at the Universidad Santa Mara, and is author of several technical papers in bulk solids handling and pneumatic conveying. Cabrejos studied mechanical engineering at the Universidad Tcnica Federico Santa Mara, Chile, and holds MS and PhD degrees from the University of Pittsburgh. His doctorate was awarded for experimental research in gas/solids suspension and pipeline flow. He received the 1994 Lewis F. Moody Award from ASME for the best paper in the Fluids Engineering Division.

Literature Cited
1. Reed, A. R., and M. S. A. Bradley, Advances in the Design of Pneumatic Conveying Systems: A United Kingdom Perspective, Bulk Solids Handling, 11 (1) (Mar. 1991). 2. Wypych, P. W., The Ins and Outs of Pneumatic Conveying, Proc., Reliable Flow of Particulate Solids III, Porsgrunn, Norway (Aug. 1113, 1999). 3. Prescott, J. K., et al., Bench-Scale Segregation Tests as a Predictor of Blend Sampling Error, paper presented at AAPS-PDA 2000. 4. Cabrejos, F. J., and G. E. Klinzing, Minimum Conveying Velocity in Horizontal Pneumatic Transport and the Pickup and Saltation Mechanisms of Solids Particles, Bulk Solids Handling, 14 (3), pp. 541550 (July/Sept. 1994). 5. Perry, R. H., and D. Green, Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York pp. 5-46, 5-48 (1984). 6. Klinzing, G. E. et al., Pneumatic Conveying of Solids: A Theoretical and Practical Approach (Powder Technology Series), 2nd ed., Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, FL (April 1997). 7. Purutyan, H., et al., Solve Solids Handling Problems by Retrotting, Chem. Eng. Progress, 94 (4), pp. 2739 (Apr. 1998). 8. Royal, T. A., and J. W. Carson, Fine Powder Flow Phenomena in Bins, Hoppers and Processing Vessels, Bulk 2000, London, (1991).

CEP

April 2001

www.aiche.org/cep/

55