GR-85-4

LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS OF A SLURRY PIPELINE FOR THE YUMA DESALTING PLANT

January 1985 Engineering and Research Center

artment of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation

Division of Research and Laboratory Services

Hydraulic Branch

7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of R e c l a m a t i o n

1, R E P O R T NO.

GR-85-4

4. T I T L E AND S U B T I T L E

.. ~ ~'~ . .: . ... . .~, - .. :: ............ :~ii~,~

Laboratory Investigations of a Slurry Pipeline for the Yuma Desalting Plant

7. AUTHOR(S)

K. W. Frizell

9. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N NAME AND ADDRESS

Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center Denver CO 80225

12. SPONSORING A G E N C Y NAME AND ADDRESS

Same

T E C H N I C A L REPORT STANDARD T I T L E PAGF 3. R E C I P I E N T ° S C A T A L O G NO.

5. R E P O R T D A T E

January 1985 6. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N CODE

D-1530

8. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N R E P O R T NO.

GR-85-4

10. WORK UNIT NO.

I I . C O N T R A C T OR GRANT NO.

13. T Y P E OF R E P O R T AND PERIOD C O V E R E D

14. SPONSORING A G E N C Y CODE

DIBR 15. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y NOTES

Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado

Editor: JMT(c) 16. A B S T R A C T

Laboratory tests were conducted to evaluate pumping a slurry of precipitated calcium car- bonate sludge and sedimentation basin grit to a disposal site. The sludge will be a waste product of a partial l ime-softening pretreatment process proposed for the Yuma Desalting Plant.

Hydraulic tests were conducted using a nominal 6-in i.d. pipeline loop. The general operation of this pipeline was observed. Total solids concentration, Mg(OH)2 (magnesium hydroxide) concentration, and pH level were varied in the tests. Friction losses, deposit ion velocities, rheological properties, and settl ing rates were measured.

17. KEY WORDS AND D O C U M E N T A N A L Y S I S

a. D E S C R I P T O R S - - * s l u d g e / sludge disposal/ *slurries/ pipelines/ slurry pipelines/ non- Newtonian f luids/ friction losses/ hydraulic models/ rheology/ pumping/ deposit ion ve loc i t y /desa l t i ng / to ta l solids concentrat ion

b. IDENTIF IERS- - "Yuma Desalting Plant, Ar izona/ Lower Colorado River/ Yuma De- salting Test Faci l i ty /Colorado School of Mines Research Institute

c. COSATI Field~Group 13B COWRR: 1302.1 SRIM:

18. D I S T R I B U T I O N S T A T E M E N T 19. S E C U R I T Y CLASS (THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED 20. S E C U R I T Y CLASS

(THIS PAGE) UNCLASSIFIED

Zl . NO. OF PAGE

30 22. PRICE

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I i I I I I I I I I I m

I I I i I

GR-85-4

LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS OF A SLURRY PIPELINE FOR THE YUMA DESALTING PLANT

by

K. W. Frizell

Hydraulics Branch Division of Research and Laboratory Services

Engineering and Research Center Denver, Colorado

January 1985

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ~ BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was conducted with the assistance of Daniel Brauer, Water Conveyance Branch, Division of Design, and John Ellis, Chemist, Division of Research and Laboratory Services. Jerry Fitzwater and Lee Elgin, both technicians with the Hydraulics Branch, Division of Research and Laboratory Services, assisted greatly in the model preparation and testing.

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserv- ing the environmental and cultural values of our nationa~ parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through out- door recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major respon- sibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. Administration.

The information contained in this report regarding commercial prod- ucts or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and is not to be construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the Bureau of Reclamation.

I I !

I I I I I I I II I I I I i I I I

I I I |

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i

CONTENTS

Page Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 1

In t roduct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; ............................................................................................................... 1

Summary and conc lus ions ............................................................................................................ 1

Hydraul ic tests ............................................................................................................................ , 3 The model ............................................................................................................................... 3 Mode l cal ibrat ion and shakedown run ........................................................................................ 3 Pipeline loop test procedures .................................................................................................... 3

Test resul ts ................................................................................................................................. 4 Standard chemical tes ts and rheo logy ....................................................................................... 4 Discussion and analysis ............................................................................................................ 6

Bib l iography ................................................................................................................................ 9

Table

1

T A B L E

Synops is of tes t runs ...................................................................................................... 5

Figure

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 14 15 16

F I G U R E S

Pipeline loop test faci l i ty w i t h 6- in i.d. pipe ....................................................................... 11 Mean l inear ve loc i ty vs. vo l tmeter reading for unl ined steel pipe and

asbes tos -cement pipe ................................................................................................. 12 Test loop data, run 3: sol ids - 17 percent, added gri t - 2 percent, pH - 9,

Mg(OH)2 - 3.01 percent .............................................................................................. 13 Test loop data, run 4: sol ids - 2 0 . 4 percent, added gri t - 2 percent, pH - 9,

Mg(OH)2 - 3.01 percent ............................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Test loop data, run 5: sol ids - 21.1 percent, added gri t - 2 percent, pH - 9,

Mg(OH)2 - 3.01 percent .............................................................................................. 15 Test loop data, run 6: sol ids - 2 2 . 4 percent, added gri t - 2 percent, pH - 9,

Mg(OH)2 - 3.01 percent .............................................................................................. 16 Test loop data, run 7: sol ids - 2 3 . 4 percent, no added grit, pH - 9,

Mg(OH)2 - 3.01 percent .............................................................................................. 17 Test loop data, run 8: sol ids - 3 8 . 6 percent, no added grit, pH - 9,

Mg(OH)2 - 3.01 percent .............................................................................................. 18 Test loop data, run 9: sol ids - 35 .6 percent, no added grit, pH - 11,

Mg(OH)2 - 4 .15 percent .............................................................................................. 19 Test loop data, run 10: sol ids - 37.1 percent, no added grit, pH - 11.3,

Mg(OH)2 - 5.21 percent ............................................................................................... 20 Test loop data, run 11 : sol ids - 3 4 . 2 percent, no added grit, pH - 11.0,

Mg(OH)2 - 6 .96 percent .............................................................................................. 21 Test loop data, run 12: sol ids - 37 .5 percent, no added grit, pH - 11.2,

- Mg(OH)2 - 7.7 percent ................................................................................................ 22 Sed iment sampler data, run 3 ......................................................................................... 23 Sed iment sampler data, run 6 ......................................................................................... 24 Sed iment sampler data, run 7 ......................................................................................... 25 Speci f ic grav i ty measured by hydromete r vs. to ta l sol ids concent ra t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

iii

C O N T E N T S - Continued

17 Quiescent set t l ing rates: pH - 9, Mg(OH)2 - 8 percent, tota l sol ids - 20 .8 to 53 .6 percent .............................................................................. 27

18 Quiescent set t l ing rates: pH - 11, Mg(OH)2 - 8 percent, tota l sol ids - 20 .8 to 53 .6 percent .............................................................................. 28

19 Quiescent set t l ing rates: pH - 11, Mg(OH)2 - 2 percent, to ta l sol ids - 16.3 to 48 .5 percent .............................................................................. 29

20 Frict ion fac tor vs. general ized Reynolds number, tes t loop data, runs 9-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

i v

I I I ,l I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I

I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I, I

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to aid in the design of a slurry disposal pipeline for the Yuma Desalting

Plant. Current plans propose mixing waste calcium carbonate sludge and sedimentation basin grit

with water and pumping it through a pipeline to a disposal site.

Changes in plant operation and uncertainty of the length of pipeline needed prompted this study.

Previous tests performed at the CSMRI (Colorado School of Mines Research Institute) [1]° and the

YDTF (Yuma Desalting Test Facility) [2] were reported in March and May 1978, respectively. These

studies used 2- and 2V2-in-diameter pipes in their test loops. No rheological data were collected

in the CSMRI study and the YDTF rheology was incomplete; therefore, scaling these test results

to include different pipe diameters was impossible.

INTRODUCTION

A 90-Mgal/d desalting plant is currently under construction near Yuma, Arizona. This plant will

use reverse osmosis membrane reactors to treat Colorado River water before it enters Mexico.

A partial lime-softening pretreatment system will be used to treat the feedwater to the desalting

plant. Up to 300 tons of calcium carbonate sludge and 30 tons of sedimentation basin grit, which

can accumulate in the pretreatment system each day, will have to be transported to a disposal

site. A slurry pipeline is being considered as a means to transport this waste.

Because this slurry, even in small solids concentrations, behaves as a non-Newtonian fluid, the

traditional equations used to design water-conveyance systems are not applicable. The nonlin-

earities of the fluid must be defined before a confident design can be attempted.

A laboratory pumping test is the best method for defining critical f low parameters. However,

because of the difficulty in collecting accurate and complete rheological data, scaling pumping test

results to include other pipe diameters can be precluded. Without good rheological data, pipeline

loop data can be expanded to include only pipe diameters 1 inch larger or smaller than the pipe

diameter tested.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Laboratory data were collected to evaluate pumping waste sludgeand grit as a slurry to a disposal

site. The pipeline loop tests used a nominal 6-in i.d. pipe with sludge from the YDTF. Test runs

• Numbers in brackets refer to entries in the bibliography.

were made varying the total solids concentration, pH, sedimentation-basin grit content, and

Mg(OH)2 content.

1. All slurries tested in the pipeline loop behaved as non-Newtonian fluids in laminar flow for

solids concentrations from 17 to 39 percent by weight.

2. Friction losses increased with increasing solids concentration.

3. Friction losses increased with increasing Mg(OH)2 concentration, particularly when the slurry

pH was 11 and above.

. The addition of sedimentation-basin grit compounded the problem of heterogeneity be-

cause the larger (heavier) particles settled at higher pipeline velocities than the fine calcium

carbonate sludge particles.

. Deposition velocities increased slightly with an increase in solids concentration. However,

increases in deposition velocities were even more evident with an increase in Mg(OH)2

concentration.

6. The pipeline operating velocity should be at least 1 ft/s in excess of the deposition velocity

of the first settled particles.

7. Rheological investigations showed that viscosity increased with increasing shear rate (di-

latent behavior).

. Viscosity tended to increase quite dramatically with solids concentration. The pH level, in

conjunction with the Mg(OH)2 concentration, was an important variable. The pH level in-

dicated that the more basic the slurry, the higher the viscosity.

9. Comparison of quiescent settling rates showed important general trends that can be related

to the flow properties of the slurry.

10. The 6-in pipeline loop showed significantly less friction loss than the previously tested 2-

and 21/2-in pipeline loops. Typical Newtonian scaling laws cannot be used to predict the

actual friction-loss values.

2

I II I I I I i I i I I I I I I I i I I

I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I

H Y D R A U L I C T E S T S

The Model

The pipeline loop facility used for the hydraulic tests is shown on figure 1. The loop consisted of

a 6 x 6 Denver SRL centrifugal slurry pump and approximately 200 ft of pipe. Friction head loss

was measured with differential manometers in two horizontal test sections. The first test section

was a 60-ft length of epoxy-lined asbestos-cement pipe; the second section was a 40-ft length

of heavy-walled unlined steel pipe. Prior to model construction, measurements showed a mean

i.d. (inside diameter) of 0.48 ft for the asbestos-cement pipe and 0.532 ft for the steel pipe. A

6-ft length of clear plastic pipe was used to observe f low conditions and settling characteristics.

The sludge used in the laboratory tests was a product of the pilot plant at the YDTF. It had been

.dewatered to a solids concentration of about 65 percent by weight and shipped in 55-gal drums.

A propeller mixer mixed the sludge, grit, and water into a slurry in the mixing tank. The pump

circulated slurry from the mixing tank through the pipeline and back to the tank. Flow rates in the

pipeline were set by throttling a gate valve directly downstream from the pump. A Foxboro 6-in

magnetic f lowmeter was used to measure the f low rate of slurry through the pipeline. The flow-

meter was calibrated with a volumetric tank. A high-speed digital voltmeter monitored the output

of the flowmeter. A pitot-type sediment sampler was used to gather slurry samples at various

levels in the pipe.

Model Calibration and Shakedown Run

Testing in the 6-in pipeline loop began with clear water in a calibration and equipment shakedown

run. Water was pumped through the loop to ensure that all elements of the model were working

properly. A range of f low rates was set and data points were gathered for the magnetic f lowmeter

calibration. Flow was diverted into the volumetric tank and timed for several f low rates. Some

additional calibration points were taken at a solids concentration of 4 percent by weight. Using

the respective cross-sectional areas of the two kinds of pipe, a curve was developed showing

mean linear velocity versus voltmeter reading (fig. 2). This calibration assumed that the pipe was

flowing full and that the pipe area was unrestricted by deposition of solids in the pipe bottom.

Pipeline Loop Test Procedure

For each test, the sludge, grit, and water quantities were adjusted to achieve a targeted slurry

mixl The slurry was circulated through the pipeline at several different f low rates. At each flow

rate, several tasks were completed:

3

1. The digital voltmeter reading was recorded.

2. The pressure differentials on the manometers were recorded.

3. The flow was observed in the clear plastic pipe; and comments were recorded.

4. A slurry sample was taken from the mixing tank to determine the specific gravity by hy-

drometer and the total solids concentration.

5. Slurry samples were taken at two levels in the pipe with a pitot-type sediment sampler to

determine any variation in the solids concentration.

TEST RESULTS

After the initial calibration and shakedown runs, several test runs were made. These test runs

were designed to evaluate varying the total solids concentration from approximately 20 to 40

percent (simulating the range of combined sludge and grit load expected at the plant), adjusting

the pH level up to 11, and increasing the solid Mg(OH)2 concentration up.to about 8 percent by

weight. The test procedure described in the previous section was followed for each run. A synopsis

of the runs is shown in table 1.

In addition to the results presented in table 1, an estimate of the deposition velocity of the slurry

was made by comparing the solids concentration of samples taken from the pipeline.The samples

were extracted from locations along the vertical centerline of the pipe, 1 inch below the crown

and 1 inch above the invert. Sediment sampler data from runs 3, 6, and 7, are presented on figures

13, 14, and 15, respectively. The deposition velocity is noted by Vd.

Standard Chemical Tests and Rheology

Chemical tests on the slurry were conducted by the Chemistry Laboratory staff. Several tests and

measurements were taken on each slurry sample. These tests included percent solids by weight,

specific gravity measured by hydrometer, pH level, percent grit by weight, and percent Mg(OH)2

by weight. In addition, quiescent settling rates and viscosities were measured for a variety of

slurry samples.

The total solids concentration by weight was determined by the techniques described in Standard

Methods, [5]. The sample was evaporated to near dryness on a steam bath, then oven-dried at

4

I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I i I I

Table 1. - Synopsis of test runs.

Run No. Total solids Added grit Specific pH Magnesium Figure No. concentration concentration gravity hydroxide

% b y w t % b y w t % b y w t

I I I i I I i I I

1 3 - 1.018 9 3.01 -

2 14.1 - 1.100 9 3.01 -

3" 17 (I)** 2 1.136 9 3.0~ 3 8 (F) 1.048

4 20.4 (I) 2 1.130 9 3.01 4 17.5 (F) 1.120

5 21.1 (I) 2 1.152 9 3.01 5 18.9 (F) 1.120

6 22.4 (I) 2 1.160 9 3.01 6 16.9 (F) 1.112

7 23.4 (I) 2 1.166 9 3.01 7 17.5 (F) 1.120

8 38.6 (I) - 1.340 9 3.01 8 37.6 (F) 1.315

9 35.6 (I) - 1.300 11 4.15 9 33.6 (F) 1.280

10 37.1 (I) - - 11.3 5.21 10 36.7 (F)

11 34.2 (I) - - 11.0 6.96 11 33.8 (F)

12 37.5 (I) - - 11.2 7.7 12 35.7 (F)

• During run 3 it was noted that water was being added to the pipeline loop through the packing gland of the slurry pump. In subsequent

I I I I I i i

runs, sludge was added to the mixing tank throughout the test run to keep the solids concentration as constant as possible. °• (I) and (F) denote the solids concentration at the start (initial) and end (final) of the test run, respectively.

105 °C overnight. The dry weight was compared with the wet weight, and the percent of total

solids by weight was calculated. The total solids concentration was determined for each sample

taken during the pipeline loop tests and for each sample mixed in the chemistry laboratory for

additional settling and viscosity measurements. The specific gravity was measured by hydrometer.

Two different hydrometers were used because of the large range of specific gravities measured.

Figure 16 shows the relationship between slurry specific gravity and total solids concentration.

Specific gravity was not measurable with the hydrometer for some of the slurry mixtures tested.

A combination electrode meter was used to determine the pH level at room temperature. A series

of acid insolubility tests determined the concentration of sedimentation-basin grit. The Mg(OH)2

concentration was determined by comparing the sample with a 5-percent Mg(OH)2 standard, using

atomic absorption spectrophotometry.

The settling velocity is one of the more important pipeline design parameters. The value of settling

velocity can best be determined by actual pipeline tests; however, through quiescent settling tests,

some valuable information can be learned about the consistency and dewaterability of the slurry.

The quiescent settling tests consisted of placing a well-mixed sample in a graduated cylinder and

recording the location of the settled interface at various'times. A comparison of figures 17 and

18 shows the effect of pH on settling for slurries ranging from 20.8 to 53.6 percent total solids

concentration by weight with an 8-percent Mg(OH)2 concentration. Figure 19 shows a group of

slurries at a pH of 11 with a Mg(OH)2 concentration of 2 percent.

Discussion and Analysis

Non-Newtonian fluids are defined as materials that do not conform to a direct proportionality

between shear stress and shear rate. An almost infinite number of rheological relationships exist

for this class of fluids. Through experimentation, a great number of these fluids were found to be

described by a two-constant power function of the form:

( -dv )n 3= K --~ (1)

where: = shear stress

K = viscous consistency factor (pseudoviscosity)

-dv dr - shear rate for f low in a circular pipe

n = power law index

The power law model, as this function is called, is empirical in nature. Newtonian behavior is

described by the power law for the special case where n equals 1 and K equals the Newtonian

viscosity. Values of n between 0 and 1 characterize pseudoplastic fluids for which the apparent

viscosity,/1 (du/dr), decreases with increasing shear rate (p is the viscosity). Conversely, values

of n greater than 1 correspond to dilatent fluids, for which the apparent viscosity increases with

shear rate.

The model data was analyzed using the power law and a modification of Prandtl's mixing length

concept detailed by Hanks [3]. Using this model with the Fanning friction factor, f=21:w/~ 2, and

the Metzger-Reed generalized Reynolds number (eq 2), allowed meaningful presentation of the

model data.

I I I I I !

I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I

i

( n Re ~ = 8 4 + 3n (2)

where:

p = density

= mean velocity

rw = pipe radius

~w = shear stress at the pipe wall

Plotting In APD/4L vs. In 8~/D (where: AP = pressure drop in length L, and D = pipe diameter)

yields the value of n, the power law index, as the slope of this line. Then the mixing-length model

can be applied and plots of the friction, f, vs. generalized Reynolds number can be made.

The pipeline loop data taken in runs 9 through 12 are shown in the form described above on figure

20. All the data points on the plot fall on the laminar-flow line defined by f= 16/Re'. This is

somewhat surprising, especially because some data points were taken at pipeline velocities in

excess of 10 ft/s. Dilatent.fluids, while having lower critical Reynolds numbers for transistion than

Newtonian fluids, also have longer transition zones. In this slurry flow, the boundary layer is highly

stable; this aids in keeping the f low laminar. Unlike water, a fairly large disturbance is necessary

to push the boundary layer into unsteady behavior and induce turbulent f low [4]. In the laboratory

test loop, a stable boundary layer developed in the relatively short measuring sections, leading

one to believe that the prototype flow behavior will be similar.

Undoubtedly, areas of turbulent f low existed in the model and will exist in the prototype. Most of

the literature suggests that non-Newtonian fluids will behave as Newtonian fluids in the turbulent

region. Any major disturbance in the flow, such as valves or elbows, will probably cause turbulent

f low to occur. However, a relatively short, straight, undisturbed section of pipe is all that is required

to change the f low back to laminar.

The shortness of the pipeline test loop, compared with the proposed prototype lengths, is certain

to cause some differences in f low characteristics. Probably the most easily predictable difference

will be a higher deposition velocity in the prototype. For this reason, the prototype design velocity

should be at least 1 ft/s above the deposition velocity found in the model.

Rheological data can allow the designer to scale friction losses for different pipe diameters and

roughnesses. However,• many problems can prevent accurate and complete viscometric meas-

urements. With a pseudohomogeneous fluid, such as this slurry, particles can settle during the

viscosity measurement - effectively changing the total solids concentration of the sample. When

7

this gradual settling occurs, the fluid appears to be thixotropic (or having a viscosity that is de-

pendent on the amount.of shearing it has experienced). However, what appears to be thixotropic

behavior by this slurry can be explained simply by the drop in solids concentration as particles

settle during the viscosity measurements.

In practice, the rheological properties of a slurry are not unique over a wide range of shear stresses.

Therefore, rheological parameters should be evaluated for the expected wall shear stresses in the

actual prototype application. Designers should be careful to avoid scaling parameters outside the

range covered by any rheological measurements.

The best source for slurry pipeline design parameters is from data taken on a model pipeline loop

with a similar diameter.

I D

il I !

il II il II i II II g

I I !

il I ii

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Pouska, G. A., Hydraufic Testing of Sludge and Grit, Colorado School of Mines Research Institute, Project C70862, Golden, CO, March 1978.

[2] Clark, D., and D. Young, Yuma Desalting Test Facility Sludge Pumping Tests, Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Project Office, May 1978.

[3] Hanks, R. W., and B. L~ Ricks, "Transitional and Turbulent Pipeflow of Pseudoplastic Fluids," Journal of Hydronautics, vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 39-44, January 1975.

[4] Schlichting, H., Boundary Layer Theory, 7th ed., pp. 456-465, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1979.

[5] Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th ed., American Public Works Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation, pp. 96-98, 1975.

Dodge,D. W., and A. B. Metzner, "Turbulent Flow of Non-Newtonian Systems," ICHEJournal, vol. 5, pp. 189-204, 1959.

Eirich, F. R., Rheology: Theory and Appfications, vol. 3, Academic Press, New York and London, 1960.

Frizell, K. W., "Progress of Laboratory Studies - Yuma Slurry Pipeline," Internal Memorandum, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, November 2, 1982.

Hanks, R. W., "A Theory of Laminar Flow Stability," AICHE Journal, vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 25-28, 1969.

Hanks, R. W., "Low Reynolds Number Turbulent Pipeline Flow of Pseudohomogenous Slurries," Proc. Fifth International Conference on the Hydraufic Transport of Sofids in Pipes,'" Hanover, Germany, May 8-11, 1978.

Hanks, R. W., and B. H. Dadice, "Theoretical Analysis of the Turbulent Flow of Non-Newtonian Slurries in Pipes," AICHEJournal, vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 554-557, 1971.

Schroeder, R.C.M., Determination of Non-Newtonian Fluid Properties with Simple Pipe-flow Measurements, MIT Hydrodynamics Laboratory Report No. 95, June 1966.

Sellgren, A., Rheological Analysis of Industrial Slurries: An Investigation of the Pipeline Transportation Characteristics of Two Limestone Products, WREL Research Report, TULEA 1982:25, University of Lulea, Sweden, 1982.

9

m m m m m m I m m mm m m m m m m m m m

( - Gote valve ~ _ . ~ Mixing "tank w/mixer

~ _ _ _ . _ . - - - - - - ~ " ' - " :

pump

Ouick closing valve

Volumetric fonk 48"x 43" Dia.

YUMA SLURRY PIPELINE LOOP Test facility

t f Dresser-coupling

ure fops . ~ Asbesfos cement pipe

Monomefer board

Morrow Point model boundary

g, Tubing

Pressure to \

\ High speed digital volfmeter •

Flow meter controller and digifol voltmeter hook-up) /

tops ~ s s e r coupling

Steel pipe.,

Pressure fops (4) manifold - - - - - - - - -

\ c2-3' Secfmn dear

acrylic plastic pipe : Magnetic flow meter

Figure 1. - Pipeline loop test facility with 6-in i.d. Pipe.

8.8

7.8

B.8

~. 5,8 .P

O >

v

I--

Q_ ,--- 4.8 C3

ILl

l..l.l X 3m C3

3.8 14-

2.8,

1.8

o o ^~ PIPE

Y: E~X÷ Lg74s ~E~7 A A STEEI. PIPE

Y = E578 X÷ 1.975 s C0= E~

~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

VELOCITY (ft/eeo)

Figure 2. - Mean linear velocity vs. voltmeter reading: unlined steel pipe and asbestos-cement pipe.

12

I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Q O -

.e.g

O

¢4-

~D

L f,..

e-... i

O

O

4.)

v

O') ( .D

.._J

Z C~

I-... (._.)

rv," I..a.

1~.8,

g.g

B.g

1.8

B.g

4.g

3.g

P~g

Z.g

0 o k~ PIPE ± ~IEEL PIPE

i Lg

VELOCITY (ft/eeo)

Figure 3. - Test l oop da ta , run 3: so l ids - 17 pe rcen t , a d d e d gr i t - 2 pe rcen t , pH - 9, Mg(OH)= - 3 . 01 pe rcen t .

13

0 t:t_

°r4

0

<4-

t ~

(.. t . ::)

O~

0

v

c: )

z

t,...,-

t,J.,.

it, g.

lLg

9,g

8,g

?,g

6.g

~g

4.g

3,8

~.g

1.g

C

P-

o A-C PIPE ~rEEL PIPE

~ l | l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I : I :

VELOCITY (ftleeo)

Figure, 4. - Test loop data, run 4: sol ids - 2 0 . 4 percent , added gri t - 2 percent , pH - 9, Mg(OH)2 - 3.01 percent .

14

I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

ILB

~g

8.B

• " 7,~

o

e~ B.g

(.. (..

= 5.8

O 4.)

4,g C:) __1

Z

2.B

I.B

0 ,A

0 ^-C PIPE ± STEEL PIPE

~ ' ~ . . . . l I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I

VELOCITY (ft/~eo)

Figure 5. - Test loop data, run 5: sol ids - 21.1 percent , added gr i t - 2 percent , pH - 9, Mg(OH)2 - 3.01 percent .

15

~8

11.8

""4 7.8

Cl-- 0 ..p

Cl--

B.8

(_ (. :3

® 5.8 <4- 0 .P

v

03 4.8 03 CD _.J

Z

I--- 3.8

2.8

1.8

o o -̂C PIPE ,, ± STEEL PIPE

VELOCITY (£tl~o)

i !

Figure 6 . - Test loop data, run 6: solids - 22 .4 'pe rcen t , added grit - 2 percent, pH - 9, Mg(OH)2 - 3 . 0 1 percent.

16

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I

I l~.g

I

"¢.~

N 8.B

g I ~ 5.g

N

i ze

I Lg,

I .Lg

I =

o o -̂C PIPE ~ STEEL PIPE

. . . . . I I I I I i i i i

VELOCITY

/ /

I I I I I I I I I I

(ft/eec)

F igure 7. - T e s t l o o p d a t a , run 7: s o l i d s - 2 3 . 4 p e r c e n t , no a d d e d g d t , p H - 9 , Mg(OH)2 - 3.0.1 p e r c e n t .

17

ot=l f~

0

4 ) <4-

0

4 ) <4- v

O3 O3 ( :3 . . J

Z E3 0.--o

I - - L . ) 0"--4 ISE LI_

leg

9.8

B.8

?.B

EB

5.B

4.B

3.8

2.8

1.8

0 o A--C PIE STEEL PIPE

VELOCITY(Ft/eeo)

Figure 8. - Test loop data, run 8: sol ids - 3 8 . 6 percent , no added grit, pH - 9, Mg(OH)= - 3 .01 percent. •

18

I I !

I I i I !

I i I I

i I I I i I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

1B, B.

9.8

8.8

0 (=_ • ,-' 7 ,8 , 0._

<4- 0

.p

m= B.8

(.

® 5.8

0

.p

v

Co 4.8 Co c~ _.J

z c:)

I--. r_,, 3.8 m,,.

o o -̂C PIPE m. A STEEI. PIPE

2.8

1.8

. 8.8, - .

- VELOCITY (£t,/~eo)

Figure 9 . ' - Test loop data, run 9: solids - 35 .6 percent, no added grit, pH - 11, Mg(OH)2 - 4 .15 percent.

19

. e l

G -

O

(.. D

e..,,-I

0

v

(Jr) O~ C~

z

L~

C~ u_

1L8

g.8

8,8

7.8

B.8

$8

4.8

!18

o o -̂C PIPE ± ± ~l~B. PIPE

2.0

I.B

Lg Me= m m ~=~ ~ m m m W

==S , ~ ~ ¢ ~ -..F u'S ¢¢S =-.: ,-.4 ¢:~

VELOCITY (ft/eec)

Figure 10. - Test loop data, run 10: solids - 37.1 percent, no added grit, pH - 11.3, Mg(OH)2 - 5.21 percent.

20

I I I I I I I l I I I l I I I i I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

IL@,

~B

&B

• ,4 7 ,~ eL.

¢4- 0

4~ (4-

)w. {. (. 3

¢4- 0

u~ 4.1] U 3 C 3 _.J

F.-

e ~

ZB

1.B

B.B , , d

o o A< PIPE z~ A SEE PIPE

I | ! e I | I ! ! | | e |

VELOCITY ( f t /~o) c~ o:5 ,:~ uS

Figure 11. - Test loop data, run 11 : sol ids - 3 4 . 2 percent , no added grit, pH - 11.0, Mg(OH)2 - 6 . 96 percent.

21

0

. e l

CL

0

L (.. D

0

v

O3 CO 0 ._1

Z

I,--,4

I.--- (._)

t '~ 1.1_

18.8,

g,g

8,g

7,g

6.8

Sg

4,g

3.g

~g

l.g

~g . . . . . . . i i

VELOCITY (Ft /seo)

o o ^-C PIPE A ~ PIPE

I

e d

Figure 12. - Test loop data, run 12: solids - 37.5 percent, no added grit, pH - 11.2, Mg(OH)2 - 7.7 percent.

22

I I I I i I ! ! !

i i I i I I I i I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i

N V

z cD

rv-

Z LIJ ( .J Z (:D 0

Cr)

._J C3 0")

._ i

I - - E:) I---

I~B

I@.8

5.B

Lg m . .a

I 1 I I

I ~vJ

0 n

W ~ Im~ m

VELOCITY (£ t l~o)

Figure 13. - Sediment sampler data, run 3.

23

o 1 ~ WI~ n I-~ ~ IN-t

m imp ~ ~ 1 L-~ ¢=5 05. . , !

;5.8.

~.8

8

t~g =< E-

o = ( J

._J

I - -

I - -

5,8

i

L

il,8~ w m

]

I i~vd [. :

m

I I i

I i

" |

!

I I i

0 0 I-in ~Iow ."I I-in above invert

VELOCITY (ft/eeo)

Figure 14. - Sediment sampler data, run-6.

24

I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I

v

z CZ)

I - - -

t ~

z LIJ ¢...) Z C:) (..)

O3 t--i

C~ 0'3

__J

F-- C~ I---

LS.g

15.8

1B.B,

S.g

Lg m

1

/ f

I

f I ~.vd

I=

o r l

,= ~ ' ,

V E L O C I T Y ( f t , / e e o )

Figure 15. - Sediment sampler data, run 7.

25

0 l-in ~Io , m l - i , dxr~ irNart

i I

N v

c o

.__1 0

..-I

I.-- 0

I--- Z LI.J (._.)

L.I.I 0 -

~ 8

15.~

1LB

5.6

0.e,~ m .-.I

[]

o/ [ ]

SPECIFIC GRAVITY BY HYDROMETER

Figure 16. - Specif ic gravi ty measured by hydrometer vs. total sol ids concentrat ion.

26

.--S

I I I i l I i I I I I I I I I i I i I

I I I I I I I II- I I I I I I I I I I I

v

r~

X

,st

Z X

. J (:3 (.J

bu C~ F-- Z LI3 (-~

98,8 ' B

@8,g.

69.8,

~ g .

4iLg.

18

28.8

1&@

Z,g

o o 29. 8I TOTE SIIIDS o o 25.@I TOTAL SOLIDS o o 33.2% TOTAL SOLIDS ~, ± ,~.7I ~AL SIl~

¢ o 45, 3Z "TOTAL SOLIDS " " ~= 53, 6Z TOTAL SOLIOS

t ! I I I I I I

TIME (rain)

Figure 17. - Quiescent sett l ing rates: pH - 9, Mg(OH)2 - 8 percent , tota l sol ids - 2 0 . 8 to 5 3 . 6 percent .

27

N v

X

m,J (..)

li!8.8,

~8

I]@,B,

~H.

t B .

48.8

~ 8

28,e

1B.B

&B aGI

I

I

I I I

o o • 8% TOTE SOLIDS o o 25, 8I TOTAl. SOLIOS [] D ~ 2% TOTE 9lIgS u .~ ~ ?% TOTE SOLIDS

¢ o 45. 31 TOTAl. SOI.IDS ~X 53. BX TOTAL SOLIDS

I I I I I L I I I

TIME (rain)

Figure 18. - Quiescent sett l ing rates: pH - 11, Mg(OH)2 - 8 percent, total s o l i d s - 20 .8 to 53 .6 percent.

I

i I I i I

I 28

1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

N v

ILl X I-,,-4

X

Z ,~-

I I

~_~

I .L C )

I--- Z IL l

I L l 13_

~B

7&B.

66.B

56.11

46.6,

~!.8.

I~.B

0

o

.O

0

0 16. ~ TOTAL S~IDS o ~-31 TOTE SOLI~ [] 29. 5! TOTAL SaIOS

35. ~ TOT~. SOLIDS

0 41.2Z TOTAL SOLIDS

48.5X TOTAL SOLIOS

L8 I , , , , ,

TIME (rain)

Figure 19. - Quiescent sett l ing rates: pH - 11, Mg(OH)2 - 2 percent , tota l sol ids - 16.8 to 4 8 . 5 percent.

29

8. l U -

(.O ~ O

)

E O F- lJ

b.

Z O I'4

F- L)

b.

L 8 5 B

0. B I~

8. BB5

8. N 1

0 " - A-C PIPE., / k . STEEL.

& - 1 2

r u n . ~ - 1 2

i _ , , I . , L . . i , I , , I I , , , l

G E N E R A L I Z E D R E Y N O L D S NUMBER -- R o '

Figure 20. - Friction factor vs. generalized Reynolds number, test loop data, runs 9-12.

i l a l l i l l l m a i l / / l l i l

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Mission of the Bureau of Reclamation

The Bureau of Reclamation o f the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for the development and conservation of the Nation's water resources in the Western United Stateg

The Bureau's original purpose "to provlae for the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands in the West" today covers a wide range of interre- la ted functions. These include pro viding municipal and industr/'al water supplies; hydroelectric power generation;.irrigation water for agricul- ture," water quality improvement," flood control; river navigation; river regulation and control; fish and wildlife enhancement," outdoor recrea- tion; and research on water-related design, construction, materials, atmospheric management, and wind and solar power.

Bureau programs most frequently are the result of close cooperation with the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, States, local govern- ments, academic institutions, water-user organizations, and other concerned group~

A free pamphlet is available from the Bureau entitled "Publications for Sale." It describes some of t~e technical publications currently available, their cost, and how to order them. The pamphlet can be obtained upon request from the Bureau of Reclamation, At tn D-922, P O Box 25007, Denver Federal Center, Denver CO 80225-0007.