Available on line at

Association of the Chemical Engineers AChE

www.ache.org.rs/CICEQ
Chemical Industry & Chemical Engineering Quarterly 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

SANDIP KUMAR LAHIRI

K.C. GHANTA
Department Of Chemical
Engineering, Nit, Durgapur,
West Bengal, India
SCIENTIFIC PAPER
UDC 66:532.4
DOI 10.2298/CICEQ091030034L

CI&CEQ

SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

An attempt has been made in the present study to develop a generalized slurry
flow model using CFD and utilize the model to predict concentration profile.
The purpose of the CFD model is to gain better insight into the solid liquid slurry flow in pipelines. Initially a three-dimensional model problem was developed
to understand the influence of the particle drag coefficient on the solid concentration profile. The preliminary simulations highlighted the need for correct modelling of the inter phase drag force. The various drag correlations available in
the literature were incorporated into a two-fluid model (Euler-Euler) along with
the standard k- turbulence model with mixture properties to simulate the turbulent solid-liquid flow in a pipeline. The computational model was mapped on
to a commercial CFD solver FLUENT6.2 (of Fluent Inc., USA). To push the envelope of applicability of the simulation, recent data from Kaushal (2005) (with
solid concentration up to 50%) was selected to validate the three dimensional
simulations. The experimental data consisted of water-glass bead slurry at 125
and 440-micron particle with different flow velocity (from 1 to 5 m/s) and overall
concentration up to 10 to 50% by volume. The predicted pressure drop and
concentration profile were validated by experimental data and showed excellent agreement. Interesting findings came out from the parametric study of velocity and concentration profiles. The computational model and results discussed in this work would be useful for extending the applications of CFD models
for simulating large slurry pipelines.
Key words: CFD; slurry flow; drag coefficient; concentration profile; velocity profile.

Particle transport through pipes is an important

operation in many industries including food, pharmaceutical, chemical, oil, mining, construction and power
generation industries. In many of these applications
the carrier fluid may be highly viscous and may have
a Newtonian or non-Newtonian rheology and flow is
usually turbulent. It has been a serious concern of
researchers around the world to develop accurate
models for pressure drop and concentration distribution in slurry pipelines over the years.
The need and benefits of accurately predicting
velocity profiles, concentration profiles and pressure
drop of slurry pipelines during the design phase is
enormous as it gives better selection of slurry pumps,
optimization of power consumption and thereby helps
maximize the economic benefit. Concentration distribution may be used to determine the parameters of
direct importance (mixture and solid flow rates) and
Correspondening author: S.K. Lahiri, Department Of Chemical
Engineering, Nit, Durgapur, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: sk_lahiri@hotmail.com
Paper received: 29 November, 2009
Paper revised: 20 April, 2010
Paper accepted: 22 June, 2010

secondary effects such as wall abrasion and particle

degradation. The recent works of Kaushal and Tomita
[1] and Kumar et al. [2-4] are worth mentioning in the
field of concentration distribution in slurry pipelines.
Despite significant research efforts, prediction of
solid concentration profile in slurry pipelines is still an
open problem for design engineers. Design of slurry
pipelines relies on empirical correlations obtained from
experimental data. These correlations are prone to
great uncertainty as one departs from the limited database that supports them. Moreover, for higher values of solid concentration, very little experimental data on local solid concentration is available because of
the difficulties in the measurement techniques. Considering this, it would be most useful to develop computational models, which will allow a priori estimation
of the solid concentration profile over the pipe cross
section.
In spite of the inadequate fundamental knowledge required for the formulation and modelling of
multiphase turbulent flows, the need to predict slurry
behaviour handled in various industries has motivated
work, aiming at obtaining approximate solutions. Ef-

295

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

forts are still on to develop more reasonable correlation based models for the prediction of concentration
profile in pipes and in this direction, the work of Roco
and Shook [5,6], Gillies et al. [7,8], Mukhtar [9] and
Kaushal et al. [10] is worth mentioning. Most of the
equations available in the literature for predicting vertical solids concentration profiles in slurry pipeline are
empirical in nature and have been developed based
on limited data for materials having equi-sized or narrow size-range particles with very low concentrations.
Most of the earlier studies on slurry pipeline systems
are based on moderate volumetric concentrations of
solids (say up to 20%). Much larger concentrations
now coming into common use show more complicated behaviour. Also in any practical situation, the
solids are coarser in size with broad particle grading
being transported at large flow velocities.
An attempt has been made in the present study
to develop a generalized slurry flow model using CFD
and utilize the model to predict the concentration profile. A comprehensive computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) model was developed in the present study to
gain insight into the solid-liquid slurry flow in pipelines.
In recent years, CFD becomes a powerful tool
being used in areas like fluid flow, heat/mass transfer,
chemical reactions and related phenomena by solving
mathematical equations that govern these processes
using a numerical algorithm on a computer.
A brief review of recent literature shows little
progress in simulating flow in slurry pipelines using
CFD. For solidliquid multiphase flows, the complexity
of modelling increases considerably and this remains
an area for further research and development. Due to
the inherent complexity of multiphase flows, from a
physical as well as a numerical point of view, general applicable CFD codes are non-existent. The reasons for the lack of fundamental knowledge on multiphase flows are three-fold:
1) Multiphase flow is a very complex physical
phenomenon where many flow types can occur (solid
liquid, gassolid, gasliquid, liquidliquid, etc.) and
within each flow type several possible flow regimes
can exist (e.g. in slurry flow four regimes exist, namely homogeneous flow, heterogeneous flow, flow
with moving bed and saltation).
2) The complex physical laws and mathematical
treatment of phenomena occurring in the presence of
the two phases (interface dynamics, coalescence,
break-up, drag, solidliquid interaction,...) are still largely underdeveloped. For example, to date there is
still no agreement on the governing equations. In addition, proposed constitutive models are empirical but

296

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

often lack experimental validation for the conditions

they are applied under.
3) The numerics for solving the governing equations and closure laws of multiphase flows are extremely complex. Very often multiphase flows show
inherent oscillatory behaviour, requiring costly transient solution algorithms. Almost all CFD codes apply
extensions of single-phase solving procedures, leading to diffusive or unstable solutions, and require very
short time-steps.
In spite of the major difficulties mentioned above,
attempts have been made to simulate solid-liquid flow
in pipelines. A small number of studies is focused on
predicting the solid concentration distribution in the
experimental slurry pipelines. Although some degree
of success is reported, a number of limitations are
apparent. Considering the limitations in the published
studies, the present work has been undertaken to
systematically develop a CFD based model to predict
the solid concentration profile in slurry pipeline. The
aim is to explore the capability of CFD to model such
complex flow.
In this work, a solid suspension in a fully developed pipe flow was simulated. The two-fluid model
based on the Eulerian-Eulerian approach along with a
standard k- turbulence model with mixture properties
was used. The computational model developed in this
work was used to simulate solid-liquid flow in the experimental setup used by Kaushal et al. [11]. The
model predictions were evaluated by comparing predictions with the experimental data.
BACKGROUND WORKS
CFD studies on solid-liquid slurry flow in pipelines have not been widely performed as observed
from the literature and majority of the documented
data focuses on empirical correlations of concentration profile of water-based slurries of fine particles.
There is, therefore, a clear need for experimental data
and CFD models to describe the flow of large particles in Newtonian fluids as they are relevant to a
number of industrial applications such as the conveying of particulate food mixtures, gravel, and coal
lumps.
The use of CFD, however, has been hampered
by lack of understanding of the complex solidliquid
flows and that result has only been addressed in a
handful of studies [12-21].
Detailed measurements of the flow field and
pressure drop in these systems are scarce. Some
limited studies experimented with magnetic resonance imaging [22] and ultrasound Doppler velocimetry

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

[23]. Barigou et al. used positron emission particle

tracking (PEPT) to study the flow of coarse (d = 5 or
10 mm) nearly neutrally-buoyant alginate particles in
shear-thinning carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) fluids
and reported information on flow regimes, solid phase
velocity profiles, and particle passage time distributions [21]. Computational modelling in this specific
area has been even more limited. In a rare attempt,
Krampa-Morlu et al. used CFD to study the flow features of coarse aqueous solidliquid slurries in turbulent upward flow including velocity profiles [24]. The
model, implemented using the commercial CFD software CFX4.4 (Ansys Inc.), was tested using experimental data from Sumner et al. [25]. The particles had
a density of 2650 kg/m3 and a diameter of 0.47 or 1.7
mm and were simulated at concentrations up to 30%
by volume. The authors concluded that, using the
default settings, the code failed to accurately predict
important features of the flow. Recently, Eesa and
Barigou investigated the capabilities of CFD to model
the flow of coarse nearly-neutral buoyant particles in
shear-thinning CMC fluids in a horizontal pipe for a
limited number of flow cases [21]. CFD results of particle velocity profiles were validated with experimental
data obtained by PEPT, while pressure drop predictions were compared with a number of selected
correlations from the literature. In a recent paper [26],
a CFD model based on the commercial code ANSYS
CFX 10.0, is used to conduct a detailed parametric
study of the transport of nearly neutral-buoyant
coarse particles in laminar non Newtonian both horizontal and vertical flow.
FORMULATION OF MULTIPHASE CFD MODEL
The EulerianEulerian two-fluid model was adopted here, whereby both the liquid and solid phases
are considered as continua. Treating the solid phase
as an Eulerian phase is possible provided that the
inter-phase interactions are adequately modelled. In
fact, the Eulerian approach has been reported to be
efficient for simulating multiphase flows once the interaction terms are included [27]. The EulerianLagrangian model, however, which simulates the solid
phase as a discrete phase and thus allows particle
tracking, is in principle more realistic. However, after
evaluating the relevant literature as well as conducting a number of simulation trials, it was concluded
that the number of dispersed particles that can be
tracked within all the different commercial CFD software available is currently very limited, thus restricting
the applicability of the EulerianLagrangian model to
only dilute mixtures well below 5% by volume [28].

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

Eulerian Model
In the Eulerian-Eulerian approach, two phases
are considered to be interpenetrating continua. For
the present CFD simulations, the Eulerian-Eulerian
multiphase model implemented in the commercial
code Fluent 6.2 was used. With this approach, the
continuity and the momentum equations are solved
for each phase and therefore, the determination of
separate flow field solutions is allowed. The Eulerian
model is the most complex and computationally intensive among the multiphase models. It solves a set of
n momentum and continuity equations for each phase. Coupling is achieved through the pressure and
interphase exchange coefficients. For granular flows,
the properties are obtained from application of kinetic
theory.

Continuity Equation
The continuity equation for a generic phase q is
given by:

( q q) + ( q q q) = 0
t

(1)

The solution of this equation for each secondary

phase, along with the condition that the volume fractions sum to one, allows for the calculation of the
primary-phase volume fraction.

Momentum Equations
Fluid-fluid momentum equations. The conservation of momentum for a fluid phase q is:

(q q q ) + (q q q q ) = qp + q + q q g +
t

+ q q (F q + F lift,q + F vm,q ) +

n
+ K pq (p q ) + m pq pq

(2)

p =1

Fq is an external body force, F lift,q is a lift

force, F vm,q is a virtual mass force, Kpq is an interaction force between phases, and p is the pressure
shared by all phases.

Fluid-solid momentum equations

FLUENT uses a multi-fluid granular model to
describe the flow behavior of a fluid-solid mixture. The
solid-phase stresses are derived by making an
analogy between the random particle motion arising
from particle-particle collisions and the thermal motion of molecules in a gas, taking into account the
inelasticity of the granular phase. As the case for a
gas, the intensity of the particle velocity fluctuations
determines the stresses, viscosity, and pressure of
the solid phase. The kinetic energy associated with
the particle velocity fluctuations is represented by a

297

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

pseudo-thermal or granular temperature which is

proportional to the mean square of the random motion
of particles.
The conservation of momentum for the 8th solid
phase is:

(s s s ) + (s s s s ) = sp + s + s s g +
t

+ s s (F s + F lift,s + F vm,s ) +

n
+ K ls (l s ) + m ls ls

(3)

p =1

where ps is the sth solids pressure, Kls = Ksl is the

momentum exchange coefficient between fluid phase
l and solid phase
s, n is the total number of phases.

The lift force F lift,s and the virtual mass force F vm,s
have been neglected in the calculations, because
they give a minor contribution to the solution with respect to the other terms.

Interphase exchange coefficient

It can be seen in Eqs. (2) and (3) that momentum exchange between the phases is based on the
value of the fluid-fluid exchange coefficient Kpq and,
for granular flows, the fluid-solid and solid-solid exchange coefficients Kls.
Fluid-solid exchange coefficient. The fluid-solid
exchange coefficient Kls is in the following general
form:

K ls =

s sf
s

(4)

sd s2
18 l

(5)

where d s is the diameter of particles of phase s.

All definitions of f include a drag function (CD)
that is based on the relative Reynolds number (Res).
It is the drag function that differs among the exchange
coefficient models. The following three models were
found in the literature which are promising and widely
used for calculating solid liquid interaction in slurry
flow.
Syamlal-OBrien model [29]:
For this model, f is defined as:

C Re
f = D s2 l
24 vl r,s

(6)

where the drag function has a form derived by Dalla

Valle [30]:

298

CD = (0.63 +

4.8

Re s
v r,s

)2

(7)

This model is based on measurements of the

terminal velocities of particles in fluidized or settling
beds, with correlations which are functions of the volume fraction and the relative Reynolds number:

ld s v s v l
Re s =
(8)
l
where the subscript l is for the lth fluid phase, s is for
the sth solid phase, and ds is the diameter of the sth
solid phase particles.

The fluid-solid exchange coefficient has the

form:
K ls =

3s l l Re s
C D v s v l
2
4v r,sd s l v r,s

(9)

where vr,s is the terminal velocity correlation for the

solid phase:
v r,s = 0.5( A 0.06Re s +
+ (0.06Re s )2 + 0.12Re s (2B A ) + A 2 )

(10)

with

A = l4.14

(11)

and

B = 0.8l1.28 for l 0.85

where f is defined differently for the different exchange coefficient models (as described below), and
s, the particulate relaxation time, is defined as:
s =

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

(12)

or

B = 0.8l2.65 for l > 0.85

(13)

This model is appropriate when the solids shear

stresses are defined according to Syamlal et al. [31].
Wen and Yu model [32]:
For the model of Wen and Yu, the fluid-solid exchange coefficient is of the following form:

3
4

K ls = CD

s l l

ds

v s v l l-2.65

(14)

where:

CD =

24
(1 + 0.15(lRe s )0.687 )
lRe s

(15)

This model is appropriate for dilute systems.

Gidaspow model [33]:
The Gidaspow model is a combination of the
Wen and Yu model and the Ergun equation [34].
The fluid-solid exchange coefficient, Kls, is of the
form given by Eq. (14). When l 0.8:

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

K ls = 150

s (1 l ) l

+ 1.75CD s l v s v l
2
ds
ld s

(16)

This model is recommended for dense fluidized

beds.

Solid-solid exchange coefficient. The solid-solid

exchange coefficient, Kss, has the following form (Syamlal [35]):
K ss =

2
3(1 + e ls )( + C fr,ls )s sl l (d l + d s )2 g 0,ls (17)
2
8
=
v l v s
2( ld l3 + sd s3 )

where: els - coefficient of restitution, Cfr,ls - coefficient

of friction between the lth and sth solid-phase particles
(Cfr,ls = 0), dl - the diameter of the particles of solid and
g0,ls - the radial distribution coefficient.
Implementation of CFD model
The geometry used consisted of a pipe of diameter D = 105 mm. The pipe length, L, was much
greater than the maximum entrance length, Le, required for fully developed flow. In single-phase Newtonian laminar flow, Le can be estimated from [36]:

Le
= 0.062Re t
D
where

Re t =

fu mD
f

is the tube Reynolds number and um is the mean flow

velocity. There is no correlation available for estimating Le in two-phase solidliquid flow. However, for
almost all the particles used here, the above equation
should give a reasonable estimate of Le. Whilst such
estimates were used as a guide, a series of numerical
trials were conducted using different pipe lengths. For
all of the cases simulated here, a pipe length of 3 m
was sufficient to give a fully developed solidliquid
flow through most of the pipe length whilst keeping
computational cost low. Using a longer pipe did not
affect the results. The geometry was meshed in to approximately 1.8105 tetrahedral cells.
For Eulerian multiphase calculations, we used
the Phase Coupled SIMPLE (PC-SIMPLE) algorithm
[37] for the pressure-velocity coupling. PC-SIMPLE is
an extension of the SIMPLE algorithm to multiphase
flows. The velocities are solved coupled by phases,
but in a segregated fashion. The geometry was
meshed into approximately 50000 quadrilateral cells
in GAMBIT 2.2 pre-processor. A dense computational
grid was used because of the pilot-scale pipe dimen-

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

sions. The initial conditions were: a) uniform fully developed velocity profile at pipe inlet and b) the solid
particles uniformly distributed at pipe inlet. The first-order upwind discretization scheme was used for the
volume fraction, momentum equations, turbulence kinetic energy (k), and turbulence dissipation rate ().
All the simulations were performed in double precision.
Simulations of the carrier fluid flowing alone were
performed first to serve both as an initial validation of
the code and the numerical grid, and to reveal the
effects of solid particles on the liquid velocity (by deselecting the volume fraction equations). Once the initial solution for the primary phase was obtained, the
volume fraction equations were turned back on and
the calculation continued with all phases. An inlet flow
rate boundary condition was used at the pipe inlet,
while static pressure was specified at the outlet. The
homogeneous volumetric fraction of each phase was
specified at the inlet. Using flow rate as a boundary
condition is the common way of formulating pipe flow
problems, i.e. one designs a system to deliver a given
flow rate. It is noted however that using a pressurespecified inlet boundary condition is a stricter way of
testing the CFD code as a flow rate boundary condition may be perceived as a way of helping to steer the
simulation towards the right solution. This pressure
option was tested but it did not affect the results of the
CFD computations. The usual no-slip boundary condition was adopted at the pipe wall. Simulation was
steady state. The concentration distribution was uniform in z direction.
The solution was assumed to have converged
when the mass and momentum residuals reached 104
for all of the equations solved. Also the slopes of
residuals approach to zero. This typically required
150 iterations.
Due to the complexity of the solidliquid flows
considered here, the simulations initially required a
great deal of experimentation and optimization. Of primary importance was the appropriate modelling of
forces and interactions between the two phases. The
drag force was modelled using the Syamlal-OBrien
model (1993), Wen and Yu (1966) model and Gidaspow model (1992).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF 3D SIMULATION
Concentration profile
Figures 14 show the experimental and CFD
predicted vertical concentration profile of slurry of 125
and 440 m glass beads in 54.9 mm diameter pipe at
different efflux concentrations and flow velocity. The

299

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

Figure 1. Comparison of experimental and calculated vertical concentration profile for flow of 125 m glass beads in
54.9 mm diameter pipe at different efflux concentration and flow velocity.

Figure 2. Comparison of experimental and calculated vertical concentration profile for flow of 125 m glass beads in 54.9 mm diameter
pipe at different efflux concentration and flow velocity

300

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

Figure 3. Experimental and calculated vertical concentration profile for flow of 440 m glass beads in 54.9 mm diameter pipe.

Figure 4. Experimental and calculated vertical concentration profile for flow of 440 m glass beads in 54.9 mm diameter pipe.

301

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

agreement between calculated and experimental concentration profiles is quite good as evident from these
curves. However the discrepancy found between the
experimental results and the calculated results in
case of low solid concentration and low velocity (Cvf =
= 9.4% vm = 1 m/s) indicate that the developed CFD
model is not fully capable to capture the phenomena
at very low velocity where the gradient of solid profile
is more in vertical plane.
Figures 5 and 6 show concentration profiles in
the vertical plane for slurry of 125 and 440 m, respectively, by Cv/Cvf vs. y/D, where Cv is the volumetric
concentration at y = y/D, y being distance from the
pipe bottom and D the pipe diameter. It is observed
that the particles are asymmetrically distributed in the
vertical plane with the degree of asymmetry increasing with increase in particle size because of the
gravitational effect. It is also observed that the degree
of asymmetry for the same overall concentration of
slurry increases with decreasing flow velocity. This is
expected because with decrease in flow velocity there
will be a decrease in turbulent energy, which is responsible for keeping the solids in suspension. From

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

these figures, it is also observed that for a given velocity, increasing concentration reduces the asymmetry
because of enhanced interference effect between solid particles. The effect of this interference is so strong
that the asymmetry even at lower velocities is very
much reduced at higher concentrations. Therefore it
can be concluded that the degree of asymmetry in the
concentration profiles in the vertical plane depends
upon particle size, flow velocity and overall concentration of slurry.
Measured concentration profiles show a distinct
change in the shape for slurries of coarser particle
size (i.e., 440 m) with higher concentrations at lower
velocities (Figures 3 and 4). It is observed that the
maximum concentration at the bottom does not change and extends up to centre of the pipeline, thus making a sudden drop in the concentration in the upper
half of the pipeline. The reason for such a distinct
change in shape of concentration profiles may be attributed to the sliding bed regime for coarser particles
at lower velocities and higher concentrations.

Figure 5. Concentration profiles in the vertical plane for slurry of 125 m particle size. a) Case-a: Feed conc. = 10%;
b) case-b: Feed conc. = 30%; c) case-c: Feed conc. = 50%.

302

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

Figure 6. Concentration profiles in the vertical plane for slurry of 440 m particle size. a) Case-a: Feed conc. = 10%;
b) case-b: Feed conc. = 30%; c) case-c: Feed conc. = 40%.

Velocity profile

Pressure drop

Figures 79 show the corresponding vertical velocity profile across the pipe cross section at pipe outlet. Due to the unavailability of experimental data, the
agreement between experimental and predicted velocity profile could not be judged. However, the velocity
profile patterns in those figures match the theoretical
understanding. Therefore, it may be concluded indirectly that the CFD model is capable of validating the
velocity profile for slurry flow. The solid phase velocity
profile is generally asymmetrical about the central
axis at low velocity (say 1 m/s). The asymmetry in the
solid phase velocity profile is a result of particle settling due to the density difference between the two
phases. The asymmetrical nature of velocity profile is
reduced at higher velocity range (say 3-5 m/s) and
velocity profile becomes symmetrical.
Figure 10 shows the comparison of velocity profile at different efflux concentration for different flow
velocity for 125 m particles. From this figure, it can
be concluded that the velocity profile does not change
much due to increase in concentration from 10 to 50%.

The parity plot of predicted and experimental

pressure drop is shown in Figure 11. From this figure,
it is evident that the agreement between the calculated and experimental pressure drop is quite good.
The calculated pressure drops for slurry of 125 m
particles are presented in Figure 12 at overall area-average concentrations around 10, 20, 30, 40 and
50%. It is observed that the pressure drop at any
given flow velocity increases with increase in concentration. This trend is seen for all concentrations at all
velocities. The rate of increase in pressure with concentration is small at low velocities but it increases rapidly at higher velocities.
The pressure drops for slurry of 440 m particles are presented in Figure 13 at overall area-average concentrations around 10, 20, 30 and 40%.
From this figure, it is observed that the pressure drop
at any given flow velocity increases with increase in
concentration, but the rate of increase is comparatively smaller at higher flow velocities. Furthermore, at
lower velocities, the pressure drop remains constant
at lower concentrations and decreases with flow velo-

303

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

Figure 7. CFD predicted solid phase vertical velocity profile for flow of 125 m glass beads in 54.9 mm diameter pipe
at different efflux concentration and flow velocity.

Figure 8. CFD predicted solid phase vertical velocity profile for flow of 440 m glass beads in 54.9 mm diameter pipe

city at higher concentrations. From Figures 12 and 13,

it is observed that finer-sized particles have less pressure drop at lower flow velocities and more pressure
drop at higher flow velocities than coarser particles.
Such an increase in pressure drop for coarser particles at lower velocity is due to the increased amount
of particles moving in the bed due to the gravitational
effect, while, in the case of finer particle size at higher
velocities, the pressure drop is more due to greater
surface area causing more frictional losses in suspension.

304

Contours of solid concentration and velocity

Figures 13 to 43 (Supplementary material) show
contours of volume fraction of solid and contours of
solid velocity at the pipe outlet at different flow velocities and efflux concentration. These pictures help
visualize the solids distribution across the pipe cross
section. One of the biggest advantages of CFD is the
ability to generate such types of concentration and
velocity contours. Figure 14 shows how solid settled
at the bottom of the pipe (indicated by red colour at
the bottom). Solid concentration at the top of the pipe

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

Figure 9. Comparison of vertical velocity profile at a) 1, b) 3 and c) 5 m/s for different efflux concentration.

Figure 10. Parity plot of predicted vs. experimental pressure drop for slurry flow at different
overall area-average concentrations and flow velocities.

305

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

Figure 11. Pressure drop for slurry of 125 m particle size at different overall area-average concentrations and flow velocities.

Figure 12. Pressure drop for slurry of 440 m particle size at different overall area-average concentrations and flow velocities.

is very low and at the top most points are virtually

absent (indicated by the blue colour at the top of the
pipe). In the large area at the centre portion of the
pipe, the solid concentration remains uniform (indicated by green colour). Figure 15 shows the velocity
contours across the pipe cross section at the outlet of
the pipe. From this picture it is clear that maximum
velocity is not at the centre of the pipe but slightly
lower than the pipe axis. This is due to solids tending
to settle at the bottom of the pipe due to low velocity
(1 m/s) of slurry which makes the velocity profile
asymmetrical. A comparison of velocity profiles in Figures 15 and 19 reveals the fact that at a higher velocity (5 m/s), the velocity profile becomes symmetrical
and maximum velocity occurs at the pipe axis. This
may be due to the flat concentration profile for higher
turbulence at higher velocity. Another marked difference of velocity profiles in Figures 15 and 26 shows
that with the increase of solid concentration (from 9.4
to 30.3%) at same slurry velocity (1 m/s), the asym-

306

metrical nature of velocity profile increases and the

maximum velocity location moves more towards the
bottom of the pipe. Comparison of concentration profile contour in figures 18, 23, 29 and 33 reveals that at
a fixed flow velocity (say 5 m/s), when solid concentration increases from 10 to 50%, the asymmetry nature of concentration profile reduces because of enhanced interference effect between solid particles.
The measured concentration profiles show a
distinct change in the shape for slurries of coarser
particle size (i.e., 440 m) at lower velocities (Figures
4244). It was observed that most of the solid settled
down at the bottom of the pipe for coarser particle
resulting in steep concentration gradient.
CONCLUSION
In this study, the capability of CFD was explored
to model complex solid liquid slurry flow in pipeline. It
was found that the commercial CFD software (FLUENT)

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

is capable to successfully model the solidliquid interactions in slurry flow and the predicted concentration
profiles results show reasonably good agreement with
the experimental data. The following conclusions have
been drawn on the basis of present study:
1. The particle concentration profile was modelled for high concentration slurry transport where the
maximum overall area-average concentration is 50%
by volume employing coarse particles and higher flow
velocities up to 5 m/s.
2. It was observed that the particles were asymmetrically distributed in the vertical plane with the degree of asymmetry increasing with increase in particle
size because of the gravitational effect. It was also
observed that the degree of asymmetry for the same
overall concentration of slurry increased with decreasing flow velocity.
3. For a given velocity, increasing concentration
reduced the asymmetry because of enhanced interference effect between the solid particles. The effect
of this interference was so strong that the asymmetry
even at lower velocities is very much reduced at higher concentrations.
4. A distinct change in the shape of concentration profiles was observed indicating the sliding bed
regime for coarser particles at lower flow velocities.
5. The solid phase velocity profile is generally
asymmetrical about the central axis at low velocity
(say 1 m/s). The asymmetry in the solid phase velocity profile is a result of particle settling due to the
density difference between the two phases. The asymmetrical nature of velocity profile is reduced at higher
velocity range (say 3-5 m/s) and velocity profile becomes symmetrical.
6. Pressure drop at any given flow velocity increases with increase in concentration. This trend is
seen for all concentrations at all velocities. The rate of
increase in pressure with concentration is small at low
velocities but it increases rapidly at higher velocities.
The computational model and results discussed
in this work would be useful for extending the applications of CFD models for simulating large slurry
pipelines.

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

[2]

U. Kumar, R. Mishra, S.N. Singh, V. Seshadri, Powder

Technol. 132 (2003) 3951.

[3]

H. Hernndez Blanco and Rojas, Proceedings of

th
FEDSM2008, 8 Symposium on Applications in Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2008.

[4]

Bossio, Blanco and Hernandez, Proceedings of FEDSM

th
2009 9 Symposium on Applications in Computational
Fluid Dynamics,Vail, Colorado, USA, 2009.

[5]

M.C. Roco, C.A. Shook, Canad. J. Chem. Eng. 61 (1983)

494 503.

[6]

M.C. Roco, C.A. Shook, Powder Technol. 39 (1984) 159

176.

[7]

R.G. Gillies, K.B. Hill, M.J. Mckibben, C.A. Shook, Powder Technol. 104 (1999) 269277.

[8]

R.G. Gillies, C.A. Shook, Canad. Chem. Eng. 78 (2000)

709716.

[9]

A. Mukhtar, Ph.D. Thesis, IIT, Delhi, 1991.

[10]

D.R. Kaushal, Y. Tomita,. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 28

(2002) 1697-1717.

[11]

D.R. Kaushal, K. Sato, T. Toyota, K. Funatsu, Y. Tomita,

Int. J. Multiphase Flow 31 (2005) 809823.

[12]

M.E. Charles, R.A. Charles, Advances in SolidLiquid

Flow and its Applications, Pergamon, New York, 1971.

[13]

R.A. Duckworth, L. Pullum, C.F. Lockyear, J. Pipelines 3

(1983) 251265.

[14]

R.A. Duckworth, L. Pullum, G.R. Addie, C.F. Lockyear,

Hydrotransport 10 (1986) 6988.

[15]

R.P. Chhabra, J.F. Richardson, Chem. Eng. Res. Design

63 (1985)390397.

[16]

T. Ghosh, C.A. Shook, Freight Pipelines, Hemisphere,

1990.

[17]

P.G. Fairhurst, M. Barigou, P.J. Fryer, J.P. Pain, D.J.

Parker, Int. J. Multiphase flow 27 (2001) 18811901.

[18]

M. Barigou, P.G. Fairhurst, P.J. Fryer, J.P. Pain, Chem.

Eng. Sci. 58 (2003) 16711686.

[19]

M. Gradeck, B.F.Z. Fagla, C. Baravian, M. Lebouch, Int.

J. Heat Mass Transfer 48 (2005) 34773769.

[20]

A. Legrand, M. Berthou, L. Fillaudeau, J. Food Eng. 78

(2007) 345355.

[21]

M. Eesa, M. Barigou, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 34(11)

(2008) 9971007.

[22]

K.L. McCarthy, R.J. Kauten, J.H. Walton, Mag. Reson.

Imag. 14 (1996) 995997.

[23]

Y.L.E. Guer, P. Reghem, I. Petit, B. Stutz, Chem. Eng.

Res. Design 81 (2003) 11361143.

[24]

F.N. Krampa-Morlu, D.J. Bergstrom, J.D. Bugg, R.S. Sanders, J. Schaan, Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Multiphase Flow, ICMF'04, 2004, Paper
No. 460.

[25]

R.J. Sumner, M.J. McKibben, C.A. Shook, Ecoulements

SolideLiquide 2(2) (1990) 3342.

[26]

M. Eesa, M. Barigou, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 322333.

REFERENCES

[27]

H.H. Hu, N.A. Patankar, M.Y. Zhu, J. Comp. Physics 169

(2001) 427462.

[1]

[28]

B.G.M. VanWachem, A.E. Almstedt, Chem. Eng. J. 96

(2003) 8198.

Supplementary material
Figures 1343 can be found as Supplementary
material to this article at the CI&CEQ website, http:
//www.ache.org.rs/CICEQ/, or be given by corresponding author on request.

D.R. Kaushal, Y. Tomita, Dighade, Powder Technol. 125

(2002) 89101.

307

S.K. LAHIRI, K.C. GHANTA: SLURRY FLOW MODELLING BY CFD

[29]

M. Syamlal, J. OBrient, AIChE Symp. Ser. 85 (1989) 22

31.

[30]

J.M. Dalla Valle, Micromeritics, Pitman, London, 1948.

[31]

M. Syamlal, W. Rogers, T.J. O'Brien, MFIX Documentation: Volume 1, Theory Guide, National Technical
Information Service, Spring eld, VA, DOE/METC-9411004,
NTIS/DE9400087, 1993.

[32]

C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 62

(1966) 100111.

[33]

D. Gidaspow, R. Bezburuah, J. Ding, Fluidization VII,

th
Proceedings of the 7 Engineering Foundation Conference on Fluidization, 1992, pp.7582.

SANDIP KUMAR LAHIRI

K.C. GHANTA
Department Of Chemical
Engineering, Nit, Durgapur,
West Bengal, India
NAUNI RAD

CI&CEQ 16 (4) 295308 (2010)

[34]

Ergun, Chem. Eng. Prog. 48 (1952) 8994.

[35]

M. Syamlal, National Technical Information Service, Spring

eld, VA,. DOE/MC/21353-2373, NTIS/ DE87006500,
1987.

[36]

C.A. Shook, M.C Roco, Slurry Flow: Principles and Practice, Butterworth-Heimemann, 1991.

[37]

S.A. Vasquez, V.A. Ivanov, Proceedings of ASME

FEDSM'00: ASME 2000, Fluids Engineering Division
Summer Meeting, Boston, 2000.

MODELOVANJE STRUJANJA SUSPENZIJE POMOU

RAUNARSKE TEHNIKE SIMULACIJE STRUJANJA
FLUIDA (CFD)
U ovoj studiji je razvijen opti model toka suspenzije pomou raunarske tehnike simulacija strujanja fluida (CFD) u cilju predvianja profila koncentracije. Primenom CFD modela se stie bolji uvid u fenomene vezane za proticanje suspenzije kroz cevi. Razvijen
je trodimenzioni model radi ispitivanja uticaja koeficijenta trenja na profil koncentracije.
Preliminarna simulacija ukazuje na potrebu proirenja modela za opisivanje meufazne
sile trenja. Razliite korelacije za odreivanje koeficijenta trenja, koje su dostupne u literaturi, su ukljuene u dvofazni model (Euler-Euler). Ovaj model je prikazan pored standardnog k- modela koji opisuje turbulentni tok smee kroz cev. Za izraunavanja primenom modela korien je komercijalni CFD program Fluent 6.2 (Fluent Inc., USA). Radi
ilustracije primenljivosti trodimenzione simulacije korieni su podaci Kaushal-a (2005)
(za koncentraciju vrste faze 50 %). Model je primenjen na suspenziju estica stakla dimenzija 125 i 440 m u vodi pri razliitim protocima (od 1-5 m/s) i ukupnu koncentraciju
vrste faze od 10 do 50 vol.%. Izraunate vrednosti pada pritiska i koncentracioni profili
dobijeni primenom modela i eksperimentalni podaci pokazali su odlino slaganje. Interesantni fenomeni su primeeni pri korelisanju brzine i profila koncentracije vrste faze.
Primena modela moe biti korisna pri simulaciji toka u velikim protonim sistemima.
Kljune rei: CFD; tok suspenzije; koeficijent trenja; profil koncentracije; profil
brzine.

308