Mr Amit,

We have application wherein soda ash is to be conveyed pneumatically from a offshore supply vessel to a barge ( container to container transfer) using flexible hose.

Can you provide the calculations for air pressure and air consumption? ■

Mr Amit,

We have application wherein soda ash is to be conveyed pneumatically from a offshore supply vessel to a barge ( container to container transfer) using flexible hose.

Can you provide the calculations for air pressure and air consumption? ■

All aspects of the pneumatic conveying system are considered, such as the type of material used, conveying distance, system constraints including feeding and discharging, health and safety requirements, and the need for continuous or batch conveying... ■

All aspects of the pneumatic conveying system are considered, such as the type of material used, conveying distance, system constraints including feeding and discharging, health and safety requirements, and the need for continuous or batch conveying... ■

Originally Posted by Teus Tuinenburg

Hi Daryl,

Based on the given information and additional assumptions, I quick modeled the installation and calculated the pressure drop for a Polypropylene powder capacity of 25 tons/hr

I assumed a material loss factor in relation to a comparable plastic powder.

I also assumed a Nitrogen flow of 0.63 m3/sec.

The resulting calculated pressure drop is 0.75 bar at 25 tons/hr

N2 velocity is 11.7 to 20 m/sec.

Whether this corresponds with the real installation (in technical execution and operation and material conveying properties) has to be judged by yourself.

Using the existing installation with its operational performance data as a “test facility”, it is possible to tune the calculations for this material and subsequently calculate the implication of intended modifications.

Have a nice day

Teus

Dear Teus,

Thank you for your kind assistance. I have compared your results to my calculations and found that it is similar. Guess I'm not that far off after all. However, one thing still confuses me. When the system is operational, will the blower will register a discharge pressure close or equivalent to the pressure drop across the system? Or is it a different matter where the blower will register a discharge pressure based on its performance level/setting?

I am asking this question as I am wondering if it is possible for the pressure drop across the system to be greater than the pressure rise created by the gas mover. (I apologize if I seem confused, I am still trying to wrap my head around this concept.)

Also, I have managed to gather more data on the system and would like to get more input on my case. I have performed a test whereby I tried to determine the effect of lowering the amount of gas moving through my system. From my results, lowering the gas flow rate has no visible effect on powder transfer.

My conclusion is that the blower is able to handle the pressure drop sufficiently, hence the no change, and the problem with my system likely lies within the feeder system. Is this a good evaluation?

Would really appreciate input from all.

Best Regards,

Daryl ■

Originally Posted by Teus Tuinenburg

Hi Daryl,

Based on the given information and additional assumptions, I quick modeled the installation and calculated the pressure drop for a Polypropylene powder capacity of 25 tons/hr

I assumed a material loss factor in relation to a comparable plastic powder.

I also assumed a Nitrogen flow of 0.63 m3/sec.

The resulting calculated pressure drop is 0.75 bar at 25 tons/hr

N2 velocity is 11.7 to 20 m/sec.

Whether this corresponds with the real installation (in technical execution and operation and material conveying properties) has to be judged by yourself.

Using the existing installation with its operational performance data as a “test facility”, it is possible to tune the calculations for this material and subsequently calculate the implication of intended modifications.

Have a nice day

Teus

Dear Teus,

Thank you for your kind assistance. I have compared your results to my calculations and found that it is similar. Guess I'm not that far off after all. However, one thing still confuses me. When the system is operational, will the blower will register a discharge pressure close or equivalent to the pressure drop across the system? Or is it a different matter where the blower will register a discharge pressure based on its performance level/setting?

I am asking this question as I am wondering if it is possible for the pressure drop across the system to be greater than the pressure rise created by the gas mover. (I apologize if I seem confused, I am still trying to wrap my head around this concept.)

Also, I have managed to gather more data on the system and would like to get more input on my case. I have performed a test whereby I tried to determine the effect of lowering the amount of gas moving through my system. From my results, lowering the gas flow rate has no visible effect on powder transfer.

My conclusion is that the blower is able to handle the pressure drop sufficiently, hence the no change, and the problem with my system likely lies within the feeder system. Is this a good evaluation?

Would really appreciate input from all.

Best Regards,

Daryl ■

Dear Daryl,

In a closed system, (probably this one is from atmosphere to atmosphere) the circle integral of pressure drops equals zero.

That implies that the sum of positive pressure drops in the system equals the sum of negative pressure drops in the system.

Hence the pressure generated by the blower (only positive pressure drop) equal the system pressure drop.

The fact that you measure no change in capacity when you change the amount of gas, means that the system is operating around the lowest point in the Zenz curve.

The influence of the change of gas amount causes a change in suspension pressure drop and changes in velocity related pressure drops. The total effect of these changes amounts to approx. zero and are therefore not noticed externally.

We are not fully clear on what you seem to consider a problem.

It would be very interesting to know the operational data, which you have obtained.

Have a nice day ■

Dear Daryl,

In a closed system, (probably this one is from atmosphere to atmosphere) the circle integral of pressure drops equals zero.

That implies that the sum of positive pressure drops in the system equals the sum of negative pressure drops in the system.

Hence the pressure generated by the blower (only positive pressure drop) equal the system pressure drop.

The fact that you measure no change in capacity when you change the amount of gas, means that the system is operating around the lowest point in the Zenz curve.

The influence of the change of gas amount causes a change in suspension pressure drop and changes in velocity related pressure drops. The total effect of these changes amounts to approx. zero and are therefore not noticed externally.

We are not fully clear on what you seem to consider a problem.

It would be very interesting to know the operational data, which you have obtained.

Have a nice day ■

Please could someone advise me of the calculation to work out the acceleration curve of a material like sand in a pneumatic pipe conveyance system....

I would like to work out how long before it is at full speed, and how long a distance it has taken.

Thanks ■

Please could someone advise me of the calculation to work out the acceleration curve of a material like sand in a pneumatic pipe conveyance system....

I would like to work out how long before it is at full speed, and how long a distance it has taken.

Thanks ■

Originally Posted by Teus Tuinenburg

Dear Daryl,

In a closed system, (probably this one is from atmosphere to atmosphere) the circle integral of pressure drops equals zero.

That implies that the sum of positive pressure drops in the system equals the sum of negative pressure drops in the system.

Hence the pressure generated by the blower (only positive pressure drop) equal the system pressure drop.

The fact that you measure no change in capacity when you change the amount of gas, means that the system is operating around the lowest point in the Zenz curve.

The influence of the change of gas amount causes a change in suspension pressure drop and changes in velocity related pressure drops. The total effect of these changes amounts to approx. zero and are therefore not noticed externally.

We are not fully clear on what you seem to consider a problem.

It would be very interesting to know the operational data, which you have obtained.

Have a nice day

Dear Teus,

Thank you for your reply, and your clarification on the matter of the blower. If that is the case however, then my calculations for pressure drop are erroneus as they do not correspond to the output pressure of the blower. The blower is currently operating at approximately 0.75 kg/cm2(g) while the pressure drop is calculated to be around 13k mmAq. The only possible reason I could think of for this large discrepancy is due to inaccuracies in estimating the pipe lengths. But I don't think small errors could contribute to such a large difference in pressure drop values.

As for the matter with the gas flow, gas velocities are actually much higher than its saltation limit, which is why I might not agree that operation is near the low point on the Zenz curve. Perhaps my description of the test was not very good, let me try to describe it again.

The RV was stopped and the gas flow reading was taken, and lowered by approximately 300 Nm3/h. The RV speed was then gradually increased to its maximum operating capacity and fixed at a certain MV. The system was allowed to stabilize and readings were taken. Gas flow was then increased, system stabilized and reading was taken. Material balance was used to determine the powder transfer capacity.

The test was concluded then since the step change did not produce any difference in powder capacity. The operational data is below:

RVSetting FlowTemp.Pressure Hopper Level 5W202 Cap. Powder Cap.

Start End

[%][Nm3/h][deg. C][kg/cm2] [t] [t] [t/h] [t/h]

70572138.50.7 19.5 24.07 25.05 29.62

70620538.50.759 21.32 25.59 25.5 29.770.506414585 % change

Best Regards,

Daryl ■

Originally Posted by Teus Tuinenburg

Dear Daryl,

In a closed system, (probably this one is from atmosphere to atmosphere) the circle integral of pressure drops equals zero.

That implies that the sum of positive pressure drops in the system equals the sum of negative pressure drops in the system.

Hence the pressure generated by the blower (only positive pressure drop) equal the system pressure drop.

The fact that you measure no change in capacity when you change the amount of gas, means that the system is operating around the lowest point in the Zenz curve.

The influence of the change of gas amount causes a change in suspension pressure drop and changes in velocity related pressure drops. The total effect of these changes amounts to approx. zero and are therefore not noticed externally.

We are not fully clear on what you seem to consider a problem.

It would be very interesting to know the operational data, which you have obtained.

Have a nice day

Dear Teus,

Thank you for your reply, and your clarification on the matter of the blower. If that is the case however, then my calculations for pressure drop are erroneus as they do not correspond to the output pressure of the blower. The blower is currently operating at approximately 0.75 kg/cm2(g) while the pressure drop is calculated to be around 13k mmAq. The only possible reason I could think of for this large discrepancy is due to inaccuracies in estimating the pipe lengths. But I don't think small errors could contribute to such a large difference in pressure drop values.

As for the matter with the gas flow, gas velocities are actually much higher than its saltation limit, which is why I might not agree that operation is near the low point on the Zenz curve. Perhaps my description of the test was not very good, let me try to describe it again.

The RV was stopped and the gas flow reading was taken, and lowered by approximately 300 Nm3/h. The RV speed was then gradually increased to its maximum operating capacity and fixed at a certain MV. The system was allowed to stabilize and readings were taken. Gas flow was then increased, system stabilized and reading was taken. Material balance was used to determine the powder transfer capacity.

The test was concluded then since the step change did not produce any difference in powder capacity. The operational data is below:

RVSetting FlowTemp.Pressure Hopper Level 5W202 Cap. Powder Cap.

Start End

[%][Nm3/h][deg. C][kg/cm2] [t] [t] [t/h] [t/h]

70572138.50.7 19.5 24.07 25.05 29.62

70620538.50.759 21.32 25.59 25.5 29.770.506414585 % change

Best Regards,

Daryl ■

Dear Daryl,

A Zenz curve is for a certain capacity.

In your measurement, it is allowed to say that 29.62 t/hr is technically equal to 29.77 tons/hr.

A Zenz diagram has a vertical axis, showing the pressure drop and horizontally the air flow.

From your test description, I understand that you have set the capacity to its maximum and then measure the parameters.

Most likely, the maximum capacity is the feeding capacity and you have measured the corresponding conveying pressures at different gas flows.

Then it is clear from the readings at constant capacity (29.7 tons/hr):

5721 m3/hr – pressure = 0.7 bar

6205 m3/hr – pressure = 0.759 bar

This indicates an increasing pressure with an increasing airflow and that proves that the conveying process is in the dilute phase.

Have a nice day ■

Dear Daryl,

A Zenz curve is for a certain capacity.

In your measurement, it is allowed to say that 29.62 t/hr is technically equal to 29.77 tons/hr.

A Zenz diagram has a vertical axis, showing the pressure drop and horizontally the air flow.

From your test description, I understand that you have set the capacity to its maximum and then measure the parameters.

Most likely, the maximum capacity is the feeding capacity and you have measured the corresponding conveying pressures at different gas flows.

Then it is clear from the readings at constant capacity (29.7 tons/hr):

5721 m3/hr – pressure = 0.7 bar

6205 m3/hr – pressure = 0.759 bar

This indicates an increasing pressure with an increasing airflow and that proves that the conveying process is in the dilute phase.

Have a nice day ■

Originally Posted by Teus Tuinenburg

Dear Daryl,

A Zenz curve is for a certain capacity.

In your measurement, it is allowed to say that 29.62 t/hr is technically equal to 29.77 tons/hr.

A Zenz diagram has a vertical axis, showing the pressure drop and horizontally the air flow.

From your test description, I understand that you have set the capacity to its maximum and then measure the parameters.

Most likely, the maximum capacity is the feeding capacity and you have measured the corresponding conveying pressures at different gas flows.

Then it is clear from the readings at constant capacity (29.7 tons/hr):

5721 m3/hr – pressure = 0.7 bar

6205 m3/hr – pressure = 0.759 bar

This indicates an increasing pressure with an increasing airflow and that proves that the conveying process is in the dilute phase.

Have a nice day

Dear Teus,

Thank you for your explanation. One conclusion I have arrived at from the test is that since capacity does not change with the increase in air flow, the system is not pressure limited and that my problem likely lies in the feeder (I have eliminated other sources of bottleneck). Would that be correct?

If not, what way could I test my system to identify the source of bottleneck?

Best Regards,

Daryl ■

Originally Posted by Teus Tuinenburg

Dear Daryl,

A Zenz curve is for a certain capacity.

In your measurement, it is allowed to say that 29.62 t/hr is technically equal to 29.77 tons/hr.

A Zenz diagram has a vertical axis, showing the pressure drop and horizontally the air flow.

From your test description, I understand that you have set the capacity to its maximum and then measure the parameters.

Most likely, the maximum capacity is the feeding capacity and you have measured the corresponding conveying pressures at different gas flows.

Then it is clear from the readings at constant capacity (29.7 tons/hr):

5721 m3/hr – pressure = 0.7 bar

6205 m3/hr – pressure = 0.759 bar

This indicates an increasing pressure with an increasing airflow and that proves that the conveying process is in the dilute phase.

Have a nice day

Dear Teus,

Thank you for your explanation. One conclusion I have arrived at from the test is that since capacity does not change with the increase in air flow, the system is not pressure limited and that my problem likely lies in the feeder (I have eliminated other sources of bottleneck). Would that be correct?

If not, what way could I test my system to identify the source of bottleneck?

Best Regards,

Daryl ■

Dear Daryl,

Can you repeat the nature of your problem?

Is it an installation problem or a calculation problem?

Best regards

Teus ■

Dear Daryl,

Can you repeat the nature of your problem?

Is it an installation problem or a calculation problem?

Best regards

Teus ■

Hi Mr. Amrit ,

Could you send me a copy of this article at amanahmeddahi@hotmail.com.

Thanks & Regards,

Aman Ullah Dahi ■

Hi Mr. Amrit ,

Could you send me a copy of this article at amanahmeddahi@hotmail.com.

Thanks & Regards,

Aman Ullah Dahi ■

Dear Amrit T. Agarwal,

I have seen your post and would appreciate very much if you could send me a copy of this article to alf.hofstetter@gmail.com

Thank you in advance,

Your,

Alf A. Hofstetter

PS:

I believe we met once during your Union Carbide Time but it is ages ago. Must have been in 1986-88. I was then as a young sales engineer for Waeschle from Germany in the US. We discussed about a Pellet Cleaning 'Elutriator' project. ■

Dear Amrit T. Agarwal,

I have seen your post and would appreciate very much if you could send me a copy of this article to alf.hofstetter@gmail.com

Thank you in advance,

Your,

Alf A. Hofstetter

PS:

I believe we met once during your Union Carbide Time but it is ages ago. Must have been in 1986-88. I was then as a young sales engineer for Waeschle from Germany in the US. We discussed about a Pellet Cleaning 'Elutriator' project. ■

Hi,

Pl. send me Pneumatic Conveying System Calculations.

raajmath@gmail.com

Thank you,

Raju.M

Please send your request to my email address given below:

Amrit Agarwal

Consulting Engineer

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting

Email: polypcc@aol.com

Ph and Fax: 304 346 5125[/QUOTE] ■

Hi,

Pl. send me Pneumatic Conveying System Calculations.

raajmath@gmail.com

Thank you,

Raju.M

Please send your request to my email address given below:

Amrit Agarwal

Consulting Engineer

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting

Email: polypcc@aol.com

Ph and Fax: 304 346 5125[/QUOTE] ■

Dear Amrit T. Agarwal,

Please, send me your article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems".

Email: ottomarcelo@yahoo.com.br

Thank you,

Marcelo Otto. ■

Dear Amrit T. Agarwal,

Please, send me your article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems".

Email: ottomarcelo@yahoo.com.br

Thank you,

Marcelo Otto. ■

Dear Amrit T. Agarwal,

Please, send me your article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems".

Email: nsachin85@gmail.com

Thank you,

Sachin. ■

Dear Amrit T. Agarwal,

Please, send me your article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems".

Email: nsachin85@gmail.com

Thank you,

Sachin. ■

Dear sir,

Can i get the basic calculation sheet for pneumatic conveying system.

Plese share me @ gindedamodar@gmail.com

Thanks & regards,

DAMU

Originally Posted by Amrit Agarwal

My article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems" was published this month in Powder Handling and Processing magazine. This article gives an easy to use Excel-based calculation method for designing new dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems or for improving the performance of existing conveying systems.

Regards,

Amrit T. Agarwal

Consulting Engineer

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting Services

Email: polypcc@aol.com

Ph and Fax: 304 346 5125

■

Dear sir,

Can i get the basic calculation sheet for pneumatic conveying system.

Plese share me @ gindedamodar@gmail.com

Thanks & regards,

DAMU

Originally Posted by Amrit Agarwal

My article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems" was published this month in Powder Handling and Processing magazine. This article gives an easy to use Excel-based calculation method for designing new dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems or for improving the performance of existing conveying systems.

Regards,

Amrit T. Agarwal

Consulting Engineer

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting Services

Email: polypcc@aol.com

Ph and Fax: 304 346 5125

■

Originally Posted by Amrit Agarwal

My article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems" was published this month in Powder Handling and Processing magazine. This article gives an easy to use Excel-based calculation method for designing new dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems or for improving the performance of existing conveying systems.

Regards,

Amrit T. Agarwal

Consulting Engineer

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting Services

Email: polypcc@aol.com

Ph and Fax: 304 346 5125

Dear sir

Denseveyor as per this (http://www.macawberindia.com/DENSEVEYOR.pdf ) link has got major attraction . Iam also attaching pdf file

Generally it being used to convey course as or mill reject (higher particle size)

Would you explain me th advantage and why we prefer it for higher particle size

How it is differ from other ash conveying vessel

kj

Attachments

denseveyor1 (PDF)

■

Originally Posted by Amrit Agarwal

My article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems" was published this month in Powder Handling and Processing magazine. This article gives an easy to use Excel-based calculation method for designing new dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems or for improving the performance of existing conveying systems.

Regards,

Amrit T. Agarwal

Consulting Engineer

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting Services

Email: polypcc@aol.com

Ph and Fax: 304 346 5125

Dear sir

Denseveyor as per this (http://www.macawberindia.com/DENSEVEYOR.pdf ) link has got major attraction . Iam also attaching pdf file

Generally it being used to convey course as or mill reject (higher particle size)

Would you explain me th advantage and why we prefer it for higher particle size

How it is differ from other ash conveying vessel

kj

Attachments

denseveyor1 (PDF)

■

Dear Sir,

Request you to send me the article "Theory and Design of Pneumatic Conveying Systems" and the baisc calculation sheet to sanmarcbe@gmail.com.

Regards,

P. Santhakumar

Originally Posted by Amrit Agarwal

My article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems" was published this month in Powder Handling and Processing magazine. This article gives an easy to use Excel-based calculation method for designing new dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems or for improving the performance of existing conveying systems.

Regards,

Amrit T. Agarwal

Consulting Engineer

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting Services

Email: polypcc@aol.com

Ph and Fax: 304 346 5125

■

Dear Sir,

Request you to send me the article "Theory and Design of Pneumatic Conveying Systems" and the baisc calculation sheet to sanmarcbe@gmail.com.

Regards,

P. Santhakumar

Originally Posted by Amrit Agarwal

My article "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems" was published this month in Powder Handling and Processing magazine. This article gives an easy to use Excel-based calculation method for designing new dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems or for improving the performance of existing conveying systems.

Regards,

Amrit T. Agarwal

Consulting Engineer

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting Services

Email: polypcc@aol.com

Ph and Fax: 304 346 5125

■

Dear Sir,

Request you to semd me the actilcle "Theory and Design of Pneumatic Conveying Systems" and the basic design calculation to my id sanmarcbe@gmail.com.

Thanks & Regards,

P. Santhakumar ■

Dear Sir,

Request you to semd me the actilcle "Theory and Design of Pneumatic Conveying Systems" and the basic design calculation to my id sanmarcbe@gmail.com.

Thanks & Regards,

P. Santhakumar ■