Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Flow Behaviour of Fly Ash Slurry

Vibhor Atreya#1, Pradyumn Agarwal#2


#

BITS Pilani KK Birla Goa Campus 1 atreyavibhor@gmail.com 2 pradyumn2007@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Thermal power plants generate more than half of the worlds electric power by burning millions of tonnes of coal and simultaneously produce large quantity of coal ash. The disposal of fly ash produced in the thermal power plants is a big issue. Slurry pipelines are used across the world for the transportation of coal ash (fly ash and bottom ash) from the plant to the ash ponds in thermal power plants but the transportation is carried out at low or medium solid concentrations over short as well as medium distances. These systems are very energy intensive and also lead to excessive wear of pipeline and wastage of water. All the above factors combined with enhanced consciousness towards the imbalance in the eco-system are forcing the thermal power plants to adopt high concentration slurry disposal (HCSD) system which has emerged as best option to transport coal ash in thermal power plants as it is economical and environment friendly.

I. INTRODUCTION India at present produces around 120 Million Tonnes of Ash per annum. The power requirements of the country are rapidly increasing with increase in growth of the industrial sectors. India depends on Thermal power as its main source (around 80% of power produced is thermal power), as a result the quantity of Ash produced shall also increase. Indian coal on an average has 35 % Ash and this is one of the prime factors which shall lead to increased ash production and hence, Ash utilization problems for the country. With increasing generation of fly ash, efforts are being made to transport it through pipelines. But it becomes complex due to quick settling nature of fly ash particles because of its higher specific gravity as compared to that of water. This problem is normally addressed by pumping of solids as lean slurry (15 to 20% by mass) to ash pond area. These systems are very energy intensive and also lead to excessive wear of pipeline and wastage of water. Further, the present enhanced consciousness towards the imbalance in the eco-system and related stringent government policies are forcing the thermal power plants to adopt environment friendly transportation systems. Thus, high concentration slurry disposal (HCSD) system has emerged as preferred option to transport coal ash in

thermal power plants as it is economical and environment friendly. By studying and implementing High Concentration Slurry Disposal (HCSD) system, we would be able to save both energy and water, and also maintain the ecological balance. The project is a case study of the same. It reports the rheological characteristics of mixture of fly ash (FA) and bottom ash (BA) slurry (4:1) at high concentrations. To achieve the objectives, fly ash slurry samples were prepared from the fly ash obtained from NTPC, Talcher. The measurements have been made for concentrations 60, 65, 67.5 % by weight. Rheological studies were carried out for only fly ash (FA) as well as mixture of fly ash (FA) and bottom ash (BA) slurry using a cylindrical coaxial rotational rheometer at sheer rates varying from 0 to 100 /s for various concentrations. II. CHARACTERISATION OF SLURRY A.PARTICLE DENSITY The particle density was calculated by using the specific gravity method. The procedure to calculate specific gravity is as follows: Bulk Sample taken and it is kept in the oven at 95C- 100 C to demoisturize it. The sample is taken in a specific gravity bottle and weight is taken. Then it is filled with distilled water till it spills out and the weight is recorded. Let, The weight of specific gravity bottle is W 1 gm, the weight of specific gravity bottle with distilled water is W2 gm, the weight of specific gravity bottle with sample is W3 gm, and the weight of specific gravity bottle with distilled water and sample is W4 gm. Note: The sample should be filled till the (1/3) capacity of the specific gravity bottle.
rd

The specific gravity of the sample is given by: SPECIFIC GRAVITY =


( )

Sample 1 Fly-ash CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION

Here we have calculated the specific gravity of two samples Fly-ash and Bottom-ash. The calculation of specific gravity has been tabulated below:

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Volume %

CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION

Fly-ash
W1 W2 W3 W4 W2 - W1 W3 - W1 W4 - W3 (W2-W1) (W4-W3) Specific Gravity BOTTLE 1 28.919 79.004 53.163 92.021 50.085 24.244 38.858 11.227 24.244 11.227 BOTTLE 2 27.455 78.229 49.814 89.759 50.774 22.359 39.945 10.829 22.359 10.829 BOTTLE 3 29.702 79.611 55.347 92.458 49.909 25.645 37.111 Volume % 12.798 25.645 12.789

5 4 3 2 1 = 0.24 0.55 1.259 2.884 6.607 15.1 34.6 79.4 181. 416. 954. 0
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIO N

2.159

2.0759

2.0038

Average Specific Gravity =


2.159 +2.0759 +2.0038 3

S.G1 + S.G2 + S.G3 3

= 2.0759

Bottom-ash
BOTTLE 1 28.919 79.004 53.488 92.641 50.085 24.569 39.153 10.932 24.569 10.932 BOTTLE 2 27.455 78.229 53.958 92.645 50.774 26.503 38.687 12.087 26.503 12.087 BOTTLE 3 29.702 79.611 53.143 92.524 49.909 23.441 39.381 10.528 23.441 10.528

From the graph we can infer that d(10) = 4.151 micron d(50) = 30.691 micron d(90) = 120.346 micron

W1 W2 W3 W4 W2 - W1 W3 - W1 W4 - W3 (W2-W1) (W4-W3) SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Sample 2 Bottom-ash
BIS Sieve No. 8 16 25 30 52 60 72 100 150 200 300 350 400 Size in microns Amount of Bottom Ash (g) 1.281 2.898 7.782 0.417 13.578 23.147 7.049 8.677 2.873 21.151 5.996 1.103 1.818 Cumulative amount of Bottom Ash in microns 1.281 4.179 11.961 12.378 25.956 49.103 56.152 64.829 67.702 89.053 95.049 96.152 97.97

2.2474

2.19268
S.G1 + S.G2 + S.G3 3

2.2265

Average Specific Gravity =


2.2474 +2.19268 +2.2265 3

=
2057 1003 600 500 300 250 210 150 105 75 53 45 37

= 2.2222

B. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION The particle size distribution is done using a particle analyzer or by using sieves of different sizes. Out the two samples taken one sample was analyzed using Malvern particle analyzer (Malvern Masterizer 2000 Hydro MU) and the second sample was done using sieves.

0.24 0.55 1.259 2.884 6.607 15.136 34.674 79.433 181.97 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION

<400

<37

1.896

99.866

25

20 Amount of Bottom Ash

Frequency Distribution

15

viscosity is not constant and is a function of sheer stress or sheer rate. Indeed, under appropriate circumstances, the apparent viscosity of certain materials is not only a function of flow conditions (geometry, rate of shear, etc.), but it also depends on the kinematic history of the fluid element under consideration. It is convenient, though arbitrary and probably unscientific too, to group such materials into the following three categories: 1. Systems for which the value of sheer rate at a point within the fluid is determined only by the current value of sheer stress at that point; these substances are variously known as purely viscous, inelastic, time-independent or generalized Newtonian fluids (GNF); 2. Systems for which the relation between sheer stress and sheer rate shows further dependence on the duration of shearing and kinematic history; these are called timedependent fluids, and finally, 3. Systems which exhibit a blend of viscous fluid behaviour and of elastic solid-like behaviour. For instance, this class of materials shows partial elastic recovery, recoil, creep, etc. Accordingly, these are called visco-elastic or elastico-viscous fluids. As noted earlier, the aforementioned classification scheme is quite arbitrary, though convenient, because most real materials often display a combination of two or even all these types of features under appropriate circumstances. For instance, it is not uncommon for a polymer melt to show timeindependent (shear-thinning) and visco-elastic behaviour simultaneously and for a china clay suspension to exhibit a combination of timeindependent (shear-thinning or shearthickening) and time-dependent (thyrotrophic) features at certain concentrations and /or at appropriate shear rates. Generally, it is, however, possible to identify the dominant non-Newtonian aspect and to use it as basis for the subsequent process calculations. Time - Independent Fluid Behaviour: As noted above, in simple unidirectional shear, this subset of fluids is characterized by the fact that the current value of the rate of shear at a point in the fluid is determined only by the corresponding current value of the shear stress and vice versa. Conversely, one can say that such fluids have no memory of their past history. Thus, their steady shear behaviour may be described by a relation of the form: Depending upon the above equation, three possibilities exist: 1. Shear- thinning or pseudo plastic behaviour

10

120 100 Amount of Bottom Ash 80 60 40 20 0

From the graph we can infer that d(10) = 50.43 micron d(50) = 209.24 micron d(90) = 1010.67 micron

III. RHEOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS In simple shear (Fig. 1), the response of a Newtonian fluid is characterized by a linear relationship between the applied shear stress and the rate of shear. The simplest possible deviation from the Newtonian fluid behaviour occurs when the simple shear does not result into a linear relationship between sheer stress and rate of sheer. Conversely, the apparent

37 45 53 75 105 150 210 250 300 500 600 1003 2057 Size in microns
Cumulative Frequency Distribution

45

75 150 250 500 1003


Size in microns

2. Visco-plastic behaviour with or without shear-thinning behaviour 3. Shear- thickening or dilatant behaviour.

A. MODELLING THE SLURRY BEHAVIOUR Present study reports the rheological characteristics of fly ash (FA) slurry at high concentrations (above Cw 60% by weight). Test result showed that all the slurries exhibited Newtonian properties of shear thinning behaviour. Rheological studies were carried out for fly ash (FA) slurry using a cylindrical co-axial rotational rheometer at sheer rates varying from 0 to 100 /s for various concentrations.

B. POWER LAW OR OSTWALD DE WAELE EQUATION Often the relationship between shear stress & shear can be approximated by the equation: The relationships between the shear stress and shear rate for above models can be summarised as follows: Shear-thinning behaviour fluids are characterized by a value of n (power-law index) smaller than unity. The values of parameters n & K observed for the above mentioned slurry concentrations are:

Newtonian:

Cw%

Pseudoplastics:

60% 65% 67.5%

4.8033487088 0562E-01 6.1100947397 62721E-01 6.5841061770 84940E-01

7.00388846327066 E-01 1.13053516583049 4E+00 1.25880762677509 6E+00

Visco Plastic Fluid Behaviour:


The following graphs show the variation of sheer vs sheer rate. The parameters n and K were determined by power law best fit to the curve.

C. RHEOLOGICAL STUDIES ON FLY ASHBOTTOM ASH MIXTURE The thermal power plants in India produce approximately 20% bottom ash of the total ash (both fly ash and bottom ash). The hydraulic transportation of fly ash and bottom ash mixture slurry is done at a very lean concentration of around 20%. Due to settling nature of the coarse bottom ash particles the transportation are generally done under turbulent conditions incurring higher pressure drops. Also the anticipated bed load transport of such slurries may not be ignored. These cumulative effects of turbulent flow and bed load transport conditions result in erosion problems requiring frequent replacement of piping and valves thus affecting pipe economics. To avoid such situations, it is conceived in the present study that fly ashbottom ash mixture slurry can be transported hydraulically at higher concentrations under laminar flow conditions without settling of coarse ash particles. In the above context, it is essential to conduct rheological studies of fly ash bottom ash mixture slurry at higher concentrations to ascertain the influence of bottom ash on the flow behaviour of the mixture slurry. For this purpose the rheological studies on fly ash bottom ash mixture were investigated using the fly ash and bottom ash samples procured from NTPC, Talcher. C.1. VISCOCITY MEASUREMENT The natural production ratio of fly ash to bottom ash by weight is 80:20 (i.e. 4:1). Considering the above limiting factor in the availability of the two constituents to provide a mixture, mixed samples were prepared manually by keeping the fly ash bottom ash weight ratio of 8:1,

7:1, 6:1 and 5:1. Hence the bottom ash fractions were maintained at 1/9=0.111, 1/8=0.125, 1/7=0.143 and 1/6 0.166 in the mixed samples. About 100 mm of slurry was prepared from each of these mixture samples with distilled water as medium. The rheological measurements were carried out at over all slurry concentrations of 62.5%, 65% and 67.5% respectively, using a cylindrical co-axial rotational rheometer at sheer rates varying from 0 to 250 /s for various concentrations. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the rheological studies in the range of solid concentrations of 62.5% - 67.5% by weight have been tabulated in tables 5.1 to 5.60. The rheograms of fly ash-bottom ash mixture slurry with addition of bottom ash fractions in varying proportions at over all solids weight concentrations of 62.5%, 65% and 67.5% for five ash samples are plotted in Figs. 5.1 5.15. The pseudo-plastic power law model was found to provide the best fit for the data. A. EFFECT OF ADDITION OF BOTTOM ASH FRACTIONS ON VISCOSITY It is observed from Figs.5.16-5.20 that the apparent viscosity decreases with increase in addition of bottom ash fractions to the fly ash-bottom ash mixture slurry at a given slurry concentration. This indicates that the presence of bottom ash, having larger particle sizes (d50=206 m) in the mixture slurry influences the slurry rheology.

40
d50-f ly ash=9.427 m m d50-bottom ash=206 m m

30

Shear stress, Pa

20
Bottom ash fractopn=0 Bottom ash fraction=0.111

10

Bottom ash fraction=0.125 Bottom ash fraction=0.143 Bottom ash fraction=0.166

0 0 50 100 150
-1

200

250

Shear rate, s

Fig. 5.1: Rheogram of fly ash-bottom sh mixture slurry at Fig. 2: Rheograms of fly ash-bottom ash mixture slurry at different bottom ash fractions, Cw=62.5%
different bottom ash fractions, Cw = 62.5%
60 50
d50-f ly ash=9.427 m m d50-bottom ash=206 m m

Shear stress, Pa

40 30
Bottom ash fraction=0

20 10 0 0 50 100 150

Bottom ash fraction=0.111 Bottom ash fraction=0.125 Bottom ash fraction=0.143 Bottom ash fraction=0.166

200

250

Shear rate, s -1 Fig.5.2: Rheogram of fly ash-bottom ash mixture slurry at different bottom ash fractions, Cw=65%

120 100
d50-f ly ash=9.427 m m d50-bottom ash=206 m m

Shear stress, pa

80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Shear rate, s -1 Fig. 5.3: Rheogram of fly ash-bottom ash mixture slurry at different bottom ash fractions, Cw=67.5%
Bottom ash fraction=0 Bottom ash fraction=0.111 Bottom ash fraction=0.125 Bottom ash fraction=0.143 Bottom ash fraction=0.166

4
d50-f ly ash=9.427 m m d50-bottom ash=206 m m Bottom ash fraction=0 Bottom ash fraction=0.111 Bottom ash fraction=0.125 Bottom ash fraction=0.143 Bottom ash fraction=0.166

Apparent viscosity, Pa.s

0 0 50 100 Shear rate, s 150


-1

200

250

Fig. 5.16: Effect of addition of bottom ash fraction on apparent viscosity of fly ash slurry, Cw=67.5%