Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Powder Technology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p ow t e c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 February 2008
Received in revised form 16 January 2009
Accepted 4 March 2009
Available online 19 March 2009
Keywords:
Hydrotransport
Process monitoring
Acoustics
Kurtosis
a b s t r a c t
Hydrotransport of solids through a pipe is a cost and energy efcient method to transport granular solid
materials over long distances. A problem in the hydrotransport of ne particle slurries is the possible
presence in the pipe of undesirable large materials, such as rocks or metal fragments broken off of shovels,
which may enter the slurry pipe through breaks in screens. This large material can damage booster pumps
and downstream equipment resulting in costly repairs and loss of production.
Acoustic sensors along with signal analysis techniques can be used for online detection of oversized material
in a hydrotransport system. Acoustic detection methods are ideal, since they are non-invasive and any probe
located within the pipe would be unlikely to survive the harsh conditions present within the line.
The objective of this study was to model the motion behaviour of large materials, such as rocks, travelling
through a horizontal hydrotransport pipe. This information can then be used to determine optimum
locations for the acoustic sensors to ensure that rocks are detected quickly and effectively.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
2. Background information
This section provides background information on the use of hydrotransport in the oil sand industry, rock behaviour in open channels, acoustic
emissions and the detection of large material in a hydrotransport system
and an overview of particle trajectory models in transport systems.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 2111x88849; fax: +1 519 661 3498.
E-mail address: lbriens@eng.uwo.ca (L. Briens).
0032-5910/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2009.03.017
19
K=
y y4
M 4
Fig. 1. Rock motion encountered in sediment transport (Adapted from [10]) of: a) lift-off of a small particle, b) rolling of a large particle, c) sliding and lift-off of a large angular particle.
20
force near the pipe wall in the viscous sublayer, which depends on the
shape of the velocity prole. It was determined that for particles
smaller than 0.15 mm, the lift force was not signicant enough to lift
the particle out of the viscous sublayer.
The bouncing motion of spherical particles in stagnant liquids and
air was modelled by Gondret et al. [20]. Experiments were also
conducted into the measurement of the coefcient of restitution in
both uids. Particle trajectories were modelled using gravity, drag,
added mass and the history forces. These forces were applied under
Stokes conditions as the uids were stagnant. They determined that
these four forces were sufcient to accurately model the trajectory of
spherical particles, and the lift force was not required as it was
assumed to be weak near the wall.
Lick et al. [21] modelled the incipient motion of ne and coarse
quartz particles and the effect of cohesivity, which is dependent on the
particle diameter and sphericity. The forces analysed for this model
included gravitational, lift, drag and van der Waals forces. They found
excellent agreement between the model and experimental data,
however an additional binding force was required to predict incipient
motion for the cohesive slurry.
Wang and Shirazi [22] used Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
to model particle trajectories through elbows and bends to determine
erosion rates for slurry pipelines. The velocity prole for the uid was
modelled using the NavierStokes equation. The particle trajectories
were modelled with a force balance containing the drag force, the
buoyancy force due to centrifugal motion, the added mass force, and
the viscous sublayer. The sublayer was used to determine if particles
would rebound, or become trapped in this region. Good agreement
was found between their model and experimental data from literature
for determining the amount of material removed from the elbow at
low particle owrates.
Average ow turbulence for the coarse sediment transport in water
was used to estimate transport velocities, friction coefcients and
particle motion in an unbounded uid [23]. Included in their force
balance was the drag force in the Stokes regime, submerged gravity,
Basset history force, the lift force, and the Magnus force. They found
that their model performed satisfactorily when compared to experimental measurements of particle trajectories, and suggested that lift
forces were important in the modelling of the trajectory.
Willetts [24] studied the behaviour of a sand grain after being
dislodged from the surface of a stream. His model was based on lift
forces due to circulation, buoyant forces and drag forces. The
trajectories were found to be sensitive to the slope of the bed, particle
density and uid velocity. It was found that there was good agreement
between the model and videos of particle trajectories, regarding the
trajectory shape, and that the trajectory size increased with a decrease
in the particle size.
Salman et al. [25] developed a model to simulate the motion of a
particle in a horizontal pneumatic transport pipe. It was determined
that forces inuencing particle motion are drag in the horizontal
direction, and lift due to the velocity gradient and particle spin. This
model was found to have good agreement with experimental values
regarding the length of time a particle was suspended in the ow,
however, the model was not complete as to the modelling of particle
trajectories and forces.
21
Table 1
Flow properties of the slurries studied.
Slurry concentration
(wt.%)
Slurry density
(kg/m3)
10
30
50
1064
1228
1450
1.13 10 3
1.58 10 3
2.90 10 3
Ball valves below the storage tank allowed for drainage of the slurry
from the tank and pipeline.
The slurry was made up of silica sand at various sand concentrations. The Sauter-mean diameter of the silica sand was 180 m and its
density was 2650 kg/m3. The terminal velocity of the sand was
calculated to be 0.022 m/s.
The slurry concentration was controlled by the amount of silica
sand added to the storage vessel. Slurry velocities of 2, 3 and 3.5 m/s,
and slurry concentrations of 10, 30, and 50 wt.%, were studied. The
effective slurry viscosity was calculated with the correlation by Gillies
et al. [26]. The slurry concentrations and their corresponding densities
and viscosities are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 3. a. Schematic diagram of the hydrotransport system. X indicates the experimental acoustic probe measurement locations. b. Schematic diagram including dimensions of the
hydrotransport system.
22
Table 2
Physical properties of rocks studied.
Rock
Volumeequivalent
diameter
(mm)
Density
(kg/m3)
Rock
mass
(g)
Rock
volume
(mL)
Projected
area (mm2)
Terminal
velocity
(in water)
(m/s)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
19.2
16.8
17.9
15.1
12.0
11.5
10.5
9.1
18.3
17.5
15.4
14.2
9.1
2735
3160
2867
3111
3111
3250
2750
3125
2700
2482
2726
2133
3700
10.1
7.90
8.60
5.60
2.80
1.69
1.65
1.25
8.64
6.95
5.18
3.20
1.48
3.7
2.5
3.0
1.8
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.4
3.2
2.8
1.9
1.5
0.4
411
345
334
211
133
122
111
89
489
345
400
189
122
0.75
0.75
0.63
0.63
0.75
0.63
0.94
0.75
0.46
0.63
0.75
0.75
0.54
ball valve was opened and a rock dropped into the chamber, and the
rst valve closed. The second valve was then opened to drop the rock
into the pipe. The rock travelled through the system and was caught in
the rock cage at the end of the pipe in the storage tank. To recover the
rocks, the rock cage was unscrewed off of the pipe, emptied and
replaced. Multiple experiments were conducted for each rock at all
combinations of slurry concentrations and velocities, for a total of
more than 800 experiments.
The terminal velocity of the rocks was determined by using water
and sugar solutions at the viscosities corresponding to the effective
slurry viscosities. Terminal velocities for the rocks in water are
presented in Table 2. Distances were marked on a clear 0.05 m
diameter acrylic pipe and the rocks falling through the pipe were
recorded using a video camera. The video les were recorded at 15
frames per second. The terminal velocity was calculated based on the
number of frames required for the rock to move through a set distance,
after checking that the rock was fully accelerated.
3.6. Signal analysis methods
Raw signals were recorded using National Instruments' LabVIEW
data acquisition software. Kurtosis of the signal was calculated; the
amplitude of peaks in the raw signal correspond to the magnitude of
the peaks of kurtosis. The time interval length to calculate kurtosis
was 0.010 s. A kurtosis threshold limit was set using a limit of 10.
Albion et al. [14] provides the details regarding the selection of the
time interval length and the threshold limit values. The number of
peaks in the signal was calculated based on the number of peaks above
this threshold value.
Uslurry;avg
49 = 60
1
C
1 Cm
= m +
:
sand
liquid
slurry
4
5
Re =
slurry
CD =
Vrock rock slurry g
2
0:5slurry Arock Ut;rock
7
8
FD;x = FD cos :
FD;y = FD sin :
8a
8b
FB = Vrock slurry g:
area that is not the largest area or smallest projected area of the rock, as
videos of rocks travelling through the transparent section of pipe have
shown that rocks tumble resulting in a variety of projected areas
normal to the ow.
For spherical particles, a constant drag coefcient value of 0.43 can
be used as the Reynolds Number is in Newton's regime (Rep 970 000
for relative velocity of 1 m/s). However, the calculated drag coefcient
using the terminal velocity and shape of the rock also results in a drag
coefcient found in Newton's regime.
The drag force acts on an object as it moves steadily through a uid
[29]. The drag force in Eq. (8) is necessary since the rock and slurry do
not travel at the same velocity. A drag force acts on the rock in the
vertical and horizontal directions as it travels through the pipe, and
the force must be broken into components as in Eqs. (8a) and (8b)
[30].
ry Dpipe 17
:
Uslurry = Umax 1
Dpipe
slurry
23
drock
:
Umax
10
24
Shear rate:
Horizontal-direction:
Uslurry;t Uslurry;t 1
:
=
xy;t xy;t 1
11
s2 s1
5
FL = CL slurry drock 2
12
j U
slurry Urock
j sin
3
2
jrelative j2 :
13
Fg = Vrock rock g:
14
X
dUrock
:
F = ma = mrock
dt
Fx = FD;x
16
FD;x
ax =
:
mrock
16a
Vertical-direction:
X
Fy = Fg FD;y + FL + FB
ay =
Fg
FD;y
FL
FB
+
+
:
mrock
mrock
mrock
mrock
17a
Urock;t = e Urock;t 1 :
15
17
18
the bottom pipe wall. If the maximum trajectory height was greater
than the height threshold value, a collision is counted. If the maximum
trajectory height between successive collisions is less than the
threshold, a collision is not counted, as it is assumed that this collision
does not make a signicant sound, and the rock is considered to be
rolling along the bottom of the pipe. This was veried by kurtosis
analysis of acoustic measurements of rocks dropped from various
25
distances and hitting a steel plate. It was found that rocks hitting the
plate from a distance of a few millimetres did not cause enough of a
sound for recognition as a collision. Setting this threshold value
between 0.002 m and 0.004 m does not affect the number of collisions
predicted by the model.
As well, a kinetic energy threshold at the time of the collision was
used for the smaller rocks (Rocks E, F, G, H and M) to determine the
Fig. 6. Raw signal of Rock C in the hydrotransport system at a slurry velocity of 3 m/s and concentration of 30 wt.% and different locations along the horizontal line: a) 0.03
m, b) 0.50 m, c) 1.00 m, d) 1.50 m, e) 2.00 m, f) 2.50 m.
26
number of collisions. For each rock, the kinetic energy was calculated
using the rock velocity at the time of impact. If the kinetic energy
was greater than 0.0003 J, it was assumed that the rock had enough
energy for a sufcient sound to occur for a collision to be detected
by a microphone. Setting this threshold value between 0.00025 J
and 0.0004 J does not affect the number of collisions predicted by the
model.
Fig. 7. Kurtosis of Rock C in the hydrotransport system at a slurry velocity of 3 m/s and concentration of 30 wt.% and different locations along the horizontal line: a) 0.03 m, b) 0.50 m,
c) 1.00 m, d) 1.50 m, e) 2.00 m, f) 2.50 m.
27
Fig. 8. Trajectories of Rock C in the horizontal hydrotransport pipe at a slurry concentration of 30 wt.%, initial rock velocity of 1.5 m/s and initial rock height of 0.025 m at slurry
velocities of 2, 3 and 3.5 m/s.
the horizontal line. The rock resulting in this signal was Rock C, which is a
larger sized rounded rock (Table 2, Fig. 4), at a slurry velocity of 3.0 m/s and
a concentration of 30 wt.%.
As shown by the signals in Fig. 6, regular pulses exist in the signal,
which correspond to the diaphragm pump as it pumped the slurry
through the system with a cycle time of approximately 1 s.
A series of additional, much narrower peaks occurred at all microphone locations between approximately 5.5 and 6.5 s. These peaks
indicate the passage of a rock through the pipe. Peaks in the acoustic
signal are a function of the rock size and of the distance between the
impact location and the microphone. On the average, larger rocks and
impacts closer to the location of the microphone were found to result
in larger peaks, whereas smaller rocks and impacts further from the
microphone location caused smaller peaks. However, a small rock
hitting the wall near the microphone caused a larger peak than a large
rock hitting the wall far from the microphone: the peak size decreased
with an increase in distance from the microphone.
The progression of the rock can be seen in the raw signal. In Fig. 6a,
the rock is at 0.03 m at approximately 5.5 s, and by 6.5 s, it has moved
to 2.50 m from the elbow as shown in Fig. 6f. As expected, it was found
that at higher slurry velocities, rocks have a shorter residence time in
the pipe than at lower slurry velocities.
Fig. 9. Effect of initial rock entrance position on the number of collisions at an initial
rock velocity of 1.5 m/s and slurry velocity of 3 m/s.
Fig. 10. Effect of initial rock velocity on the number of collisions at an initial rock
entrance position of 0.025 m from the bottom of the pipe and a slurry velocity of 3 m/s.
28
Fig. 11. a. Comparison of the number of collisions counted by kurtosis to the number of collisions predicted by the model for all rocks, at all slurry concentrations, initial rock velocities
and an initial rock position of 0.025 m from the bottom of the pipe at a slurry velocity of 2 m/s. b. Comparison of the number of collisions counted by kurtosis to the number of
collisions predicted by the model for all rocks, at all slurry concentrations, initial rock velocities and an initial rock position of 0.025 m from the bottom of the pipe at a slurry velocity
of 3 m/s. c. Comparison of the number of collisions counted by kurtosis to the number of collisions predicted by the model for all rocks, at all slurry concentrations, initial rock
velocities and an initial rock position of 0.025 m from the bottom of the pipe at a slurry velocity of 3.5 m/s.
29
Fig. 12. a. Comparison of the number of collisions counted by kurtosis to the number of collisions predicted by the model for all oversized rocks, at all slurry concentrations, initial rock
velocities, and an initial rock position of 0.025 m from the bottom of the pipe at a slurry velocity of 2 m/s. b. Comparison of the number of collisions counted by kurtosis to the number
of collisions predicted by the model for all oversized rocks, at all slurry concentrations, initial rock velocities, and an initial rock position of 0.025 m from the bottom of the pipe at a
slurry velocity of 3 m/s. c. Comparison of the number of collisions counted by kurtosis to the number of collisions predicted by the model for all oversized rocks, at all slurry
concentrations, initial rock velocities, and an initial rock position of 0.025 m from the bottom of the pipe at a slurry velocity of 3.5 m/s.
used in this plot were an initial rock velocity of 1.5 m/s and an initial
rock position of 0.025 m from the bottom pipe wall. It is shown in
Fig. 8, that the slurry velocity has a signicant effect on the number of
collisions and the trajectory length of the rock. At a slurry velocity of
2 m/s, many collisions occur along the length of the pipe, however at a
position of 2.5 m from the elbow, the rock is rolling along the bottom
of the pipe, and does not make sufcient sound for collisions to be
detected. The coefcient of restitution also has a signicant effect, as
the maximum trajectory height decreases along the length of the pipe.
At a slurry velocity of 3 m/s, the rock collides along the length of the
pipe, and does not roll towards the end. The number of collisions at
this velocity is less than at 2 m/s, as the trajectories are longer. At a
slurry velocity of 3.5 m/s there are fewer collisions between the rock
and the pipe wall than at the lower slurry velocities, and the rock does
not experience any rolling along the bottom of the pipe, over the
considered length of pipe.
At the higher slurry velocities, the uid is better able to keep the rock
in suspension, which results in fewer collisions with the pipe wall, and
30
Fig. 13. Trajectories of oversized rocks in the horizontal hydrotransport pipe at a slurry concentration of 30 wt.%, initial rock velocity of 2.0 m/s and initial rock entrance position of
0.025 m and a slurry velocity of 3 m/s.
the rock travels further between collisions. At the entrance region of the
pipe, the rock is found to impact against the top and bottom pipe walls.
These collisions are recorded by the microphones located on the side of
the pipe. Acoustic signals were recorded simultaneously at the top,
bottom and side of the pipe, and a collision between the rock and the
pipe wall was recorded by all microphones regardless of their position
around the circumference. The trajectory heights shown in Fig. 8 were
qualitatively veried using videos recorded of rocks travelling at each
slurry velocity through the clear PVC pipe section.
5.4. The effect of the initial conditions on the number of collisions
Fig. 9 shows the effect of the initial entrance position of a rock on
the number of collisions predicted by the model for each slurry
concentration, at an initial rock velocity of 1.5 m/s and a slurry
velocity of 3 m/s for Rock C. It can be seen that there was no effect of
the rock entrance position on the number of collisions at slurry
concentrations of 10 and 30 wt.%, however, at a concentration of
50 wt.%, the number of collisions increased by 1 collision when the
entrance location was near the top of the pipe. Since the number of
collisions at this slurry concentration varied by 1 collision, this
additional collision that was recorded for the entrance position near
the top of the pipe can be the result of an extra collision with the top
pipe wall, when it was released close to this boundary. At the slurry
concentration of 50 wt.%, the number of collisions predicted at rock
entrance positions of 0.01 and 0.025 m match the number of collisions
counted by kurtosis, whereas the number of collisions predicted by
the model at the entrance position of 0.04 m is 1 greater than the
number of collisions counted by kurtosis.
Fig. 10 shows the effect of different initial rock velocities on the
number of collisions between the rock and the pipe wall for an initial
rock position, at the pipe centreline, of 0.025 m from the bottom of the
pipe at a slurry velocity of 3 m/s. At slurry concentrations of 10 and
30 wt.%, the initial rock velocity does not affect the number of
collisions predicted by the model. At a slurry concentration of 50 wt.%,
an additional collision is predicted by the model at the highest initial
rock velocity. Again, this can be the result of an additional collision
with the top of the pipe as the rock enters the horizontal pipe. At the
slurry concentration of 50 wt.%, the number of collisions predicted at
initial rock velocities of 1.0 and 1.5 m/s match the number of collisions
counted by kurtosis, whereas the number of collisions predicted by
the model at the rock initial velocity of 2.0 m/s is 1 greater than the
number of collisions counted by kurtosis.
31
Fig. 14. Modelled trajectories of a large rock in a 27-inch horizontal hydrotransport pipe at a slurry concentration of 50 wt.%, slurry velocity of 3 m/s, initial rock velocity of 1.5 m/s and
varying initial rock entrance heights.
and may not generate a loud sound when they collide to be recorded,
unless a collision is close to a microphone.
It can also be seen from Fig. 11ac, that the number of collisions
counted by kurtosis and estimated by the model decreases as the
slurry velocity increases. This is attributed to the ability of the slurry to
carry the rocks. At low slurry velocities, the slurry cannot carry the
rocks large distances, and they collide more often with the pipe wall,
however, as the slurry velocity increases, the slurry can better suspend
the rocks, and they travel further distances between collisions.
Fig. 12ac compares the number of collisions between the rock and
the pipe wall for oversized rocks only (rock diameter/pipe diameter
N25%). The data used in these gures are the same as the earlier
gures: there is a plot for each slurry velocity, and each plot was
generated using 12 sets of initial conditions for each slurry concentration for all the oversized rocks. The agreement for the oversized rocks is
much better than for the acceptable rock sizes. As well, there is much
overlap of the predicted and counted number of collisions.
In Fig. 12ac, only the oversized rocks were considered. In the
hydrotransport of oil sand, there will be many rocks of an acceptable
size present in the slurry that will not cause damage to the equipment.
It is not as important to detect these rocks, as it is to detect oversized
rocks. Oversized rocks can cause immediate damage to the system, and
ideal probe locations must be identied to detect these rocks so that
preventative action can be taken before signicant damage occurs.
5.6. Rock detection at various positions along the horizontal pipe
Fig. 13 shows the trajectory of oversized rocks along the horizontal
hydrotransport pipe at a slurry concentration of 30 wt.% and a slurry
velocity of 3 m/s, as predicted by the model. Examination of the rock
trajectories and collision locations led to the identication of optimum
microphone locations for reliable detection of oversized rocks for all
slurry concentrations and initial conditions at each slurry velocity.
Ideal locations for rock detection occur, when all rocks collide at
approximately the same location in the pipe, and the sound of the
collision can be detected by the acoustic probe. Fig. 13 shows that the
majority of the collisions are concentrated over a short length of pipe
until approximately 1.0 m from the elbow, under these conditions.
Further from the elbow, collisions occur over a longer length of pipe,
and a microphone in this area would result in fewer rocks detected.
The initial conditions effect the location of a rock collision as the
location of the collision can vary a few centimetres.
The distance sound can travel from a rockwall collision was tested
using pipe sections connected by a tee to form a 90 bend. This section
of pipe was lled with water, and microphones were located along the
length of the horizontal section of pipe. Rocks were dropped into the
vertical section of pipe to impact the elbow from different heights,
which varied the velocity of the rock. The distance between the
microphones was increased to determine the distance when the
sound of the collision was no longer detected by the microphone. It
was found that at higher velocities, the sound of the collision was
detected 30 cm from the collision, whereas at slower velocities, the
sound of the collision was detected 40 cm from the collision.
Examining the trajectories of all the oversized rocks at all concentrations and initial condition combinations, the optimum microphone locations for reliable rock detection at each slurry velocity are:
2 m/s:
0.05, 0.50, 1.00 m
3 m/s:
0.05, 0.50, 1.00 m
3.5 m/s: 0.05, 0.50, 1.00, 1.50, 2.00 m.
The optimum microphone locations vary with slurry velocity, due
to the effect of the velocity on the ability to carry the rock. The
difference in the locations of some of the microphones are due to the
decreasing length of the rock trajectories.
These optimum microphone positions correspond well with the
experimentally determined ideal locations. At slurry velocities of 2
and 3 m/s, 3 microphones were required for 100% detection, and 4
microphones were required for a slurry velocity of 3.5 m/s. At 2 and
3 m/s, the experimentally determined ideal locations were found to
be 0.03, 0.5 and 1.0 m in the horizontal line. At a slurry velocity of
3.5 m/s, the ideal locations were experimentally found to be 0.03, 1.0,
1.5 and 2.0 m in the horizontal line [14].
There is perfect agreement between the optimum rock detection
locations predicted by the model and the experimentally determined
locations at all slurry velocities, as the model predicted locations are all
within the rst metre of the pipe after the elbow for slurry velocities of
2 and 3 m/s, and within the rst 2 m at a slurry velocity of 3.5 m/s.
Fig. 13 shows that ideal microphone locations reliable detection of
oversized rocks, regardless of the slurry concentration or the initial
conditions of the rock, are close to the elbow. As compared to Fig. 8,
microphone placement near the elbow is ideal since many rocks
collide in this area as they change direction after coming through the
elbow and accelerate in the ow.
5.7. Application of the model to industrial conditions
The model was applied to a 27-inch (0.69 m) diameter, horizontal
hydrotransport pipe, to simulate industrial conditions. The length of
the pipe used to calculate the trajectories was 10 m. A large rock was
32
References
[1] A. Fair, J. Oxenford, J. Coward, M. Lipsett, Technology visions for mining at Syncrude,
CIM Bull. 92 (1999) 113121.
[2] R.B. Paine, B.M. Wright, Understanding hydrotransport: the key to Syncrude's
success, CIM Bull. 92 (1999) 105108.
[3] M. Valenti, Oil Sand Kicks Into High Gear, Mechanical Engineering Magazine,
1998 http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/december98/features/oilsand/
oilsand.html.
[4] R.S. Sanders, J. Schaan, R. Hughes, C. Shook, Performance of sand slurry pipelines in
the oil sands industry, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 82 (2004) 850857.
[5] N. Chien, Z. Wan, Mechanics of Sediment Transport, ASCE Press, Virginia, 1999.
[6] C.A. Shook, R.G. Gillies, R.S. Sanders, Pipeline Hydrotransport with Applications in
the Oil Sand Industry, Saskatchewan Research Council, Saskatoon, 2002.
[7] P.D. Osborne, Transport of gravel and cobble on a mixed-sediment inner bank shoreline of a large inlet, Grays Harbor, Washington, Mar. Geol. 224 (2005) 145156.
[8] R.I. Ferguson, D.J. Bloomer, T.B. Hoey, A. Werritty, Mobility of river tracer pebbles
over different timescales, Water Resour. Res. 38 (2002) 18.
[9] F.-C. Wu, Y.-J. Chou, Rolling and lifting probabilities for sediment entrainment,
J. Hydraul. Eng. 129 (2003) 110119.
[10] T.G. Drake, R.L. Shreve, W.E. Dietrich, P.J. Whiting, L.B. Leopold, Bedload transport
of ne gravel observed by motion-picture photography, J. Fluid Mech. 192 (1988)
193217.
[11] J.W.R. Boyd, J. Varley, The uses of passive measurement of acoustic emissions from
chemical engineering processes, Chem. Eng. Sci. 56 (2001) 17491767.
[12] M. Valentino, Microphone handbook, PCB Piezotronics Vibration Division, 2005,
http://www.pcb.com/Linked_Documents/Vibration/Microphone_Handbook.
pdf.
[13] L.W. Flott, Quality control: nonnormal frequency distributions, Met. Finish. 93
(1995) 5255.
[14] K. Albion, L. Briens, C. Briens, F. Berruti, S. McDougall, Detection of oversized
material in a hydrotransport slurry pipe using a non-invasive acoustic method.
Powder Technol. 190 (2009) 361371.
[15] C.A. Shook, M.C. Roco, Slurry Flow: Principles and Practice, ButterworthHeinemann, Toronto, 1991.
[16] B. Abulnaga, Slurry Systems Handbook, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New
York, 2002.
[17] L.-S. Fan, C. Zhu, Pneumatic Conveying of Solids in Principles of GasSolids Flows,
Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 1998.
[18] F.J. Cabrejos, G.E. Klinzing, Incipient motion of solid particles in horizontal
pneumatic conveying, Powder Technol. 72 (1992) 5161.
[19] K.C. Wilson, A. Sellgren, Interactions of particles and near-wall lift in slurry
pipelines, J. Hydraul. Eng. 129 (2003) 7376.
[20] P. Gondret, M. Lance, L. Petit, Bouncing motion of spherical particles in uids, Phys.
Fluid 14 (2002) 643652.
[21] W. Lick, L. Jin, J. Gailani, Initiation of the movement of quartz particles, J. Hydraul.
Eng. 130 (2004) 755761.
[22] J. Wang, S. Shirazi, A CFD based correlation for erosion factor for long-radius elbow
and bends, Trans. ASME 125 (2003) 2634.
[23] Y. Nino, M. Garcia, Gravel saltation: 2 modeling, Water Resour. Res. 30 (1994)
19151924.
[24] B.B. Willetts, The inuence of lift due to circulation on saltation and suspension of
solid particles in streams, Hydrotransport 1: First International Conference on the
Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes, Coventry, England, vol. H2, 1970, pp. 1736.
[25] A.D. Salman, D.A. Gorham, M. Szabo, M.J. Hounslow, Spherical particle movement
in dilute pneumatic conveying, Powder Technol. 153 (2005) 4350.
[26] R.G. Gillies, M. McKibben, K.B. Hill, C.A. Shook, Sand transport by Newtonian uids
in laminar pipe ow, Powder Technol. 104 (1999) 269277.
[27] C.J. Geankoplis, Transport Processes and Unit Operations, 3rd EditionPrentice-Hall
Inc., Toronto, 1993.
[28] K. Albion, L. Briens, C. Briens, F. Berruti, Flow regime determination in horizontal
hydrotransport using non-intrusive acoustic probes. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 86 (2008)
9891000.
[29] M.C. Roco, Particulate Two-Phase Flow, Butterworth-Heinemann, Toronto, 1993.
[30] C.E. Lapple, C.B. Shepherd, Calculation of particle trajectories, Ind. Eng. Chem. 32
(1940) 605617.
[31] M.L. Albertson, Effects of shape on the fall velocity of gravel particles, 5th Iowa
Hydraulic Conference, Iowa University, Iowa, 1953.
[32] E. Gavze, M. Shapiro, Particles in shear ow near a solid wall: effect of nonsphericity on forces and velocities, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 23 (1997) 155182.