Coal Flow Ability Report - Bunker Coal Flow Study For Anpara-D

Job no: S/BHEL- Noida/Flow Lab/16/2010-11
Confidential Not For Publication
Draft Report
Bunker Coal Flow Study for 2x500 MW Thermal Power Station of Anpara-D Project, U.P.
Sponsored by
M/s BHEL, Noida
December, 2010
Prepared by
Research & Development Centre NMDC Ltd

(A Government of India Enterprise)
Uppal Road, Hyderabad - 500 007 India
Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D
INDEX
Sl.no. Contents Executive Summary Glossary of Terms Symbols and Abbreviations List of Figures List of Tables 1. 2. 3. INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVE EXPERIMENTAL WORK 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4. 5. 6. SAMPLE PREPARATION MOISTURE DETERMINATION BULK DENSITY BULK DENSITY VARIATION WITH CONSOLIDATION STRESS SHEAR TESTS
Page no. 2 5 7 8 9 10 14 15 15 16 16 17 18 18 21 27 30
3.5.1 RING SHEAR TESTER EXPERIMENTAL DATA GENERATED RESULTS & DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATIONS
R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd
Page 1
Executive Summary
M/s. BHEL,Noida vide work order no. PW/PE/PG/ANP/P-307/10, dt:16.06.2010 have awarded the work to R&D centre, NMDC Ltd. for comprehensive flowability studies on the coal sample of the proposed 2 x 500 MW Anpara-D thermal power station, UP, to provide relevant parameters for the design of reliable gravity flow coal silos. The silos are required to promote Mass Flow without choking and rat holing problems. Accordingly approx. 400kg of coal sample was received from TPS Anpara at R&D Centre of NMDC on 15.09.2010. A representative sample was drawn from the lot to establish the size analysis. The coal sample has been crushed to -5mm size and homogeneously mixed. The fine sized coal of typically less than 2.36mm size, which is primarily responsible for flow related problems has been screened and was used for conducting the shear tests. The flowability characteristics of coal and its interaction with five different liners i.e. Stainless steel SS409M(2D Finish), SS304(2B finish), IS 2062, Mild steel(rusted) and UHMWPE (ultra high molecular weight polyethylene) were established using Ring Shear Tester at four different moisture levels of coal by physically altering the moisture content. As most coal samples exhibit high yield strength between 55% to 85% saturation moisture, it was decided to conduct tests on coal sample at 55%, 65%, 75% and 85% saturation moisture levels (SML). The corresponding moisture content (mc) of each saturation moisture level for coal is respectively 16.4%, 19.4%, 22.3% and 25.3%. The coal sample exhibited highest cohesive strength at 25.3% mc which is considered the critical moisture. The undisturbed storage time tests were conducted at 25.3% mc for storage up to 24 hours and 72 hours to establish the effect of undisturbed coal storage in the bunker/silo. The shear test data has been processed to establish the minimum slopes and outlet sizes required to generate Mass Flow in coal bunkers. The following are the salient points. The results of testing indicate that the tested coal is compressible and has moderate angles of internal friction and moderate bulk strength. Based on the Jenikes classification, the coal can be classified cohesive at 16.4% mc and very cohesive thereafter.
Page 2
The flow function curves indicate that coal exhibits highest yield strength at a moisture content of 25.3%. Hence the storage time tests were conducted at 25.3%, which is considered the critical moistures. There is a significant increase in the bulk strength of coal after 24hours and 72 hours of storage.
The coal at 25.3%mc, requires a critical (minimum) outlet dia. of 0.70m to prevent cohesive arching at instantaneous condition (without storage) in case of conical hoppers.
The storage time test at 25.3%mc indicate that the critical (minimum) outlet dia. required is 1.0m for 24 hours and 1.26m for 72 hours of storage to prevent the formation of cohesive arching above the outlet in the conical hoppers.
The minimum conical hopper slope (with horizontal) required for Mass Flow at a typical outlet dia. of 0.914m (0.914m was chosen out of general practice in coal bunkers of 500MW thermal power plant) is 73.50 with stainless steel SS304 (2B finish) liner and 71.30 with SS409M (2D finish) to handle coal at all moisture levels. The minimum slopes for other outlet dimensions are also presented in the report.
The slope of the hopper (with horizontal) decreases normally with the increase in hopper outlet size for different liners. The minimum slope required to promote Mass Flow against different outlet sizes has been provided in tabular form in the report which may be utilised in the functional design process.
The typical outlet dimension of 0.914m (dia) for the coal bunkers is sufficient to prevent cohesive arching above the bunker outlet while handling tested coal at all moisture levels and undisturbed storage in the bunker for less than 24 hours. However, upon extended undisturbed coal storage beyond 24
Page 3
hours, the coal is likely to form an Arch at the outlet leading to no flow condition. If prolonged storage of coal in silo beyond 24 hours is expected, then Arching can be avoided by locating a shut off gate at hopper sectional dia of 1.26m instead of placing at the 0.914m dia. During the shut down, the shut off gate should be closed and coal below the gate is to be emptied by running through the system. In such an arrangement, the effective outlet size would be 1.26m. This will facilitate to initiate the coal flow satisfactorily from the silo after extended period of undisturbed storage up to 72 hours.
Page 4
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Cohesive Arching: A no flow condition caused by bridging of the material over the hopper outlet Bin: Usually vertical section of a storage container (Sometime used synonymous to a Bunker/Silo) Bunker: Storage container having both vertical and convergent sections Expanded Flow: Combination of Mass Flow in converging section and a Funnel Flow bin on top Flow Function: Plot of unconfined yield stress versus major consolidation stress for specific bulk solid. It is a bulk solid parameter Flow Factor: It is a flow channel parameter. Flow factor is the ratio of major consolidation stress in a bulk solid flowing in a channel to the major principal stress that would cause it to cease flowing. The value of flow factor depends on the geometry of the hopper, especially on the slope of the channel walls, the angle of wall friction and the effective angle of friction. Funnel Flow: A flow pattern in which the material flows primarily in the central part of the bin or hopper in the form of a funnel
Page 5
Gravity Flow: The flow of a bulk material is induced by gravity alone Hopper: Converging section of a storage container Instantaneous condition: No storage at rest (Filling of bunker followed by extraction) Mass Flow: A flow pattern in which all the material in the bin or hopper is in motion and flow occurs along the walls of bin or hopper Rathole/Piping: A restricted flow condition in which the material flow is limited to Vertical central cylindrical core above the hopper outlet Plane Flow: A flow pattern characterized by flow trajectories that are symmetric about the vertical plane through the longitudinal axis of the outlet slot Silo: Tall storage container, usually with a centrally located opening Time storage: Bulk solid stored undisturbed in the bunker for specified time
Page 6
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Dc: Ds: Dp: Df: c: Minimum diameter of circular discharge opening for a Mass Flow Silo, m Minimum side of a square discharge opening for a Mass Flow Silo, m Minimum width of a slot discharge opening for a Mass Flow Silo, m Critical rathole dimension (Funnel Flow), m Minimum angle (from horizontal) for a conical hopper walls and end walls of a transition hopper for Mass Flow, Degrees p: Minimum angle (from horizontal) for a wedge shaped (plane flow) hopper and side of transition hopper for Mass Flow, Degrees FF: FFt: (Sigma): 1: FC: (Delta): x (Phix): (Phi): sml: mc: Flow Function Time Flow Function Normal stress, pa (Pascal) Major consolidation stress, pa Unconfined Yield Stress, pa Effective angle of friction, Degrees Kinematic angle of wall friction, Degrees Angle of internal friction, Degrees Saturation moisture level Moisture content
Page 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Sl. no.
Contents
Page no.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mass Flow and Funnel Flow Patterns Expanded Flow Bin Variation of bulk density with major consolidation stress Jenike Schulze Ring Shear Tester Photographs of Liners Tested Typical treatment of yield Locus (25.3%mc, Level-2) Kinematic angle of wall friction (16.4% & 19.4%mc) Kinematic angle of wall friction (22.3% & 25.3%mc) Flow functions Flow function and Time Flow function (25.3%mc, 24hrs and 72hrs)
12 13 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Page 8
LIST OF TABLES
Sl. no.
Contents
Page no.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Size analysis of as received sample Percent moisture content with respect to saturation moisture level Bulk density and Angle of repose Flowability parameters Minimum outlet dimension to prevent cohesive arching at critical moisture Minimum hopper slopes for Mass Flow at a given outlet dimension
15 16 17 26 32 33
Page 9
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Gravity Flow Of Bulk Solids Gravity forces in general, are utilized wherever possible to cause the flow of bulk solids in bins, hoppers and stockpiles. Earlier, the designs for such systems were based on the angle of repose concept of the material. However, this parameter does not take into account the consolidation loads experienced by the bulk solid when stored and extracted from bunkers. The cost of Bulk material handling operations is very substantial and for this reason handling and storage facilities should be designed to gain maximum reliability and efficiency. Advances in this field have shown conclusively various factors other than angle of repose, which influence greatly in establishing optimum flow condition for the material with respect to bunker geometry and liner selection. The common problems associated with material flow are segregation, flow blockage due to arching, Rat holing, wall failures etc. These problems are in turn related to factors like Effective angle of friction between particles, Kinematic angle of wall friction, Angle of internal friction etc. Now a days, increased awareness amongst material handling experts has emerged to consider various flow parameters like moisture effect, liner effect, storage effect, bunker geometry, effect of wall pressure in hopper, flow path and velocity fields etc., while designing the geometry of the system as against conventional approach of angle of repose. The design of storage bins for bulk solids involves 1. Determination of the strength and flow properties of the bulk solids for the worst likely conditions expected to occur in practice. 2. Determination of the bin geometry to give the desired capacity, and reliable, predictable gravity flow. 3. Estimation of loadings exerted on the bin walls and the feeder under operating conditions.
Page 10
1.2 Modes of Flow In order to appreciate the problems encountered with the bunker operation it is important to know the Flow patterns that occur in bunkers during gravity flow. There are two basic modes of flow, Mass Flow and Funnel Flow 1.2.1 Mass Flow Mass Flow pattern describes a condition in which all the material in the bin is in motion whenever any of it is drawn out (Fig.1). It is not necessary that the velocity across the cross section is constant only that all the material will be in motion. Mass Flow bins require more headroom than the Funnel flow systems because the hopper walls have to be smooth and steep. The flow pattern sequence is first-in, first-out, Rat holes do not develop and fine powdery materials will have time to deaerate after charged in to the bin. Material bulk density at the outlet is relatively constant and segregation is minimized because particles at the centre and sidewalls of the bin are discharged simultaneously. Mass Flow bins are especially suitable for cohesive solids (including many fine powders) that degrade with time, and where segregation should be minimized. But the disadvantage associated with Mass Flow is wear of bin and hopper walls when handling abrasive bulk solids. 1.2.2 Funnel Flow Funnel flow (or Core flow) on the other hand occurs when the bulk solid sloughs off the surface and discharges through a vertical channel, which forms within the material in the bin (Fig.1). This mode of flow occurs when the hopper walls are rough and slopes are shallow. It follows the first-in, last-out sequence of flow pattern. Flow rate tends to be erratic with varying feed bulk density. Stable rat holes can form if the stored material develops enough cohesive strength, resulting in severe loss of the live capacity, besides pseudo-stable rat holes may develop causing erratic flow. Most fine powders exhibit flushing in a Funnel flow bunker system, because they can support a stable rat-hole. segregation. Funnel flow bunkers also exhibit the problems of
Page 11
Fig.1 Mass Flow and Funnel Flow Patterns

1.2.3 Expanded Flow Bin Where large quantities of the bulk solid are to be stored, the expanded-flow bin (Fig.2) is often an ideal solution. This bin combines the storage capacity of the Funnel flow bin with the reliable discharge characteristics of the Mass Flow hopper. It is necessary for the Mass Flow hopper to have a diameter at least equal to the critical pipe or rathole dimension Df at the transition with the Funnel flow section of the bin. This ensures that the flow of material from the Funnel flow or upper section of the bin can be fully expanded into the Mass Flow hopper. The Expanded flow bin concept may also be used as advantage in the case of bins or bunkers with multiple outlets.
Page 12
Fig.2 Expanded Flow Bin
Page 13
2. OBJECTIVE
The objective of the assignment is to establish the flow properties of coal sample for the proposed 2 x 500 MW Anpara D thermal power station, UP, to provide relevant parameters for the design of reliable gravity flow coal silos based on the test data obtained at different moisture contents along with storage time effect up to 72 hours.
Page 14
3. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
3.1 Sample Preparation Approximately 400Kg of coal sample has been received from the Thermal power plant, Anpara, U.P. The sample has been uniformly mixed and representative sample was drawn from the lot to establish the size analysis. The as received sample was coarse in size and containing lumps as large as 40mm. The size analysis of as received sample is presented in Table-1. About 100 Kg of representative sample has been further drawn from the lot which was subjected to stage crushing and reduced to size below 5mm. The crushed sample was screened through an 8 mesh (2.36mm) aperture screen. About 60 kg of representative sample of -2.36 mm was cut from the lot and the same is used for shear testing to generate flowability test data. TABLE-1 SIZE ANALYSIS OF AS RECEIVED SAMPLE Nominal Screen aperture Size Tyler Mesh no. --------18 20 28 35 48 65 100 150 200 250 325 mm 40 20 10 3 1 0.833 0.589 0.417 0.295 0.208 0.147 0.104 0.074 0.061 0.043 Cumulative weight percent passing 94.59 85.51 72.74 51.78 33.89 30.50 26.09 21.40 17.45 13.68 11.45 11.29 9.93 9.66 9.46
Page 15
3.2
Moisture Determination Moisture content was determined on -8# (-2.36mm) size fraction by drying small quantity of samples at 107o C until dry in a forced convection oven. The loss in weight of each sample divided by its original (wet) weight before drying is denoted as moisture content. After determining the moisture content of the air dried coal, the saturation moisture level of coal is also established by gradually adding small quantities of water to a known quantity of coal sample until the coal reaches a 100% saturation level. The total quantity of water added is noted. The moisture of the resultant sample at 100% saturation is determined. The percentage moisture of the coal with reference to various saturation levels are shown in Table-2. TABLE- 2 PERCENT MOISTURE CONTENT WITH RESPECT TO SATURATION MOISTURE LEVEL
Moisture level
Moisture content (%) 8.68 16.4 19.4 22.3 25.3 29.8
Air dried sample 55% saturation moisture level 65% saturation moisture level 75% saturation moisture level 85% saturation moisture level 100% saturation moisture level
3.3
Bulk Density The bulk density of the as received coal sample is determined along with repose angle and is shown in Table-3.
Page 16
TABLE-3 BULK DENSITY AND ANGLE OF REPOSE Sample Size of coal Bulk density (kg/m3) 977 Angle of Repose (deg) 35.50 Condition 10.25% moisture
Coal
As received
3.4
Bulk Density Variation with Consolidation Stress The bulk density is an important parameter in calculation of bunker/silo loads, bunker capacities, opening sizes and material flow rates. The bulk density variation with major consolidation load at different moistures is established using Ring shear tester and is presented in Fig.3.
1300 Bulk Density, Kg/m3 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 Major Consolidation Stress, Pa 16.4% mc 19.4% mc 22.3% mc 25.3% mc
Fig. 3 Variation of bulk density with consolidation stress
Page 17
3.5
Shear Tests The influence of moisture content on the flowability of coal is very significant. For most bulk materials like coal, the bulk strength tends to increase (flowability drops down) with increased moisture content, reaching a peak between 55% to 85% saturation. Beyond this peak value the bulk strength generally reduces with further increase in moisture content. To find the moisture level at which the coal attains maximum bulk strength, shear tests were conducted at moisture contents 16.4%, 19.4%, 22.3%, and 25.3%mc, by altering the moisture content of received sample. The above moistures correspond to 55%, 65%, 75% and 85% saturation respectively. The methodology of shear testing is based on the special procedure of compacting the coal sample at different specified moisture levels to obtain packing conditions expected in the bunkers/silos and then subjecting the sample for shear testing using Ring shear tester.
3.5.1 Ring Shear Tester Ring shear tester (RST-01.pc) (Fig.4) is used to evaluate Effective angle of friction and the Flow function (FF) of the coal sample at various moisture levels. The standard shear cell is homogenously filled with the sample of -2.36mm size by avoiding large voids and the excess material is scraped off in level with the top of the shear cell. It is carefully placed on the driving axle of the ring shear tester and the sample is subjected to shearing (Fig.4). Bunker storage time tests were carried out in a Consolidation Test Bench to evaluate undisturbed storage effect for 24 and 72 hours. The wall friction tests were also carried on Ring Shear tester using the wall liners Mild steel (rusted), SS304 (2B), IS2062, SS409M (2D) and UHMWPE. The liners (Fig.5) were cut to the required shape and dimensions and placed in the appropriate shear cell. The sample to be tested is homogeneously filled up to the top of the shear cell. The cell is placed on the driving axle of the ring shear tester and the sample is subjected to shearing against the wall liner under different stress conditions.
Page 18
Fig.4 Jenike-Schulze Ring Shear Tester (RST-01.PC)
Page 19
SS304(2B)
Mild Steel (rusted)
UHMWPE
SS409M(2D)
IS 2062 Fig.5 Photographs of Liners Tested
Page 20
4. EXPERIMENTAL DATA GENERATED

The interactions of coal flowing within itself and against different bunker wall/ liners are determined from the shear test data. The data generated at 16.4%, 19.4%, 22.3%, and 25.3%mc for coal sample was analyzed using RSTCONTROL 95 software for plotting yield loci and constructing Mohr stress circles to evaluate the relevant flowability parameters which forms the basic design criteria for suggesting bunker/silo configuration for Mass Flow. Typical treatment of yield loci, wall friction curves (phiX) and flow function (FF) curves are presented in Fig. 6 to 10. The flowability parameters determined are presented in Table-4.
Fig. 6 Typical treatment of yield Locus (25.3 %mc, Level-2)
Page 21
Fig.7 Kinematic angle of wall friction (16.4%&19.4%mc)

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd Page 22
Fig.8 Kinematic angle of wall friction (22.3%&25.3% mc)

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd Page 23
22000 Unconfined Yeild Stress, Pa 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 Major Consolidation Stress, Pa 16.4% mc 19.4% mc 22.3% mc 25.3% mc
Fig.9 Flow functions
Page 24
Fig.10 Flow function and Time Flow functions (25.3%mc, 24hrs and 72hrs)
Page 25
TABLE-4 FLOWABILITY PARAMETERS Effective Moisture content angle of friction, deg, 16.4% 49 Arctan[71/Sigmaw +Tan(18.1)] Arctan[170/Sigmaw +Tan(18.7)] Arctan[448/Sigmaw +Tan(16.7)] Arctan[431/Sigmaw +Tan(17.5)] Arctan[173/Sigmaw +Tan(20.3)] Arctan[269/Sigmaw +Tan(20.6)] Arctan[554/Sigmaw +Tan(19.1)] Arctan[575/Sigmaw +Tan(19.6)] Arctan[198/Sigmaw +Tan(18.1)] Arctan[519/Sigmaw +Tan(18.2)] Arctan[586/Sigmaw +Tan(16.3)] Arctan[527/Sigmaw +Tan(16.6)] Arctan[74/Sigmaw +Tan(17.0)] Arctan[407/Sigmaw +Tan(17.4)] Arctan[536/Sigmaw +Tan(15.9)] Arctan[449/Sigmaw +Tan(17.7)] Arctan[10/Sigmaw +Tan(14.5)] Arctan[25/Sigmaw +Tan(19.2)] Arctan[328/Sigmaw +Tan(19.4)] Arctan[379/Sigmaw +Tan(18.6)] IS2062 Mild Steel(rusted) SS304(2B) SS409M(2D) UHMWPE Kinematic angle of wall friction, deg, Phix
19.4%
53
22.3%
54
25.3%
56
Page 26
5. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

5.1 Assessment of Coal Flowability The Flowability of coal at different moisture levels is characterised by their flow function curves (Fig.9). Based on these curves along with wall yield loci, an assessment of flowability of coal tested is given below. The results of testing indicate that the tested coal is compressible and has moderate angles of internal friction and moderate bulk strength. Based on the Jenikes classification, the coal can be classified cohesive at 16.4% mc and very cohesive thereafter. The flow function curves indicate that the coal exhibits highest yield strength at a moisture content of 25.3% particularly at low consolidation stresses (below 12 Kpa). Hence the storage time tests were conducted on coal at 25.3%, which is considered the critical moisture. There is a significant increase in the bulk strength of coal after 24 hours and 72 hours of undisturbed storage (Fig.10). Majority of the wall yield loci are not passing through origin and exhibit some cohesion/adhesion particularly at elevated moisture contents. In other words, the wall friction angle depends on normal stress (Fig.7&8). It implies that in such cases, the minimum slope of the hopper to promote Mass Flow will vary with the outlet dimension of the hopper. The average effective angle of internal friction (delta) varies from 490 to 560 depending on the moisture content of coal (Table-4). This forms one of the factors for further evaluation of design parameters. 5.2 Mass Flow Design Parameters Based on the Jenike theory, the Mass Flow bin design parameters like minimum slope (c or p) and outlet dimension (Dc or Dp) to prevent cohesive Arching in
Page 27
Hoppers were established using the flow parameters like effective angle of friction, wall angle of friction and flow function. The results are presented in Table-5&6. The minimum slope of hopper for Mass Flow varies with outlet size (slope decreases with increase in outlet size) in some cases, which is due to the cohesion/adhesion exhibited by bulk solids against the liner tested. The variable slopes with different outlets are given in Table-6. This may be used in the bunker design process. The above given results are minimum dimensions and hence steeper angles and larger outlets than given above are permitted. Some of the salient points are as follows. The coal at 25.3%mc, requires a critical (minimum) outlet dia. of 0.70m to prevent cohesive arching at instantaneous condition (without storage) in case of conical hoppers (Table-5). The storage time test at 25.3% mc for 24hrs and 72hrs of storage indicate that there is significant effect of storage on the coal flowability. The storage time test at 25.3%mc indicate that the critical (minimum) outlet dia. required is 1.0m for 24 hours and 1.26m for 72 hours of storage to prevent the formation of cohesive arching above the outlet in the conical hoppers (Table-5). The minimum conical hopper slope (with horizontal) required for Mass Flow at the outlet dia. of 0.914m (0.914m was chosen out of general practice in coal bunkers of 500MW thermal power plant) is 73.50 with stainless steel SS304(2B) liner, 71.30 with SS409M(2D finish) to handle coal at all moisture levels (Table-6). The Mass Flow slopes for a wedge shaped (slot outlet) hopper is 100 less (minimum, varies depending on the outlet size and wall friction) compared to a conical hopper and the minimum outlet dimension is typically half that of the conical hopper. The Mass Flow slopes and minimum outlet dimensions for a
Page 28
wedge shaped hopper are also presented in Table-5&6 as a part of this study.
Page 29
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations have been proposed based on the test results. It is recommended that the proposed coal bunkers of the thermal power plant be designed to promote Mass Flow. The design parameters presented in the report should be followed to ensure Mass Flow of coal. For a typical case of a conical hopper with outlet dimension of 0.914m, the minimum slope (with horizontal) should be 71.30 with SS409M (2D) liner in the converging hopper portion to promote Mass Flow. Whereas the SS304 (2B) liner is calling for a minimum slope of 73.50. The minimum outlet size required to prevent cohesive arching in case of a circular outlet (dia) is 1.0 m and 1.26m to initiate coal flow after 24 and 72 hours of undisturbed storage at critical moisture. The typical outlet dimension of 0.914m (dia) for the coal bunkers is sufficient to prevent cohesive arching above the bunker outlet while handling tested coal at all moisture levels and undisturbed storage in the bunker for less than 24 hours. However, upon extended undisturbed coal storage beyond 24 hours, the coal is likely to form an Arch at the outlet leading to no flow condition. This problem can be overcome by any one of the following options. 1) To Increase the outlet size to the required 1.26m dia. at the feeder interfacing. This needs change of gravimetric feeder design which is however generally not preferred due to increase in belt width. 2) To locate a shut off gate at hopper sectional dia of 1.26m instead of placing at the 0.914 m dia. During the shut down, the shut off gate should be closed and coal below the gate is to be emptied by running through the system. In such an arrangement, the effective outlet size would be 1.26m. This will facilitate to initiate the coal flow satisfactorily from the silo after extended period of undisturbed storage up to 72 hours. This option is the most feasible one in the present case.
Page 30
If a different liner like UHMWPE and geometric shape is chosen by any reason, the design parameters presented in the report for the liners concerned should be followed strictly to ensure Mass Flow.
Page 31
TABLE-5 MINIMUM OUTLET DIMENSION TO PREVENT COHESIVE ARCHING AT CRITICAL MOISTURE Moisture Content Dc (m) 0.70 Ds (m) 0.63 Dp (m) 0.35
Sample
Condition
Instantaneous
Coal
25.3%
24 Hours storage 72 Hours Storage
1.0
0.9
0.5
1.26
1.14
0.63
Page 32
TABLE-6 MINIMUM HOPPER SLOPES FOR MASS FLOW AT A GIVEN OUTLET DIMENSION Mass Flow Hopper slope (degrees, with horizontal) IS 2062 c 0.5 0.914 16.4 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 0.914 19.4 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 0.914 22.3 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 0.914 25.3 1.5 2.0 2.5 66.7 65.8 65.3 65.2 65.1 70.9 68.6 67.4 67.0 66.7 76.9 70.8 68.1 67.0 66.3 75.5 70.5 68.3 67.4 66.8 p 54.3 53.8 53.5 53.4 53.3 57.1 55.7 55.0 54.8 54.6 59.6 55.9 54.2 53.6 53.2 59.2 56.2 54.9 54.3 54.0 MS (Rusted) c 72.2 70.0 68.9 68.5 68.3 75.8 72.2 70.6 69.9 69.5 81.9 74.8 71.7 70.4 69.6 80.7 74.5 71.7 70.5 69.8 p 58.8 57.6 57.0 56.8 56.6 61.1 59.1 58.1 57.7 57.4 64.1 59.8 57.8 57.0 56.6 63.7 59.9 58.2 57.5 57.0 SS304 (2B) c 70.5 67.8 66.6 66.1 65.8 80.5 73.5 70.4 69.1 68.3 80.3 72.4 69.0 67.6 66.7 76.9 70.9 68.2 67.1 66.4 p 56.4 54.9 54.2 53.9 53.8 62.6 58.4 56.5 55.7 55.3 61.5 56.7 54.6 53.7 53.2 59.6 55.9 54.3 53.6 53.2
SS409M (2D)
Moisture Content (%)
Outlet Dimension (Dia or Width) (m)
UHMWPE c 60.7 60.5 60.5 60.4 60.4 67.0 66.7 66.5 66.4 66.4 76.2 71.8 69.8 69.0 68.6 75.3 71.0 69.0 68.2 67.8 p 48.4 48.4 48.3 48.3 48.3 55.1 54.9 54.8 54.8 54.7 60.7 58.1 56.9 56.4 56.1 59.7 57.2 56.0 55.5 55.2
c 65.6 64.6 64.1 63.9 63.8 76.6 71.0 68.4 67.4 66.8 78.6 71.3 68.1 66.8 66.0 76.1 71.0 68.5 67.7 67.1
p 52.9 52.7 52.0 51.9 51.9 59.7 56.4 54.8 54.2 53.8 60.2 55.8 53.8 53.0 52.3 59.7 56.6 55.2 54.6 54.3
Page 33
Blank Page for Notes
Page 34

Coal Flow Ability Report - Bunker Coal Flow Study For Anpara-D

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Coal Flow Ability Report - Bunker Coal Flow Study For Anpara-D

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Job no: S/BHEL- Noida/Flow Lab/16/2010-11

Confidential Not For Publication

M/s BHEL, Noida

Research & Development Centre NMDC Ltd

Uppal Road, Hyderabad - 500 007 India

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

Fig.1 Mass Flow and Funnel Flow Patterns

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

Fig.2 Expanded Flow Bin

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

Moisture content (%) 8.68 16.4 19.4 22.3 25.3 29.8

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

Fig. 3 Variation of bulk density with consolidation stress

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

Fig.4 Jenike-Schulze Ring Shear Tester (RST-01.PC)

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

Mild Steel (rusted)

IS 2062 Fig.5 Photographs of Liners Tested

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

4. EXPERIMENTAL DATA GENERATED

Fig. 6 Typical treatment of yield Locus (25.3 %mc, Level-2)

R&D Centre, NMDC Ltd

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

Fig.7 Kinematic angle of wall friction (16.4%&19.4%mc)

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D

Fig.8 Kinematic angle of wall friction (22.3%&25.3% mc)

Bunker coal flow study TPS Anpara-D