Swirl Flow Agitation for Scale Suppression
International Journal of Mineral Processing 112–113 (2012) 19–29
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Mineral Processing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijminpro
Swirl flow agitation for scale suppression
J. Wu a,⁎, G. Lane a, I. Livk a, B. Nguyen a, L. Graham a, D. Stegink b, T. Davis b a b
CSIRO Process Science and Engineering, Minerals Down Under Flagship, Graham Rd, Highett, Victoria 3190, Australia Queensland Alumina Ltd, Parsons Point, Gladstone, QLD 4680, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Scale formation is a serious problem in the mineral processing industry. To better understand the options available for mitigating this problem, a novel scale–velocity model is proposed in this paper for slurry systems commonly found in mineral processing plants. The new qualitative scale growth model predicts that at very low fluid velocities the scale growth rate is enhanced by an increase in fluid velocity due to the mass transfer-controlled scale growth. At higher fluid velocities, the scale growth rate decreases with increasing fluid velocity due to the increased flow erosion effect, for slurry systems. This suggests the potential of particulate erosion as a scale suppression mechanism. The model predicts the existence of an optimal slurry flow velocity, where scaling rate and equipment erosion rate are both zero. The optimal fluid velocity value is proposed to be used as the main parameter to improve engineering design of mineral processes in terms of scale suppression. A novel agitator design, swirl flow technology (SFT), developed and patented by CSIRO and Queensland Alumina Ltd (QAL) in Australia was introduced as an agitator design that better meets requirements for scale suppression than a widely used conventional draft-tube agitator system. SFT agitation has been installed in gibbsite precipitators at QAL 's alumina plant for a decade. As shown by CFD simulations and laboratory
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Mineral Processing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijminpro
Swirl flow agitation for scale suppression
J. Wu a,⁎, G. Lane a, I. Livk a, B. Nguyen a, L. Graham a, D. Stegink b, T. Davis b a b
CSIRO Process Science and Engineering, Minerals Down Under Flagship, Graham Rd, Highett, Victoria 3190, Australia Queensland Alumina Ltd, Parsons Point, Gladstone, QLD 4680, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Scale formation is a serious problem in the mineral processing industry. To better understand the options available for mitigating this problem, a novel scale–velocity model is proposed in this paper for slurry systems commonly found in mineral processing plants. The new qualitative scale growth model predicts that at very low fluid velocities the scale growth rate is enhanced by an increase in fluid velocity due to the mass transfer-controlled scale growth. At higher fluid velocities, the scale growth rate decreases with increasing fluid velocity due to the increased flow erosion effect, for slurry systems. This suggests the potential of particulate erosion as a scale suppression mechanism. The model predicts the existence of an optimal slurry flow velocity, where scaling rate and equipment erosion rate are both zero. The optimal fluid velocity value is proposed to be used as the main parameter to improve engineering design of mineral processes in terms of scale suppression. A novel agitator design, swirl flow technology (SFT), developed and patented by CSIRO and Queensland Alumina Ltd (QAL) in Australia was introduced as an agitator design that better meets requirements for scale suppression than a widely used conventional draft-tube agitator system. SFT agitation has been installed in gibbsite precipitators at QAL 's alumina plant for a decade. As shown by CFD simulations and laboratory
References: Adomeit, P., Renz, U., 2000. Correlations for the particle deposition rate accounting for lift forces and hydrodynamic mobility reduction. Can. J. Chem. 78, 32–39. Chapman, C.M., Nienow, A.W., Cook, M., Middleton, J.C., 1983. Particle-gas–liquid mixing in stirred vessels, part I: particle-liquid mixing. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 61, 71–81. Coletti, F., Macchietto, S., 2011. A dynamic, distributed model of shell-and-tube heat exchangers undergoing crude oil fouling. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50, 4515–4533. Epstein, N., 1983. Thinking about heat transfer fouling: a 5 × 5 matrix. Heat Transfer Eng. 4 (1), 43–56. Finnie, I., 1960. Erosion of surfaces by solid particles. Wear 3, 87–103. Hoang, T.A., Ang, M., Rohl, A.L., 2011. Effects of process parameters on gypsum scale formation in pipes. Chem. Eng. Technol. 34 (6), 1003–1009. Ibrahim, S., Nienow, A.W., 1996. Particle suspension in turbulent regime: the effect of impeller type and impeller/vessel configuration. Trans. IChemE 74, 679–688. Lane, G., 2006. Flow instability in an alumina precipitator fitted with a draft tube circulator. Fifth International Conference on CFD in the Process Industries. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 13–15. December, 2006. Loan, M., Klauber, C., Vernon, C., 2008. A fundamental study of gibbsite scale nucleation on mild steel. Proceedings of the 8th International Alumina Quality Workshop, pp. 7–12. September 2008, Darwin, Australia. Mullin, J.W., 2001. Crystallization, Fourth edition. Butterworth-Heinemann, MA. Nawrath, S.J., Khan, M.M.K., Welsh, M.C., 2006. An experimental study of scale growth rate and flow velocity of a super-saturated caustic-aluminate solution. Int. J. Miner. Process. 80, 116–125. Neofotistou, E., Demadis, K.D., 2004. Use of antiscalants for mitigation of silica (SiO2) fouling and deposition: fundamentals and applications in desalination systems. Desalination 167, 257–272. Nienow, A.W., 1992. The suspension of solid particles. In: Hamby, N., Edward, M.F., Nienow, A.W. (Eds.), Mixing in the Process Industries. Butterworths, London. J. Wu et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 112–113 (2012) 19–29 Stegink, D., Davis, T., Wu, J., 2012. Operating experience with improved precipitation agitation system. 11 AQW Proceeding, Perth, Australia. Tennekes, H., Lumley, J.L., 1972. A first course in turbulence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Welsh M C, Method and Apparatus for Mixing, US Patent 6,467,947 B1, Oct 22, 2002. Wu, J., Zhu, Y., Pullum, L., 2001. Impeller geometry effect on velocity and solids suspension. Trans. IChemE 79 (A), 989–997. Wu, J., Zhu, Y., Pullum, L., 2002. Suspension of high concentration slurry. J. AIChE. 48 (6), 1349–1352. Wu, J., Graham, L.J., Nguyen, B., Mehidi, M.N.N., 2006a. Energy efficiency study on axial flow impellers. Chem. Eng. Process. 40, 625–632. Wu, J., Graham, Lachlan J., Nabil Noui Mehidi, M., 2006b. Estimation of agitator flow shear rate. AIChE J. 52 (7), 2323–2332. Wu, J., Graham, L.J., Mehidi, M.N.N., 2007. Intensification of mixing. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 40 (11), 890–895. Wu, J., Nguyen, B., Graham, L.J., 2010. Energy efficient high solids loading agitation for the mineral industry. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 88, 287–294. 29 Wu, J., Wang, S., Graham, L., Parthasarathy, R., Nguyen, B., 2011a. High solids concentration agitation for minerals process intensification. AICHE J. 57 (9), 2316–2324. Wu, J., Graham, L.J.W., Lester, D., Wong, C.Y., Kilpatrick, T., Smith, S., Nguyen, B., 2011b. An effective modeling tool for studying erosion. Wear J. 27, 298–605. Xiaokia, Xing, Chongfang, M.A., Yongchang, C., 2005. Mechanism of calcium carbonate scale deposition under subcooled flow boiling conditions. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 13 (4), 464–470. Yiantsios, S.G., Karabelas, A.J., 2003. Deposition of micron-sized particles on flat surfaces: effect of hydrodynamic and physicochemical conditions on particles attachment efficiency. Chem. Eng. Sci. 58, 3105–3113. Yu, Hong, Sheikholeslami, R., Doherty, W.O.S., 2005. Effect of thermohydraulic conditions on fouling of calcium oxalate and silica. Materials, interface, and electrochemical phenomena. AIChE J. 51 (2), 641–648. Zwietering, T.N., 1958. Suspension of solids in liquid by agitators. Chem. Eng. Sci. 8, 244–253.