can u please send me one copy at ppatro123@yahoo.com

Thanks in advance. ■

can u please send me one copy at ppatro123@yahoo.com

Thanks in advance. ■

Dear Teus

I sincerely appreciate your quickest reply,

"The power consumption should be equal at equal performance."

You are right, the two blowers have same capacity name plate on them, yet consume different power. Scientifically this condition is not possible. I have my own doubts that there is some error in the name plates. However they have slight different rpm. The cement lifting blower is of 850 rpm and Raw meal blower is of 945 rpm. However that doesn't really support the glaring difference in the power consumption. That is one of the reason why we want to know the volume/pressure required for our present setup.

"Is the stated pressure really pressure drop or absolute outlet pressure"

The pressure mention is the blower capacity as mention on the name plate 21.6 PSI and 1060 cfm with their RPM.

"Is the tank in your drawing a closed tank or an open bin?"

It is a closed tank. The material is been fed through RVF. And because of positive pressure, we have dust emanating from RVF, causing much nuisance. I want to know why is that we are getting positive pressure in the tank.. Ventury problem or high blower pressure?

The cement power is fed into Silo (atmospheric pressure) and the Raw meal is fed into preheater (-ve pressure 350mmHD)

Given this condition, what should be the capacity blowers and what should be the optimum power consumption. please run your magic software. I would highly appreciate your comments and help.

Thank you,

Vilas Katwa ■

Dear Teus

I sincerely appreciate your quickest reply,

"The power consumption should be equal at equal performance."

You are right, the two blowers have same capacity name plate on them, yet consume different power. Scientifically this condition is not possible. I have my own doubts that there is some error in the name plates. However they have slight different rpm. The cement lifting blower is of 850 rpm and Raw meal blower is of 945 rpm. However that doesn't really support the glaring difference in the power consumption. That is one of the reason why we want to know the volume/pressure required for our present setup.

"Is the stated pressure really pressure drop or absolute outlet pressure"

The pressure mention is the blower capacity as mention on the name plate 21.6 PSI and 1060 cfm with their RPM.

"Is the tank in your drawing a closed tank or an open bin?"

It is a closed tank. The material is been fed through RVF. And because of positive pressure, we have dust emanating from RVF, causing much nuisance. I want to know why is that we are getting positive pressure in the tank.. Ventury problem or high blower pressure?

The cement power is fed into Silo (atmospheric pressure) and the Raw meal is fed into preheater (-ve pressure 350mmHD)

Given this condition, what should be the capacity blowers and what should be the optimum power consumption. please run your magic software. I would highly appreciate your comments and help.

Thank you,

Vilas Katwa ■

Please excuse my typo

I wish to say mm water column and not mmHD ■

Please excuse my typo

I wish to say mm water column and not mmHD ■

Dear Vilas,

Your description is for a normal pneumatic pressure conveying system.

An accurate calculation is not yet possible, as the exact data of the blower and the rotaryvalve are not known yet.

A preliminary calculation gave the following results:

Airflow: 0.5 m3/sec Roots-type blower

Raw meal:

35 tons/hr at 0.3 bar (Back pressure – 350 mmWC)

SLR = 16.4

Power consumption approx. 18 kW

Energy consumption 0.54 kW/ton

Cement:

20 tons/hr at 0.1 bar (Back pressure: – 350 mmWC)

SLR = 9.38

Power consumption approx. 6.3 kW

Energy consumption 0.31 kW/ton

In my opinion, quite normal values.

The rotary valve has to bridge those pressures, which should be no real problem, providing that the RV is not worn out and has a proper pocket venting system, f.i. into a bin.

Supplying the full blower nameplate description and the RV data (volume and rpm) would help.

Have a nice day

Teus ■

Dear Vilas,

Your description is for a normal pneumatic pressure conveying system.

An accurate calculation is not yet possible, as the exact data of the blower and the rotaryvalve are not known yet.

A preliminary calculation gave the following results:

Airflow: 0.5 m3/sec Roots-type blower

Raw meal:

35 tons/hr at 0.3 bar (Back pressure – 350 mmWC)

SLR = 16.4

Power consumption approx. 18 kW

Energy consumption 0.54 kW/ton

Cement:

20 tons/hr at 0.1 bar (Back pressure: – 350 mmWC)

SLR = 9.38

Power consumption approx. 6.3 kW

Energy consumption 0.31 kW/ton

In my opinion, quite normal values.

The rotary valve has to bridge those pressures, which should be no real problem, providing that the RV is not worn out and has a proper pocket venting system, f.i. into a bin.

Supplying the full blower nameplate description and the RV data (volume and rpm) would help.

Have a nice day

Teus ■

Hello,

I am really interested in the document of Mr Agarwal.

I tried to contact him via his email, but I don't receive any answer from him.

Is it possible for someboday else to send me a copy of this design calculations tutorial?

Thanks a lot in advance,

Joe (joes.cs42@gmail.com) ■

Hello,

I am really interested in the document of Mr Agarwal.

I tried to contact him via his email, but I don't receive any answer from him.

Is it possible for someboday else to send me a copy of this design calculations tutorial?

Thanks a lot in advance,

Joe (joes.cs42@gmail.com) ■

Dear Teus

Thank you very much for your learned inputs. From your feedback, it looks like we are draining much power by putting in place high pressure blowers. I also infer that we need to correct RVF for positive pressure in the Bin.

I will again get back to you regarding the full name plate. I will personally visit and check the name plate.

Warm Regards

Vilas Katwa ■

Dear Teus

Thank you very much for your learned inputs. From your feedback, it looks like we are draining much power by putting in place high pressure blowers. I also infer that we need to correct RVF for positive pressure in the Bin.

I will again get back to you regarding the full name plate. I will personally visit and check the name plate.

Warm Regards

Vilas Katwa ■

Originally Posted by Amrit Agarwal

Dear Helioc,

My published article has a "typo" mistake in the Fanning Friction Factor equation. I will be glad to send the correct equation if you need it. Let me know.

Regards,

Amrit Agarwal

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting

email: polypcc@aol.com

Hello Mr. Amrit,

Can you send me the correct equation?

Best Reagards

Hlio Carvalho ■

Originally Posted by Amrit Agarwal

Dear Helioc,

My published article has a "typo" mistake in the Fanning Friction Factor equation. I will be glad to send the correct equation if you need it. Let me know.

Regards,

Amrit Agarwal

Pneumatic Conveying Consulting

email: polypcc@aol.com

Hello Mr. Amrit,

Can you send me the correct equation?

Best Reagards

Hlio Carvalho ■

[QUOTE=Amrit Agarwal;67565]Dear Vilas,

Blower power consumption depends upon the pressure drop across the blower, not on its pressure rating. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Regards,

Dear Mr Amrit,

Referring to our own case:

Our blower capacity was 1060 cfm @1.5 bar and our 100 HP motor was taking about 100 amps. All other details constant, that is (Dia of conveying pipe 8" and height 55mts, conveying material is Raw meal powder of Bulk Density of about 1300/m3, particle size above 90 microns <20%, temperature ambient 35 degrees)

Calculated Velocity in the pipe maintained was 16 m/s, back pressure measured was 3500 MMWC.

Recently we changed the blower (Alternate available blower was of 1650cfm @ 0.6 bars). Calculated velocity is now 24.8

RESULT: 100 HP motor is drawing 70to 75 amps and no process problems.

We are planning to reduce the blower rpm from 1150 to 950 rpm as recommended by the blower manufacturer to reduce the air flow and pressure (1300 @ 0.45 bars)

This is also a reason why I have posted this question on this forum to take your opinion, so we get affirmation for our direction of work. From what Teus has replied, it looks like we have put high capacity bowers needing high torque motors whose no load current is itself 50 amps.

Mr Agrawal, I have sent you an email requesting a copy of your article, I request you to kindly send me the article I want to read your article for better homework. if you have excel sheet that will help me calculate for different conditions, that will be greatly appreciated. I request you to please send me your article at vilaskatwa@gmail.com

Regards

Vilas Katwa ■

[QUOTE=Amrit Agarwal;67565]Dear Vilas,

Blower power consumption depends upon the pressure drop across the blower, not on its pressure rating. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Regards,

Dear Mr Amrit,

Referring to our own case:

Our blower capacity was 1060 cfm @1.5 bar and our 100 HP motor was taking about 100 amps. All other details constant, that is (Dia of conveying pipe 8" and height 55mts, conveying material is Raw meal powder of Bulk Density of about 1300/m3, particle size above 90 microns <20%, temperature ambient 35 degrees)

Calculated Velocity in the pipe maintained was 16 m/s, back pressure measured was 3500 MMWC.

Recently we changed the blower (Alternate available blower was of 1650cfm @ 0.6 bars). Calculated velocity is now 24.8

RESULT: 100 HP motor is drawing 70to 75 amps and no process problems.

We are planning to reduce the blower rpm from 1150 to 950 rpm as recommended by the blower manufacturer to reduce the air flow and pressure (1300 @ 0.45 bars)

This is also a reason why I have posted this question on this forum to take your opinion, so we get affirmation for our direction of work. From what Teus has replied, it looks like we have put high capacity bowers needing high torque motors whose no load current is itself 50 amps.

Mr Agrawal, I have sent you an email requesting a copy of your article, I request you to kindly send me the article I want to read your article for better homework. if you have excel sheet that will help me calculate for different conditions, that will be greatly appreciated. I request you to please send me your article at vilaskatwa@gmail.com

Regards

Vilas Katwa ■

Dear Vilas,

First of all, we will wait for the nameplate data and if possible operational data.

Regarding the "blower issue", I have the impression that you changed a screw compressor with internal compression for a Roots-type blower.

The figures, which you mention, will be delt with later on, when we can calculate more in line with the actual situation.

Have a nice day

Teus ■

Dear Vilas,

First of all, we will wait for the nameplate data and if possible operational data.

Regarding the "blower issue", I have the impression that you changed a screw compressor with internal compression for a Roots-type blower.

The figures, which you mention, will be delt with later on, when we can calculate more in line with the actual situation.

Have a nice day

Teus ■

Dear all,

This article is very good. but it also confused me.Why the same value as the article but a different result?

Is anyone finish the Excel, and would you please Email to me. Thank you!

Joe Wang

Email: joe927@hotmail.com ■

Dear all,

This article is very good. but it also confused me.Why the same value as the article but a different result?

Is anyone finish the Excel, and would you please Email to me. Thank you!

Joe Wang

Email: joe927@hotmail.com ■

Mr. Amrit's article (theory and design of dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems) is short yet it presents the topic well. The excel-based template is a very helpful addition.

Joanna Malumay

Rebisco ■

Mr. Amrit's article (theory and design of dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems) is short yet it presents the topic well. The excel-based template is a very helpful addition.

Joanna Malumay

Rebisco ■

Thanks Mr. Aggrawal for your article. I found it of great help as i am new to pneumatic conveying. A lot of literature is available on this topic but very different methodology is used evrywhere.

I found your article pretty comprehensive as it incorporates all factors needed to design a pnematic conveying system.

Just one thing a version using SI units would be be greatly appreciated. ■

Thanks Mr. Aggrawal for your article. I found it of great help as i am new to pneumatic conveying. A lot of literature is available on this topic but very different methodology is used evrywhere.

I found your article pretty comprehensive as it incorporates all factors needed to design a pnematic conveying system.

Just one thing a version using SI units would be be greatly appreciated. ■

Dear. Mr Amrit Agarwal.

Finally I can write a post to request you your article.

I´m very interest in your calculation metod.

I have contact you by e-mail first and you request me to write here.

Thanks and best regards.

Pablo w. ■

Dear. Mr Amrit Agarwal.

Finally I can write a post to request you your article.

I´m very interest in your calculation metod.

I have contact you by e-mail first and you request me to write here.

Thanks and best regards.

Pablo w. ■

I have interesting very much !

Can I have your good article ?

engin.j.kim@gmail.com ■

I have interesting very much !

Can I have your good article ?

engin.j.kim@gmail.com ■

Dear Armit,

Would you please e-mail me your article ?

Many Thanks

deleted ■

Dear Armit,

Would you please e-mail me your article ?

Many Thanks

deleted ■

Dear Mr.Amrit Agarwal,

I have found your article easy to understand and the explanations very handy.

I am working on the excel sheet and hope to do it in MKS unit within the next few days.

Best regards

A.K.Srivastava ■

Dear Mr.Amrit Agarwal,

I have found your article easy to understand and the explanations very handy.

I am working on the excel sheet and hope to do it in MKS unit within the next few days.

Best regards

A.K.Srivastava ■

Dear Mr. Amrit T. Agarwal,

I would like to request on your article about "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems".

Thank you,

Regards,

Yong Tze Shoong.

My e-mail address is ytszazu@yahoo.com ■

Dear Mr. Amrit T. Agarwal,

I would like to request on your article about "Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems".

Thank you,

Regards,

Yong Tze Shoong.

My e-mail address is ytszazu@yahoo.com ■

Mr. Agarwal's article Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems explains in simple terms dilute phase pneumatic conveying design theory, and the detail design method is also given. Based on them, it can be easily converted to Excel woksheet and used as an integral tool for design.

Thank you Mr. Agarwal for sending me this article ! ■

Mr. Agarwal's article Theory and Design of Dilute Phase Pneumatic Conveying Systems explains in simple terms dilute phase pneumatic conveying design theory, and the detail design method is also given. Based on them, it can be easily converted to Excel woksheet and used as an integral tool for design.

Thank you Mr. Agarwal for sending me this article ! ■