Slurry Density Measurement

I am sure the medium of slurry of fly ash is high-ware medium. What kinds of valve that you are using?If you are looking for a ware-resistant valve please use our ceramic-lined ball valve which is excellent for ware-resistant and corrosion-resistant.With very long service-life.

Please visit us at www.fuvalve.com.Or contact us by [email protected].

Best regards
Arthur

Sales manager
www.fuvalve.com
 
I would love to hear more about the non-nuclear density measurement options. My application is the coal industry. We have large particles (-50mm), at slurry densities around 1.6 SG.

Please email at james.agenbag [at] drap.com.au
 
hi,

I find you while searching for any sources for slurry density measurement. I have a 2m pipe in which fine clay particles settle. how can i measure solid % in diff levels at the same time.

Regards,
Ezat
Nottingham
UK
------------
 
W
If what you want is simple bulk density, taking into account stratification, there are a number of (expensive) ways to do it. One is with a gamma nuclear device that would consist of an insertion source at the top of the pipe, and a bar-type scintillation detector at the bottom of the pipe. If you want to pursue this, see a nuclear gauge vendor like OhmartVega or Endress+Hauser or Berthold.

If what you want is to know the density of each stratification, I think you are SOL.

The other problem is what the ratio of the fine clay to the carrier (which I assume to be water) is. If the dry solids density of the clay is, say, 3 or 4 g/cc, and the concentration isn't in mg/l, you may be able to do the radiation-based density measurement. If the dry solids density of the clay is 1.5 g/cc, you are SOL here too.

Why do you have a 2m pipe? Can it be necked down to go through a coriolis meter? They make them up to 12" now, and I understand that somebody has a 16" on development.

Hope this helps. If it doesn't, send more data please.

Walt Boyes, Fellow, the International Society of Automation (ISA)
Editor in Chief
Control and ControlGlobal.com
555 W. Pierce Rd Suite 301
Itasca, IL 60143
wboyes [at] putman.net
www.controlglobal.com
 
R
I have to ask again. Why hasn't some corolis vendor come up with a rubber lined version for abrasive slurry.

Seems to be a no brainer.

Ronan Nuclear is still my favorite

Roy
 
T
>What about TOSHIBA microwave density
>meter? do they work?

ANALYTICAL FLOW TECHNOLOGIES makes the DENSITRAK LIQUID DENSITY METER (originally with Calibron and Honeywell). The DENSITRAK is used in the Petroleum Pipeline and Refinery,chemical processing, semi-conductor production, pharmaceutical, blending and slurry industries. The Densitrak utilizes the oscillating U-tube to establish the density of liquids and gases based on an electronic measurement of the frequency of oscillation, from which the densiy value is calculated. A change in the vibrating mass(as a result of the fluid density) shifts the resonant frequency. A New state-of-the-art Density Processor with a Proprietary Windows Based Software Package for graphically monitoring real time density, pressure, and temperature is utilized with the Densitrak. The Densitrak comes in different models and the engineers review each application to determine the model that best suits the specific application.
 
You don't show how the Densitrak can better any of the sensors discussed above when its design seems to fly in the face of the various concerns expressed in earlier posts.

One of the reasons for the upset about coriolis meters with abrasive slurries is because the tube(s) are pressure containing and they are thin walled in order to flex sufficiently.

They are also bent into complex shapes.

This is probably the single biggest source of concern.
Note in the discussions above that success comes with straight tube sensors. And more than that, with reasonable bore sizes. Hence the Khrone straight tube and, if I was to choose another, possibly the E&H Promass. Also the Solartron 7845 but at 1" it ends up in bypass flows. Still, 1" is a reasonable size for a bypass sensor.

Of course, for density you don't need the flow velocities you need for mass flow so you can size the meter for the optimum flow velocity.

Bends are vulnerable to erosion.

Also, at any reasonable flow the bends will tend to centrifuge the slurries intensifying the erosive effects, usually causing the most erosion not on the bend itself but at a point on the exit.

If the flows are lower then you have the possibility of drop out.

Personally, I would be very concerned that small bore tubes will be more prone to blocking than larger bore.
 
W
If you want to solve all the wetted-parts issues with slurry density measurement, contact Berthold Systems or OhmartVega or Endress+Hauser for a very low power source gamma densitometer. Don't re-invent the wheel.

Walt Boyes
Editor in Chief
Control and ControlGlobal.com
555 W. Pierce Rd Suite 301
Itasca, IL 60143

[email protected]
www.controlglobal.com
 
In terms of the original post way back when, the objective was to seek an alternative to radiation technology capable of equivalent accuracy.

This is not unusual. There is nothing wrong with this. And if the choice is to choose a vibrating element sensor or some form of ultrasonic device, whatever the pro's and cons technically, it will be the right choice in view of other factors.

Sure, there will be trade-offs. It depends on if the downsides of alternative technologies are more manageable than the downsides to radiation technologies.

If we move away from nuclear devices then we may have to trade away some of the benefits for others we value more.

To trade off unlimited life span for no a special skills or precautions sensor is, to some, an acceptable outcome.
It may be purely commercial concerns that take precedence.
It may be that the technology is not as good as we would like.

I showed the example of a tuning fork used in a chalk slurry pumped from the quarry to the cement kilns. Five years service before an exceptional event did serious damage. Something that is far less likely with the technology today.

Much of this discussion has focused on vibrating element sensors.
Tube or insertion?

Conventional twin bent tube Coriolis we can agree are not a good choice.

I'd be very concerned about small bore by pass sensors.
If there were no other choice I'd want to use the straight tube density meter in a bypass but for preference the tuning fork in the main line or a full bore straight (or nearly so) single tube mass meter. Maybe they won't last as long as radiation devices?

But there is more to choosing a technology than the optimum measurement or optimum life expectancy. Some features can be sacrificed for others.

Some of us might think a wrong choice is if the sensor fails in a short time or is grossly inaccurate.

Others may decide one sensor is better than another because of its cost of ownership rather than its cost of sale. (though more usually purchasing will decide capital cost is more important that operating costs).

In the modern world, we often do not get to make these choices.
It is a rare luxury for a process engineer to search the literature, call in reps for different technologies and make his choice based on the best technology for the job.

De-manning means there are fewer engineers to do all that needs to be done, and no time or money for the engineer to spend on such searches.

And purchasing do not find it cost effective or good use of their buying power to maintain a hundred suppliers for a couple of hundred different purchases.

The result is what we have today.
The rise of the "Single source supplier" and "strategic alliances".

Today the process engineer will simply fill in a form for a sensor stating his process conditions and what he wants to do. Purchasing will buy whatever the single source supplier has available as a "best fit" and it is the supplier that will dictate what that is. It is increasingly difficult for the engineer to buck the system and reject thee single source purchase.

The article "Flowmeter selection: Right size, right design" at controleng.com suggests that of all installed flow meters, 70% are the wrong size or the wrong technology.

I would suggest that ought to read " ...are sub-optimal size and technology choices."

Whether a flowmeter or any other sensor, the ideal might be for 2.5" pipe size and our first compromise is to choose 2" or 3".
So we sacrifice "ideal" and settle for "Optimum".
Now that we live in an age of "single source suppliers" and "strategic alliances", the purchase will not necessarily be the optimum sensor choice. It will be the best fit from that suppliers product range, a sensor that "does the job".

It doesn't mean you will get the "right" size or even the "right" technology.

For single source suppliers, the ideal is a single product that serves all applications. It does not have to be ideal in all nor the optimum choice in all.
If most applications could be met with one of four or five different technologies it makes sense to focus on the technology that covers the widest range of applications. Why manufacture all five technologies when one will do?

This is one reason why coriolis is so popular.
It is the nearest to a universal technology we have.
In an application where Magflow is the optimum choice, the buying process may result in coriolis.
It does the job but maybe it costs more to buy and has a higher headloss and a bigger footprint, but magmeters are limited to conductive fluids.
Coriolis are not.
Turbines are limited to low viscosity fluids. Coriolis are not.

Today you may find you can still get the magmeter. In the next few years? When R&D focus is to make the coriolis all sing and all dancing and little or no money is invested in other technologies?

For those of us who like to get things "right" this is not a good move. But what makes the Mag meter "optimum"? In the end, when all things are considered, it is the coriolis that is the optimum choice. At least, it is when this is just one application among many.

It means that the compromises imposed by the modern purchasing model and limited resources and skills client side, the use of "product selection programs" supplier side (can you find enough staff expert in all the products?

No. You have selection programs and you support with industry and product specialists who may get involved if enough is at stake) and the limited choices now being offered by "single source" suppliers" result in sensors being supplied that will often be not the first choice of technology, that may not be the best of that technology and may also be the most expensive of that technology.

But they will "do the job".

We perfectionists may place a lot of value on being able to search out and select the best technology, find the best manufacturer or the best price but there are factors outside our control today that mean we will not get out choice.

We will get what we are given.

So it may be that nuclear is the best possible technical choice and there may be one manufacturer that is seen as the nest manufacture of that technology.

It doesn't mean that you will be allowed that choice. Other selection factors will take priority.

For most applications near enough is probably good enough.
The problem will come when the "single source" model results in some dangerous choices too often repeated.

It is a familiar situation where manufacturers market their products claiming success from applications where they are far from the best choices. And if this sort of activity comes to inform the product selector programs.... ?
When does the model start to fail?
 
G

Gerald Beaudoin

I found your comments to be very useful and general enough to be applied to any technology. Lots of good advice for when we have to make those difficult choices.

Cheers
Gerald
 
P

paul skingley

we have refreshing news for you gentlemen sciam engineering inc manufactures a non nuclear density meter which directly and continuously measures weight per unit volume of dredging and mining and similar slurries this is explained on www.sciamengineering.com
 
A German company and the USACE developed a "High Resolution Non Nuclear Density Profiler For Dredging Residuals and Fluid Mud". I think the company is Innovision. www.innovision-consult.com

My German colleagues told me that they are offering the technology for process control, too.
 
R
>Send me some information off the list,
>please.
>
>Walt Boyes
>Editor in Chief
>Control and ControlGlobal.com
>555 W. Pierce Rd Suite 301
>Itasca, IL 60143
>
>wboyes [at] putman.net
>www.controlglobal.com

Walt,
I was intrigued to see the historic interest on the topic of continuous measurement of abrasive slurries in heavy industrial environments.

There now exists a continuous mass per unit volume measurement (yes mass, not weight), suitable for mining, dredging, fly ash and similar slurries. Please go to www.sciamworldwide.com to put all minds at ease. This is suitable directly for wet density or, knowing the carrier sg and solids sg, % dry solids is continuously computed.
The density meter may be used in series with a high quality magnetic flow meter for measurement of wet or dry mass flow. The problems in your thread of articles are finally and reliably solved.

Robert H. Batey
 
Is the density measurement through a pipe or in a holding tank before being fed.

Through a pipe, I have used the Krohne single tube coriolis. If your process solution coats though like mine did, you will have heck of a time to clean it out and do density calibration on the unit.

I ended up going low tech and using dual bubbler system to measure density.

Using two Ti pipes in our holding tank at known heights. Able to back calculate out density with pressure measurements.
 
R
> I ended up going low tech and using dual bubbler system to measure density.

> Using two Ti pipes in our holding tank at known heights. Able to back
> calculate out density with pressure measurements.

Many years ago I worked at a mine where we measured the density on the cyclone feed lines (vertical flow up).
Two taps about 3 feet apart purged with fresh water and measured with a DP cell.
I still think Ronan nuclear density is the best solution.

Roy
 
Hi,

I'm struggling in measuring cement slurry density while cement job which is pumping out to the well by HP cement units. I'd appreciate if you advise/suggest what kind of densometer and flowmeter I can use?

Regards,
 
M

Marius de Vries

For application in cement, drilling a new technology came into the market. Ultrasonic sonochemisty. Check our Arenal-pcs.com.
Density is measured by means of ultrasonic sound

Regards Marius
 
P

Paul Jones - BSME, MBA

determine the status of your most current interest in the newest advances in Density Flow Measurement. (http://www.sciamworldwide.com/). Please log onto our website, if you have not done so lately. We have made a few updates.

I'm here to support you and answer any questions you have regarding our DM3 Non-Nuclear Density Meters.
- better accuracy
- lower lifetime costs
- handles vibrations and tilt
- 2" - 40" diameter pipes
- wide variations in temperatures

Paul Jones - BSME
[email protected]
 
Top