Unresolved Problems In Thickener Design And Theory

This paper will review thickening theory, from the ( ) of the practicing engineer, with particular emphasis on ( ) uncertainty or disagreement. It will attempt to outline broadly what we know and what we don't know. This should serve two purpose First, it will warn the process engineer where he might get into trouble. At least it will alert him to the risk involved in uncritically accepting any of the recommended design procedures. Second, it will identify for researchers some areas in which further work might be fruitful. Not too many years ago there would have been little to write on such a subject. We had been designing thickeners for decades, using the classic Coe and Clevenger procedure. As far as we were generally aware, they all turned out to be about the right size. And so if there was anything we didn't know, It certainly wasn't hurting us much. Today we know better. While it is true that in most cases units designed by the Coe and Clevenger procedure (1) will perform satisfactorily, we now know of cases in which they don't. And during the past few years there have been many developments and advances in basic thickening theory. So there is now a lot more room for disagreement, and a whole lot more to be uncertain about. What is "thickening" "Thickening" means different things to different people. For this paper we define it to mean sedimentation behavior characterized by line settling. Solids subside with a clear line of demarcation between settling solids and supernatant. Although the supernatant will usually be clear, in some cases it may be turbid. Line settling must entail that all particles just below the pulp-supernatant interface have the same subsidence rate, so that