CHINA PARTICUOLOGY Vol. 4, Nos.

3-4, 104-107, 2006

CHARACTERIZATION OF POWDER FLOWABILITY USING

MEASUREMENT OF ANGLE OF REPOSE
D. Geldart1,*, E. C. Abdullah2, A. Hassanpour3, L. C. Nwoke3 and I. Wouters4
1
Department of Chemical engineering, Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham, Herriot-Watt Universities, & Powder Research Ltd., HG3 1LU, UK
2
Department of Chemical engineering University of Malaya, 50603Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
3
Department of Chemical engineering University of LeedsLS29JT, UK
4
Total Petroleum, Fr
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: prfgeldart@aol.com

Abstract In response to the need in industry for a quick and reproducible method of measuring the flowability of
powders in processes involving transport and storage, the apparently simple idea of measuring angle of repose has been
revived. The simple tester first used has evolved over a number of years into the present version which is shown to be
capable of handling quite small samples of powders that are even slightly cohesive. Experimental data are presented and
results shown to compare consistently with the better known Hausner ratio.
Keywords flowability, characterization, industrial powder testing

1. Introduction
There are many pieces of equipment and methods
available that may be used to measure particle properties
such as particle size distribution (PSD), particle density
and shape. However it is still not possible to use basic
particle properties such as these to predict the behaviour of
bulk powders except in a very generalized way, and spe-
cific test methods have to be used in order to obtain reli-
able data that can be used for designing equipment such
as storage hoppers that will not block. Many of these
methods involve laboratory equipment having a high capi-
tal cost and/or require skilled technicians to get consistent
reliable results. Small changes in formulation or raw mate-
rials that result in different particle shapes or surface
properties can often affect the performance of processing
plant, but for trouble-free production of powders it is often
only necessary to know whether the powder being pro-
duced today has better or worse flow properties than that
produced yesterday; that is, will the plant units still perform
as designed, or will blockage, attrition, segregation be
more or less likely. These tendencies are often covered by
the imprecise word, flowability. It is often claimed that
devices available for measuring shear strength can also
measure flowability, even though they were primarily de-
veloped to provide information needed to design storage
hoppers. For example, the method invented by Jenike
(1964), which takes time and skill to use, measures the
ability of the powder to start flowing or not. Fortunately
other simpler and quicker methods are available for moni-
toring powder flow and providing relative measures of
flowability. It is not appropriate to review here all the
methods available since a recent book edited by
McGlinchey (2005) performs this function admirably. In this
paper, we concentrate rather on a well known powder
property, angle of repose (AOR) that we have re-examined
and for which we have developed, over several years, a
low cost and robust testing device. It has been thoroughly
tested in co-operation with industry, and found to be reli-
able even when the tests were performed outside a formal
laboratory, without the need for highly trained technicians.
It can also be used as an experimental apparatus in un-
dergraduate laboratories to stimulate in students an inter-
est in powders and to enable them to gain hands-on ex-
perience of the peculiarities and fascination of this impor-
tant form of matter.
2. Definitions of AOR
It is widely agreed that there are two main types of angle
of repose, i.e. the static and dynamic angles. However, there
are at least eight methods of measuring these angles of
repose, and each method will give somewhat different val-
ues. Therefore the published values of the angle of repose
are seldom comparable (Brown & Richards, 1970).
In establishing a relation between flowability of powders
and some simple physical measures, Carr (1965 & 1970)
and Raymus (1985) suggested that angles of repose below
30o indicate good flowability, 30o-45o some cohesiveness,
45o-55o true cohesiveness, and >55o sluggish or very high
cohesiveness and very limited flowability. Geldart et al.
(1990) and Antequera et al. (1994) were more inclined to
use the 40o criteria, based on the data of Brown and Rich-
ards (1970), in classifying free-flowing and cohesive pow-
ders. Although the measurement of angle of repose has
sometimes met industrial and academic needs for a simple
and quick test that can disclose changes in the flow prop-
erties of powders as they pass through processing and
handling equipment, Geldart et al. (1990) pointed out that
there was no general agreement as to the best design or
size of equipment, for the way that a test should be done,
or the optimum amount of powder that should be used. The
four most common methods in use until recently are shown
in Fig. 1.
 Geldart, Abdullah, Hassanpour, Nwoke & Wouters: Characterisation of Powder Flowability 105

cially if it exhibits some cohesiveness. The semi-cone

formed should have a well-defined, sharp apex, but some-
times, if the pouring has been done too quickly, a distinct
semi-cone may not be formed, because the apex may be
ragged making an accurate reading of the height of the
semi-cone impossible, in which case that test should be
repeated with the pouring done more slowly.

Fig. 1 Measurement of static and dynamic angle of repose.

In method I powder is poured into the funnel which is

held at a fixed height above the flat base whereas in
method II the funnel is filled with the test powder which is
then raised gradually to allow the sample to flow out. Both
these methods require that the powder should be able to
flow through the small funnel, and cohesive powders may
not do so. Moreover, the powders do not become aerated
as they often do in production processes, unlike methods vibrator

III and IV in which some ambient gas is entrained during vibrating chute

the test. In none of these methods is it easy to measure the funnel

angle accurately. Methods III and IV require equipment that
must be mounted on a shaft passing through a low friction
bearing so that it can be tilted gradually until slipping oc-
curs and the angle measured. The shaft and bearing often
needs to be dismantled for thorough cleaning between
tests, an inconvenience that slows down the testing pro-
chute
cedure.
By working closely with a large UK chemical company, baseboard

Professor Geldart and his research students at the univer-

sity of Bradford developed a piece of equipment in which
the powder is made to flow so that it forms a semi-cone
whose height and average radius are easy to measure and
from which the dynamic AOR can be readily calculated or
read from a table. The equipment has passed through
several stages of development and comparison of ex-
perimental values of AOR with practical experience on
operating a large soda ash plant has confirmed it as a
reliable device that is robust and easy to use even for co-
hesive powders using quite small samples of powder. A
picture of the Mark 4 (most recent version) of the tester is
shown in Fig. 2. A representative sample of the powder to
be tested (100 grams is the preferred mass) is weighed out
+/- 1 g and put into a metal beaker. If the powder appears
to be free-flowing, the 100 g sample is poured slowly and
gently on to the upper converging chute, taking about
20 sec for the entire sample. If the powder shows signs of
cohesiveness or reluctance to flow, the vibratory motor is
switched on so that the powder flows down the upper chute,
into the metal hopper and onto the lower sloping chute that
directs the powder against the vertical wall. The powder
should not be allowed to accumulate in the hopper, espe-
backplate
Fig. 2 Mark 4 Powder Research Ltd. AOR tester.
Another commonly used simple method for characteris-
ing powders that are cohesive or semi-cohesive should be
mentioned, the Hausner Ratio (Grey & Beddow, 1969) in
which the tapped and aerated bulk densities are measured
and the former is divided by the latter. It turns out that there
is a good correlation between AOR and HR as shown later.
3. Materials Used
Two types of powders have been used in some of our
recent work: spherical and porous Fluid Cracking Catalyst
(FCC) (Fig. 3), and angular and non-porous aluminum
oxide trihydrate (Fig. 4) used as a Fire Retardant Filler
(FRF). Graded powder mixtures were tested for both
powders. In order to form a series of powder samples
having different mean particle sizes, small amounts of
cohesive fine 7-micron particles were added in increments
to a coarser 79-micron FCC and 63-micron FRF which
were used as base materials to form mixtures having mass
106 CHINA PARTICUOLOGY Vol. 4, Nos. 3-4, 2006

percentages of fines of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 60

=88.3dsv-0.26
and 90%. 50 R 2 = 0.97

40

Angle of Repose,
30

20
=79.7dsv-0.25 FRF mixtures
10 R 2 = 0.97 FCC mixtures

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Sauter diameter, dsv / m

Fig. 6 Angle of repose versus Sauter diameter.

Fig. 3 The spherical shape of FCC particles.
60

55 FRF mixtures
FCC mixtures = 36.2HR - 13.4

50 R 2 = 0.97
Linear (FRF mixtures)
Linear (FCC mixtures)
45

Angle of Repose
40

35
= 29.8HR - 5.4
R 2 = 0.97
30

25
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
Hausner Ratio-

Fig. 7 Angle of repose versus Hausner ratio.

Fig. 4 The angular shape of FRF particles.
It should be noted that in Geldarts classification of
powders (1973) according to their behaviour in fluidized
4. Results and Discussion beds, powders having values of HR<1.25 fall into groups A,
The Hausner ratios of samples of the two materials having B, or D, while powders having values of HR>1.25-1.4
the smallest mean sizes are very similar as shown in Fig. 5. show semi-cohesive properties, and powders with HR>1.4
As with almost all powders the Hausner ratio decreases as are cohesive and difficult to fluidize. As seen in Fig. 6, such
particle size increases. This confirms that an increase of powders also have AOR values ~40o.
particle size of a powder mixture is always accompanied by a Similar trends were observed in our earlier studies on
decrease in cohesiveness (Abdullah & Geldart, 1999). The soda ash, sodium bicarbonate, and lactose. Note that the
same trend is observed in Fig. 6, where the angles of repose linear relationship between HR and AOR is slightly less
for both materials gradually decrease as the mean size in- apparent in Fig. 8 than in Fig. 7 because of the greater
creases, indicating that both powders change from cohesive number of experimental points shown in the former. It was
to more free flowing with increasing mean size. The found that by calculating the bulk density ba of the
near-perfect linear relationships observed between Hausner semi-cone and plotting AOR/ba versus Sauter mean size
ratio and angle of repose (Fig. 7) confirm that both parame- the data from all these materials could be shown on one
ters are good indicators of powder flowability. graph, Fig. 9.

2.0
50
HR = 2.65d sv-0.19
1.9 FRF mixtures
45
1.8 R 2 = 1.00
FCC mixtures

1.7
AOR / degrees

40
Hausner Ratio, / -

1.6

1.5 35
HR = 1.4
1.4 sodium bicarbonate
1.3 HR = 1.25 30 FCC
1.2
HR = 2.77d sv-0.21
soda ash
25
1.1 lactose
R 2 = 0.99
1.0
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Sauter diameter, d sv / m
Hausner Ratio / -

Fig. 5 Hausner Ratio versus Sauter mean diameter dsv. Fig. 8 AOR versus HR.
 Geldart, Abdullah, Hassanpour, Nwoke & Wouters: Characterisation of Powder Flowability 107

the smallest standard deviation, it is suggested that this is

the optimum sample size to use when measuring angle of
repose using the Powder Research Ltd. AOR Tester. Our
experience is that if 100 g are not available, the most
consistent results are obtained if the same sample size is
always used for the powders to be tested.

Table 1 Average values and standard deviations on 5 tests each on

various sample masses of avicel & starch
Avicel Starch
Sample Average Std. Dev. / Average Std. Dev. /
Mass / g AOR / Deg. Deg. AOR / Deg. Deg.
Fig. 9 Weighted AOR/ba versus surface/volume mean size (Sauter 50 38.4 0.33 36.91 1.98
mean size). 100 38.3 0.32 36.91 0.47
150 37.0 1.02 NA NA
200 NA NA 34.75 0.74
The mass of powder used in the experimental results
shown above was kept constant at 200 g, but during the
formulation of new products in some industries, particularly 5. Conclusions
pharmaceuticals, it is not always possible to make 200 g When measured using a robust, simple, well-engineered
available, so our most recent work has been aimed at de- device, Angle of Repose can be used to characterise a
termining whether the mass of the sample has an influence wide range of powders in order to monitor their flow be-
on either AOR or weighted AOR. For this phase of our haviour in existing items of production units on a day to day
studies we used starch and avicel, both somewhat basis. There is a close correlation between the Hausner
semi-cohesive and commonly used as additives in the food ratio and the AOR, but we prefer the latter because it is
and pharmaceutical industries. The results of these ex- easier to measure and involves rather more powder
periments, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11, indicate that re- movement such as often occurs in powder processing.
ducing the sample size from 200 or 150 g to 100 g causes
an increase in AOR though a further reduction to 50 g does
not have an effect. In all our experiments each sample was References
tested 5 times with their standard deviations shown in Ta- Abdullah, E. C. & Geldart, D. (1999). The use of bulk density
ble 1. measurements as flowability indicators. Powder Technol., 102,
38.0 151165.
37.5 AOR for Starch vs sample mass Brown, R. L. & Richards, J. C. (1970). Principles of powder me-
37.0 chanics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
AOR / degree

36.5
Carr, R. L. (1965). Classifying flow properties of solids. Chem.
36.0
Eng., 1, 6972.
35.5
Carr, R. L. (1970). Particle Behaviour, storage and Flow. British
35.0
34.5
Chem. Eng., 15(12), 15411549.
34.0
Geldart, D. (1973). Types of gas fluidization. Powder Technol., 7,
0 50 100 150 200 250 285292.
mass of sample / g Geldart, D., Mallet, M. F. & Rolfe, N. (1990). Assessing the flow-
Fig. 10 Influence of sample mass on AOR for starch. ability of powders using angle of repose. Powder Handling &
Proc., 2(4), 341346.
39.0 Grey, R. O. & Beddow, J. K. (1969). On the Hausner Ratio and its
AOR for Avicel vs sample mass relationship to some properties of metal powders. Powder
38.5
Technol., 2, 323326.
38.0
AOR / deg

Jenike, A. W. (1964). Storage and flow of solids (Bulletin no.123).

37.5
Utah Engineering Experiment Station. Salt Lake City: University
37.0 of Utah.
36.5 McGlinchey, D. (ed.), (2005). Characterisation of Bulk Solids.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
36.0
0 50 100 150 200 Raymus, G. J. (1985). Handling of Bulk Solids. In R. H. Perry, & D.
th
mass of sample / g Green, (eds.), Chemical engineers handbook 6 edition, New
Fig. 11 Effect of sample size on AOR for avicel. York: McGraw Hill.
Antequera, M. V. V., Ruiz, A. M., Perales, M. C. M., Munoz, N. M.
& Ballesteros, M. R. J. C. (1994). Evaluation of an adequate
These results indicate that AOR for avicel varied only a
method of estimating flowability according to powder charac-
little for sample masses between 50 and 150g and that the teristics. Int. J. Pharm., 103, 155161.
values for starch stayed constant between 50 and 100g.
Because for both powders sample masses of 100 g gave Manuscript received December 14, 2005 and accepted April 2, 2006.