Powder Technology, 67 (1991) 57-66 57

A holistic approach to particle drag prediction

Teresa L. Thompson and N. N. Clark

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineeting, West Virgkia Universip, Morgantown, WV (U.S.A.)

(Received June 25, 1990; in revised form August 27, 1990)

Abstract

Although perfect spherical particles are not often encountered in the practical engineering world, most
particle drag research to date has centered around spherical particles. Unfortunately, there has been
no other way to predict irregular particle drag accurately due to the lack of reliable shape descriptors
for rough particles. This paper presents a unified diagram (analogous to the Moody diagram for pipe
friction factors) to predict particle drag coefficients. The diagram developed presents particle drag as
a function of Reynolds number and a hydrodynamic particle shape descriptor, called scruple @), which
characterizes the shape, roughness, or irregularity, of a particle. Several methods of calculating scruple
are presented. It may be found from such shape descriptors as sphericity, aspect ratio or harmonic
persistence, since data exist to relate these descriptors to drag coefficient. Also, it may be presented
directly as an approximate value for some given ore, object or shape, as found from experimental
data. Future experimental work on drag coefficients will serve to expand our prediction of scruple
and extend this simple approach to the prediction of particle drag.

Introduction and a relative equivalent sand grain roughness of

the pipe. This relative roughness is given by the
Remarkably few engineering processes are con- quotient of the equivalent sand grain roughness of
cerned with perfectly spherical particles, yet the the pipe surface and the pipe diameter. This rough-
literature abounds with theory and correlation to ness cannot be accurately predicted from profilo-
predict the drag on spheres. Those few papers con- metric examination of the pipe surface, but is rather
sidering non-spherical particles are usually describing inferred through custom and practice for known
other artifacts such as smooth cubes, prisms, disks, types of surfaces in the light of the pressure drop
tetrahedra and so on [l]. Needless to say, the prac- experienced in pipes having those surfaces. Perhaps
ticing engineer is hard put to find a drag coefficient it is easiest to state that there is no data scatter on
for a coal particle, and often resorts to using the a Moody diagram, provided that one has selected
drag on a sphere of some similar size, in which case the precisely correct relative roughness. All error
he will probably err by a factor of 2 to 5. The dearth may be attributed to incorrect roughness assessment,
of information on irregular particles has arisen be- and not to the diagram, which is a mere transform
cause there are no accepted or reliable shape de- and is absolutely true. It is suggested in this paper
scriptors to characterize rough particles, although that an analogous diagram for the drag coefficient
modern image analysis techniques are presently of particles may be created by using a particle
overcoming this difficulty. This proposed work will irregularity or roughness factor 3, analogous to the
demonstrate how we may learn a lesson from the relative roughness found in the Moody pipe diagram.
pipe friction factor Moody diagram and produce a This paper presents the new drag diagram, and
similar diagram to yield a particle’s drag coefficient then addresses the prediction of 8 using a variety
as a function of Reynolds number, and a single of techniques.
shape parameter, denoted by the authors as 8 (scru-
ple).
The Moody diagram proves to be an enigma, in
that it is widely used, yet contains no real correlational Literature review
information. This diagram yields the friction factor
(used for calculation of pressure loss in pipe flow) The particle Reynolds number is defined as the
as a function of Reynolds number of the pipe flow ratio of the inertial forces to the viscous forces,

0 1991 - Elsevier Sequoia, Lausanne

58
(1)
P
where p is the fluid density, D is an effective diameter
(which must be unambiguously defined by each user),
ZJ is the velocity of a free-falling single particle and
p is the fluid viscosity. The drag coefficient of a
particle,
C = 4gD(P,_P)
D
3pv=
with g equal to the acceleration due to gravity and
pp equal to the particle density, is dependent on the
same parameters. For any particle of fixed shape,
the drag coefficient must be a function of Re. At
low values of Re, CD declines with increasing Re,
and this is referred to as Stokes’ regime. At higher
values of Re, CD is nearly constant and this is referred
to as Newton’s settling regime. However, particle
drag is also dependent on particle shape to a great
extent; usually, the more irregular or rough the
particle, the greater the drag. Effect of shape is
particularly pronounced in Newton’s regime of set-
tling.
The literature abounds with drag versus Reynolds
number data for free-settling spheres and geometric
shapes. This is due to the readily accessible dimen-
sions necessary to calculate the particle size and
projected area. Spheres in particular are favored by
the researcher due to their complete symmetry and,
therefore, lack of preferred orientation during set-
tling. In other words, D in eqns. (1) and (2) is simply
the diameter of the sphere.
The drag coefficient of geometric shapes is usually
determined using eqn. (2) with a shape correction
factor. Heywood [2] suggested the shape factor k,
defined as
k= 4 (3)
where I/is the object’s volume and d, is the diameter
of a circle having an area equal to the projected
area of the object resting in a stable position.
Wade11 [3] suggested the most widely used shape
factor, sphericity (I/J), given by
(4)
where A, is the surface area of a sphere with equiv-
alent volume and A, is the actual surface area of
the particle.
Although sphericity is impossible to determine for
rough particles (because their surface area is in-
determinate), it has been used extensively to estimate
drag for smooth geometric objects. Pettyjohn and
Christiansen [l] developed a set of curves for drag
based on Re and sphericity for isometric particles
such as cubes, octahedrons, cube-octahedrons and
tetrahedrons. Haider and Levenspiel [4] extended
Pettyjohn and Christiansen’s data bank to include
thin disk data from Schmeidel[5], Squires and Squires
[6], and Willmarth et al. [7]. From this composite
data set, they produced a set of curves, similar to
Pettyjohn and Christiansen’s, and a general drag
coefficient equation dependent on Reynolds number
and particle sphericity;
where A = exp(2.328 8 - 6.458 l$+ 2.448 63), B=
0.096 4 + 0.556 5$, C=exp(4.905- 13.894 4$+
18.422 23 - 10.259 9@), D=exp(1.4681+
12.258 4+- 20.732 22@+ 15.885 5@).
Equation (5) is of a similar form to the drag
coefficient equation for spheres developed by Turton
and Levenspiel [8]. Haider and Levenspiel [4] have
also offered specific values of A, B, C and D for
certain fixed geometric shapes such as those tested
by Pettyjohn and Christiansen [l].
Christiansen and Barker [9] corrected for geometric
shapes by a factor of (d,,,Jd,,&“‘. For values of d,J
dmingreater than 1.7, objects were considered discs,
cylinders or prisms and M was taken as 0.315, 2.3
and 2.3, respectively. If the ratio was less than 1.7,
objects were considered isometric and the value of
M was zero.
Beddow et al. [lo] examined particle drag of silica
sand and crushed quartz and suggested a shape
descriptor called not-roundness, defined as the de-
viation from a circle in two dimensions and the
deviation from a sphere in three dimensions. It is
determined through (Ri - 0,) Fourier analysis tech-
niques and relies on the equivalent radius (the radius
of a circle having the same area as that of the particle
profile) of the particle,
NR = -& C(R, - R,)=
0
where R, is the equivalent circular particle radius
and R, is any particular radius at some angle 0,.
A more recent study by Clark et al. [ll] utilizes
polygonal harmonics to determine the second har-
monic persistence (a shape descriptor related to the
aspect ratio) of each of three orthogonal views of
a particle. The sum of the second harmonic per-
sistence of each view (PsU,,,) of irregular stones had
a strong correlation to the drag coefficient in Newton’s
regime of settling:

0.1 I I
0.01 0.1 1 10
Fte
Fig. 1. Drag as a function of Re and scruple.
logds”m = 0.159 log,& + 0.653 (7)
There are few methods available to predict drag
coefficients of irregular particles and even fewer that
do not rely on sphericity. Sphericity is especially
ineffective when dealing with rough particles, since
the surface area would be virtually impossible to
measure. The intent of the unified diagram presented
below is to provide more rapid prediction of particle
drag for a wide range of particle types. In the following
analysis, the particle size is represented by D, which
is defined exclusively as the diameter of a sphere
having the same volume as the particle. Although
there is a body of information on orientation of
particles in free fall [ 121which may suggest a preferred
area for calculation of drag coefficient, the use of
this D in eqns. (1) and (2) is unambiguous and
combines all information on the orientation into CD.
Proposed diagram
Although sphericity is an impractical shape de-
scriptor, the forms of Haider and Levenspiel’s equa-
tions and Pettyjohn and Christiansen’s diagram are
desirable due to the ease of predicting the drag
coefficient given the Reynolds number and the spher-
icity of a particle. Therefore, if sphericity were
replaced with a more generic hydrodynamic shape
descriptor, the form of these equations could be
preserved and without concern about the limitations
of sphericity as a shape descriptor. This new shape
descriptor, called scruple 8, characterizes the irreg-
ularity of the particle and is defined as
59
100 1000 10000 100000
where CD is the drag coefficient of the particle at
Re = 10 000 and CD, is the drag coefficient of a sphere
at Re= 10 000, with the value of 10 000 chosen
because particles of a wide range of shapes are fully
in Newton’s regime of settling (nearly constant drag
coefficient) at a Reynolds number of 10 000. Scruple,
like spheric@, has a value of 1 for spheres by
definition. The resulting diagram in Fig. 1 was gen-
erated using eqn. (5) to determine the drag coefficient
and by selecting a value of sphericity to yield the
desired scruple. It is immediately evident that Fig.
1 is analogous to the Moody diagram for pipe friction
factors. Wasp [13] has also presented a similar dia-
gram with an aspect ratio as a shape descriptor.
Similar to relative roughness for pipes, scruple retains
no information about the actual shape of the particle
but is solely a hydrodynamic shape descriptor. Al-
though a particle could possibly have a value of
scruple that is not independent of Re and would
therefore not follow a single prescribed curve on
the diagram, this is also true of the widely accepted
Moody diagram. Currently, however, these two meth-
ods of prediction are the only ones of their kind in
their respective areas. The problem in using the new
diagram therefore rests solely on predicting 8 for
any particle.
Prediction of 8
Scruple can be predicted in two basic ways, the
first of which is through measurement of particle
60

TABLE 1. Constants a and b to use in eqn. (9) and sum then divided into the three categories mentioned
of least-squares error above, and a least-squares fitting program was used
to determine the relationship between the two in
Class a b Error No. of each category. The basic equation remains the same
data points in the form of
Isometric 152.6 -2.14 0.020 4 3=alo6” (9)
Thin disks 263.5 -4.17 0.019 4
Isometric 158.4 -2.15 0.781 8 with the constants a and b changing for the categories
and disks as shown in Table 1. Table 1 also presents the
resulting least-squares error summed over the data
shape and by using shape descriptors such as aspect set and defined by
ratios, harmonic persistences and sphericities.
Error = &(log&,,t - log,,a lob”)’ (IO)
Shape measurement
Figure 2 compares the actual values of scruple ob-
Sphericity tained by eqn. (8) and the calculated values obtained
The relationship between scruple and sphericity by eqn. (9) for the different categories.
was found to differ, depending on the fundamental A direct relationship between the particle drag
particle shape. In other words, sphericity alone was coefficient and scruple was desirable, while main-
insufficient as a descriptor for drag coefficient pre- taining the form of eqn. (5). However, solving eqn.
diction. Based upon Haider and Levenspiel’s data (9) for sphericity (in terms of scruple) and substituting
[4], three categories of particles were examined: that into eqn. (5) resulted in three separate equations
isometric particles, thin disks and a combined data for drag that were difficult to handle. Therefore, the
set for both disks and isometric particles. variables A, B, C and D of eqn. (5) were calculated
Given the sphericity of the particles, eqn. (5) was using the sphericities for which exact values of scruple
used to calculate the drag coefficient, from which had previously been determined. The relationship
scruple could be determined through eqn. (8). The between scruple and each of the variables was then
corresponding values of sphericity and scruple were found using the least-squares fitting program. These

150
s
C
r

; 100
I
e

50

0 I , I I I I I a , .... ., m. Jq

I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
sphericity
Fig. 2. Comparison of eqn. (9) with actual values.
 61

TABLE 2. Variables from eqn. (5) as a function of scruple

Particles A B C D

Isometric 0 178*lOo.““a 0.677*S-0.208 0.101+0.366*$j 5 732.1*8-‘.”

Thin disks 0:35o*y 0.772*8 -“.359 - 0.225 + 0.427*2 512.7*a-o-825
General 0.164*~“~517 0.772*8-“.‘53 0.029 + 0.407*3 4.81+
513.4(1B) +
4 389.5(1@2

TABLE 3. Suggested values of A,B,C and D for use with eqn. (5)

Shape A B C D

Cube-octahedron 0.228 0.591 0.807 1577.8

Octahedron 0.251 0.553 1.07 844.8
Cube 0.268 0.533 1.26 597.5
Tetrahedron 0.341 0.483 1.95 238.9
Thin disk (r/d= l/35) 2.66 0.229 12.34 31.47
Thin disk (r/d = l/95) 4.56 0.166 30.55 15.03
Thin disk (t/d = l/47.5) 7.75 0.121 74.34 7.24
Thin disk (t/d = l/l 000) 8.82 0.112 92.25 6.06

4
S
C
I
u 3
P
I
e
2

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2

Ra

Fig. 3. Comparison of eqn. 14 (solid line) with actual values.

relationships are summarized in Table 2, while sug- error in each case was less than 0.9, and in most
gested values of A, B, C and D for particular shapes cases was of the order of lo-’ or 10e3.
based on exact values of scruple rather than calculated The drag coefficient can now readily be found by
values, can be found in Table 3. The least-squares reading from the diagram, given scruple and Reynolds
 62

TABLE 4. Values of scruple for various regular geometric harmonics analysis was then performed on the image
smooth particles, estimated from sphericity, using eqns. in which an arc of chosen length (the step length)
(5) and (8). The values of scruple found directly from
stepped around the edge of the image several times,
Pettyjohn and Christiansen’s data are: cubeoctahedron,
cube, octahedron and tetrahedron forming a polygon within the image. The selection
of step length determined the harmonic of an image
where a second harmonic indicates two opposing
Particle Proportions Scruple
points. The second harmonic persistence is defined
Sphere 1.00 as the largest step length divided by the shortest
Cubeoctahedron 2.08 step length that would result in a second harmonic.
Cube 3.36 From this, eqn. (7) was derived for the relationship
Octahedron 2.93 between drag coefficient in Newton’s regime of set-
Tetrahedron 4.75
tling and the sum of the second persistences, P,;,,
Cylinder h=d 2.46
of each of the three views of a stone. Solving eqn.
h=2d 2.99
h=4d 4.38 (7) for the drag coefficient,
h = OSd 2.98
CD = (0.222 33P,“,)h.*89 3 (11)
h = 0.25d 4.97
Rectangular 1:l:l 3.25 and using the definition of scruple, the relationship
parallelpiped 1:1:2 3.81 between the sum of the second harmonic persistences
1:2:2 3.81
and scruple becomes
1:1:4 5.12
1:4:4 5.76 8 = (0.000 185 97P,,,)6~28g 3 (12)
1:2:4 5.12
Spheroid 1:1:2 1.74
1:2:2 1.85 Not roundness
1:1:4 3.67 Beddow et al. [lo] used the shape correction factor
1:4:4 4.82 of not-roundness when determining irregular particle
Ellipsoid 1:2:4 3.53 drag. However, the data for particle drag are based
Thin disks d=25t 21.77
on an effective diameter different from the equivalent
d=50t 43.07
d=75t 62.03
diameter that the present analysis is based upon and
d = 1OOt 78.27 the volume of Beddow’s particles was unavailable,
Right prisms Triangular 0.74 making it impossible to rework his data. Also, his
r=h=a Quadrangular 1.42 data were taken in the laminar/transitional regime
Pentagonal 2.20 of flow, so the assumption that the drag coefficient
Hexagonal 2.88 was taken in Newton’s regime would not be valid.

Three-dimensional aspect ratio

number, or by using eqn. (5) and Table 2, where The three-dimensional aspect ratio is defined as
A, B, C and D are now functions of scruple in place
of sphericity. Ra= &j (13)

Second harmonic persistence
In a recent paper [ll], smooth pebble and rough
gravel samples were analyzed using image analysis
techniques on three orthogonal views of the stones
to define the edge of the stone’s image. A polygonal
where C is the particle’s longest diameter and A,B
are the particle’s longest diameters orthogonal to
both each other and C.
These three diameters correspond to the three
orthogonal views taken of smooth pebbles and rough

TABLE 5. Scruple values for cuboids extrapolated from McKay and McLain’s data [16]

Particle size Particle shape Sphericity Velocity Diameter Reynolds Drag Scruple
(mm/s) (mm) number coefficient

12.5 x 12.5 x 12.5 Cuboid 1:l:l 0.81 148 15.51 1281.0 1.76 4.43
12.5 x 12.5 x 19.0 Cuboid 1:1:1.52 0.79 158 17.83 1 572.2 1.77 4.43
12.5 x 12.5 x 29.0 Cuboid 1:1:2.32 0.75 175 20.53 2 005.0 1.67 4.13
12.5 x 12.5 x40.0 Cuboid 1:1:3.2 0.71 190 22.85 2 422.9 1.57 3.86
12.5 x 12.5 x 60.0 Cuboid 1:1:4.8 0.65 250 26.16 ,3 649.8‘ 1.04 2.60
12.5 x 12.5 x 80.0 Cuboid 1:1:6.4 0.60 304 28.79 4 884.3 0.774 1.94
 63

TABLE 6. Experimental values of scruple found using Table of values

data from Geldart [17] and Clark et al. [Ill (smooth pebble
and rough rock) The second method of acquiring values for scruple
is by choosing a value of scruple from a table
Particle Scruple corresponding to the particle or particles of interest.
In some cases, where the particle has precise shape
Smooth pebble 3.66 (e.g., spheres or cubes), this will provide accurate
Rough rock 4.47
7.57 prediction of the drag coefficient (see Tables 4, 5,
Lava rock
Crushed coal 4.09 6). In other cases, where the shape might be described
Crushed sandstone 2.09-3.39 verbally or approximately (as in Table 6), confidence
Round sand 1.22-1.85 in the prediction will be lower.
Crushed glass 5.60 Most of the tables currently published for drag
Mica flakes 22.24 coefficients of different particles or objects are for
Sillimanite 4.09
objects under constrained flow conditions instead of
Common salt 2.85
free-settling conditions. Drag coefficients on im-
mersed bodies fixed in cross-flow can be obtained
in such standard texts as Cornish [14] and Lindsey
[15]. Such data are not considered in this paper,
gravel described both above and in Clark et al. [ll].
since we require that the particle have the ability
Therefore, the aspect ratio of the samples was easily
to orient itself.
calculated and, since the drag coefficient of the
Sphericity may be calculated for a range of compact
particles was previously determined, scruple could
geometric objects, so that scruple can be found,
be related to aspect ratio. Scruple as a function of
within the limits of eqn. (8), for these objects. Table
the aspect ratio was found using a least-squares
4 presents values of scruple for frequently encoun-
fitting program and is
tered geometric shapes. Note that the values of 8
8 = - 3.85 + 4.83R, for the cube-octahedron, cube, tetrahedron and oc-
tahedron are found through sphericity, and that they
within strict limits of 1.0 <R, <2.0,where Fig. 3 can be predicted more accurately directly from Pet-
compares the exact value of scruple with those tyjohn and Christiansen [l], who used these exact
calculated using eqn. (14). There is, however, a real shapes in their experimental work. In Table 5, the
problem when the aspect ratio is exactly 1; the data of McKay and McLain (their Table 2a, [16])
particle could be a sphere, in which case scruple is for settling of single cuboids (rectangular parellel-
1, but it could also be a cube, in which case scruple pipeds) has been re-worked to yield 8. These values
is 3.36. One must conclude that aspect ratio alone may be compared by the reader with some values
is not an adequate descriptor. for rectangular parellelpipeds in Table 4. Since the

Cuboids
6

7 --

6 --

5 --

4 --

3 --

2 --

1 --

I
0.6 0.7 0.0 0.9 1 1.1

Fig. 4. Comparison of scruple inferred from McKay and McLain [16] with eqn. (17) shown as a dotted line and scruple
exact (solid line).
64

TABLE 7. Rough rock and smooth pebble examples

Top view Side 1 view Side 2 view Scruple

(a) 0 I
0 4.049 452

D
@I 4.502 182

0
(c) 4.833 626

Cd) 0 5.740 074

(e)
0 0 2.790 526

(0
0
4.155 78

TABLE 8. Summary of relationships between scruple and other shape descriptors for various particles

Particle Limitation Equation

aspect
Cuboid 1:1:x a= -27.30+75.20+-44.40#
ratio
Rough rocks,
smooth pebbles 3.0 <P,, < 6.0 8 = (0.000 185 97P,,)6.~9’
Thin disks 8 =263.469*10-4.‘69”
Isometric particles 8 = 152.625*10-2~‘4’+
Isometric particles
3 = 158.435*10-2.‘s4$
and thin disks
Rough rocks, 8 = - 3.85 + 4.83R,
1.0 <R, < 2.0
smooth pebbles

values in Table 5 are found directly experimentally, based on equivalent spherical diameter, actually drops
they are to be favored over the values in Table 4, relative to a cube. For all of McKay and McLain’s
which were inferred through the medium of sphericity data, the best fit parabola was
using eqns. (5) and (8). Figure 4 shows the relationship
3 = - 27.30 + 75.20+ 44.403 (15)
between ly and 8 for McKay and McLain’s cuboids,
and gives the line of eqn. (8) as a reference. Values Table 6 provides additional values for scruple.
are credible for compact cuboids, but it is obvious Some of the data used in the paper by Clark et al.
that the agreement is very poor at high aspect ratios. [ll] was used to find average values of 3 for smooth
For high aspect ratios, the drag coefficient, when pebbles, rough rocks (similar to road or railroad
 6.5

gravel) and lava rock (a porous rock). The remaining Acknowledgement

data were back-calculated from values of sphericity
for various ores given by Geldart [17]. While from The authors are grateful to the West Virginia
surface area arguments it is clear that these spher- Energy and Water Research Center for the support
icities are specious, one trusts that Geldart reported of this research.
an eflective spheric@ in terms of predicting drag,
and these sphericities have therefore been used to
infer scruple. List of symbols
Table 7 provides three orthogonal views of some
particles settled by Clark et al. [ll], and the resulting particle’s three longest orthogonal di-
ARC
value of 3 for the curve corresponding to the values ameters
of CD and Re for the free fall. Particle (e) in Table A,B,C,D constants used in eqn. (5)
7 has a fairly low value of 3 relative to particle (d), particle surface area
AP
possibly due to fluttering motion during the latter’s AS surface area of sphere with equivalent
fall. It is evident from this table and from Table 6 particle volume
that a value of 3 =4 is a good ‘guess’ for a rock of a& constants used in eqn. (9)
unquantified shape. Certainly, this is far better than CD drag coefficient
using the values of 8 = 1, implied by using CD for C drag coefficient of sphere
a sphere of the same size. D”’ effective particle diameter
d maximum diameter
d:: minimum diameter
d, Heywood’s equivalent diameter
acceleration due to gravity
Conclusions ; Heywood’s shape factor
NR not-roundness
P SUITI sum of second harmonic persistences
The diagram presented (Fig. 1) is a simple and R, three-dimensional aspect ratio
effective means of predicting irregular particle drag Ri any particle radius
in terms of the Reynolds number and a shape R, equivalent circular particle radius
descriptor, scruple. Although scruple does not always Re Reynolds number
possess a unique value, as is the case when the three- V particle volume
dimensional aspect ratio is 1, Fig. 1 provides a much V settling velocity
more accurate prediction than assuming a sphere
of similar size. There are few times when such a
conflict in values of scruple will occur where the Greek symbols
worst case of conflict found during this research was I* fluid viscosity
for a cube. The two values cited in Table 4 of 3.36 P fluid density
and 3.25 were found through the medium of spheric@ PP
particle density
and are of a negligible difference. However, the value sphericity
cited in Table 5 of 4.433 is considerably different scruple
but was found using experimental data and should,
therefore, be considered more reliable.
A summary of relationships found between scruple
and several other shape descriptors as well as the References
limitations of these relationships can be found in
Table 8. However, Tables 4-6 should be given prec-
E. S. Pcttyjohn and E. B. Christiansen, Chem. Eng.
edence over Table 8 in predicting scruple, since the Prog, 44 (1948) 157.
values shown are for specific shapes or result directly H. Heywood, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. (London), 140
from experimental data. (1938) 275.
In conclusion, a careful selection of scruple in H. Wadell, J. Franklin Inst., 217 (1934) 459.
A. Haider and 0. Levenspiel, Powder Techno/., 58
conjunction with Fig. 1 will result in a reliable value
(1989) 63.
for irregular particle drag. The authors propose to V. J. Schmiedel, Physik Zeit., 29 (1928) 593.
perform settling tests to extend tables and models L. Squires and W. Squires, Jr., Trans. Am. Inst. Chem.
for the prediction of scruple in the future. Eng., 33 (1937) 1.
66

7 W. W. Willmarth, N. E. Hawk and R. L. Harvey, Whys. 13 E. J. Wasp et al., Solid-Liquid Flow Sluny Pipeline
Fluids, 7 (1964) 197. Transportation SeriesonBulkMaterials Handling, 1(1975/
77) No. 4, 39.
8 R. Turton and 0. Levenspiel, Powder Technol., 47
14 J. J. Comish III, in A. Avallone and T. Baumeister
(1986) 83. III (eds.), Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical
9 E. B. Christiansen and D. H. Barker, AIChE J., II Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, 9th edn., 1987, pp.
(1965) 145. 1 l-76.
10 J. K. Beddow, A. D. Ah Chin, J. Portz, M. Ward and 15 W. F. Lindsey, E. A. John and W. L. Haberman (eds.),
A. F. Vetter, Powder Technol., 48 (1986) 59. Introduction to Fluid Mechanics, Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1988, p. 294.
11 N. N. Clark, P. Gabriele, S. Shuker and R. Turton,
16 G. McKay and H. McLain, Trans. Am. Inst. Chem.
Powder Technol., 59 (1989) 69. Eng., 58 (1980) 107.
12 T. Allen, Par?icle Size Measuremenf, Chapman and Hall, 17 D. Geldart, Gas Fluidization Technology, Wiley, New
New York, 1981. York, 1986.