Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167 – 183

www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Friction measurement in dense phase plug flow analysis

Néstor Vásquez a, Luis Sánchez a, George E. Klinzing a,*, Shrikant Dhodapkar b
a
University of Pittsburgh, 826 CL, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
b
Dow Chemical Company, Freeport, TX, USA
Received 2 December 2002; received in revised form 21 August 2003; accepted 26 August 2003

Abstract

Pneumatic conveying, employing the dense phase plug flow regimen, is largely used to transport bulk solids. This process permits the
conveying of large amounts of material in economical manner with less particle and pipe degradation compared to dilute phase conveying.
By using an experimental system with special measurement devices and different materials of construction and transport, the friction between
the material being transported and the pipe wall, the actual motion of the particles was determined, and the degree of fluidization were
estimated. This information permits more accurate modeling of dense phase plug flow providing basic parameters to insert in existing and
developing models.
D 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Keywords: Friction; Dense phase; Pneumatic conveying; Plug flow

1. Introduction plugs can be more unstable than horizontal ones. Yi and

For the design of a dense phase plug flow system
several parameters must be considered. One of the impor-
tant parameters is the wall friction experienced by the
particles as they flow in a plug against the pipe wall.
Different piping materials and their roughness state as well
as the different materials to be transported experience a
wide range of wall friction values. A number of basic
models have been constructed to predict the energy loss in
dense phase conveying. These models incorporate the wall
friction as well as other parameters. The models of note
are the Muschelknautz and Krambrock [5] format, the
Konrad [3] model and the modified Konrad model by
Mi [4]. In a recent study done in our laboratory by
Sanchez [7], the Konrad based models appear to be more
reliable in prediction of pressure drops for a wide variety
of conditions.
Some recent experiments have help to lend more infor-
mation on the behavior of dense phase plug flow. Neiderreiter
and Sommer [6] used piezoelectric transducers to monitor the
plug flow in vertical geometries. They showed that vertical
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-412-624-9630; fax: +1-412-624-
9639.
E-mail address: klinzing@provost.pitt.edu (G.E. Klinzing).
Wypych [8] explored the friction of moving plugs by using an
unique half pipe friction device and determined the stress
transmission from a new set of tests. Using tomographic
analysis Evans [1] probed dense phase plugs that were
formed from a rotary valve feeder finding a substantial
amount of gas being present in plugs formed in this manner.
2. Experimental unit
The system employed in this study had the following
components: 10 m transfer line (transparent PVC/alumi-
num); feeder/cyclone; collecting cyclone; vacuum transfer
system; gas supply; pressure transducers (2 air pressure
transducer; Omega PX 242-030 G 5 V) and one flush
diaphragm pressure transducer (Omega PX 102-025 G V);
data acquisition board (connected to a computer with a
sampling rate of 1/1000 s).
Fig. 1 shows a diagram of this 10 m system with its
principal components located. Basically, the same procedure
to perform the experiments was always employed for each
condition studied. Since the behavior of the plugs is
determined by the deposited stationary layer, establishing
this layer is very important before running an experiment. It
is crucial that a stable plug with constant velocity be
produced so that reproducibility can be achieved. The

0032-5910/$ - see front matter D 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2003.08.060
168 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183

Fig. 1. Experimental setup.

stationary layer, as also found by other researchers, depends
on the superficial velocity which depends on the airflow. If
this stationary layer varies through the pipeline, unstable
plugs will form. After setting the airflow rate, the system
was run several times to obtain the adequate amount of
material deposited on the bottom of the pipe for a steady
stationary layer thickness. To check that the stationary layer
was adequate and the system was in a stable condition, the
amount of material at the inlet to the pipe had to be the same
as that leaving the pipe. When these conditions were
obtained, the system was ready to operate and the trans-
ducers record the correct internal pressures. The High Speed
Video Camera-Phantom (HSVC) which was placed at
various positions along the flow path recorded the motion
of the particles that were transported by the plug. For each
airflow, at least three experiments were performed.
The experiments were carried out in a transparent PVC
pipe and an aluminum pipe. The experiments in transparent
PVC were performed using polyester cubic particles, low
density polyethylene particles, high density polyethylene
particles and alumina particles. All these materials showed a
stable behavior except the alumina, which showed large
oscillations in the pressure behavior most likely due to the
unevenness of the stationary layer. Table 1 shows the
physical properties of the materials tested.
inlet pressure. The pressure ring, which provides details of the
plug pressure behavior and is useful in understanding the
friction of the plug, is located 5.9 m downstream from the
long radius feeder bend. This ring has two transducers: an air
pressure transducer (AP1, Omega PX 242-030G 5 V) and a
total pressure transducer (TP, Omega PX 102-025 G V). The
first transducer, which is placed on the top-side of the pipe,
measures the pressure of the air inside the pipe. The total
pressure transducer measures the pressure using its active
surface, which is placed flush on the bottom internal wall of
the pipe. This transducer measures the pressure of the air plus
the normal pressure to the surface due to the particles that
touch the active surface. Figs. 2 and 3 show the details of the
pressure ring. Three meters downstream, the system has
another air pressure transducer (AP2). The time between
the signals from the two air transducers allows one to
compute the velocity of the plug.
3. Friction
Since the friction is one of the most important parameter
in pneumatic conveying and for the most parts has been
inferred rather than directly measured, a special friction

2.1. Experimental details

Table 1
Physical properties of materials tested
The system was readied for transport by using a vacuum
Materials Particle Bulk Voidage Particle
device that takes the material to be transported from the outlet
density, density, size, mm
of the pipe and carries it back to the feeder cyclone where the kg/m3 kg/m3
material is kept before feeding. Once the amount of material
Polyester 1400 892 0.36 3.38
to be used in the experiment is in the feeder cyclone, the cubic particles
feeder valve is opened and the material falls into the bend Low density 923 563 0.39 5.41
where it will be transported by the airflow. Having a smooth polyethylene
and gradual transition in the bend arrangement is essential for particles
High density 922 587 0.36 4.00
the production of a stable plug system. The airflow is
polyethylene
controlled by means of a needle valve, which operates with particles
a difference of pressure between the inlet and outlet guaran- Polystyrene 912 735 0.19 5.41
teeing sonic airflow. This condition allows a constant mass Polyester spherical 1306 703 0.46 2.5
airflow independent of the pressure oscillations downstream. particles
G96003 942 603 0.36 5.4
The mass flow rate of air is measured using a rotameter and
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183
Fig. 2. Transverse section of the pressure ring.
tester was designed and added to the experimental rig to
measure the friction produced by a material being trans-
ported in plug regime through a pipe. It is important to
recognize that in these measurements the plug is being
conveyed and the friction is that of the entire plug not a
section of it. The total plug length is located within the
friction tester length. Longer plugs were not studied.
3.1. Friction tester
The friction tester is a device that can measure the actual
friction produced by a material being transported in plug
regime through a pipe. The basic principle is based on the
fact that a moving body exerts a friction force over the
contact surface. Fig. 4 shows the basic principles for the
friction tester.
Fig. 3. 3D view of the pressure ring.
169
Fig. 4. Basic principle of the friction tester.
In order to use basic principles in a device that measures
the friction in dense phase conveying process, the friction
tester was designed to allow a normal plug motion with a
minimum external intervention. The apparatus, which is
placed at the end of the normal conveying system, consists
of a 0.05-m (2 inch) diameter pipe, 2-m long pipe with six
transducers: three transducers measure the tension (TT,
Omega LCL-040), two transducers that measure the air
pressure transducer (AP, Omega PX 242-030 G 5V), and
one flush transducer that measures what is called ‘‘total
pressure’’ (TP, Omega PX 102-025 G V). The friction tester
is supported by roller supports that give it the necessary
degree of freedom in the axial direction. The three tension
transducers are placed around the pipe in a circular array
with an angle of 120j between them. The tension trans-
ducers are oriented in the pipe’s axial direction, which allow
them to measure the tension force that a plug produces when
it passes through the test section. The addition of each signal
is equal to the total tension. These transducers are held by
screws, whose extremes are fixed to flanges. The first flange
is fixed to the extreme end of the conveying system, while
the second is fixed to the test section. In order to calculate
the wall pressure, a flush transducer and an air pressure
transducer were placed in the same configuration as the
pressure ring and located 50 cm downstream from the end of
the test section. One important parameter that is necessary to
know in order to calculate the friction between the material
and the internal wall of the pipe, is the plug length. The first
alternative is measuring the plug length directly by using a
photographic device, however, since experiments with an
aluminum pipe were planned, another air pressure transduc-
er (AP1) was placed 1 m upstream from the pressure ring. It
should be noted that the elbow at the end of the friction
tester is not touching the pipe. The elbow is used to direct
the flow of material downward. Fig. 5 shows the Friction
tester, while Fig. 6 shows the tension transducer array.
3.2. Challenges met
During the development of the friction tester, several
challenges forced us to change the procedure and the device
setup.
170 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183

Fig. 5. Friction tester setup.

3.2.1. Bending challenge
During the motion of a plug through the test section, it
was expected that the signal from the tension transducers
would change—if not in the same magnitude at least in a
similar way. Initial results showed that the signal of the
lateral tension transducers went in one direction while the
top tension transducer signal went in opposite direction.
This variation was due to the bending of the pipe due to the
plug’s weight. Thus an extra support was installed and the
tension transducer array was placed between this support
and the first roller support. With this new configuration, the
bending challenge was essentially eliminated.
3.2.2. Touching pipes challenge
The second important challenge that appeared during the
first experiments was the values of tension. Theoretically, it is
was expected that the tension force, due to the friction of the
material against the internal wall of the pipe, were close to the
drag force value, being the two more important forces acting
on the plug. However, the addition of the values of the
readings given by the tension transducer was much smaller
than the drag force, 5 N against 17 N. To check if the tension
transducer were measuring the correct values, a cable with a
pulley was placed at the end of the system. A known weight
was hung form the pulley and its value was compared with the
signal from the tension transducers. The tension transducer
signal was found to be much smaller than the known weight.
Several changes in the friction tester showed that the reason
for this difference was the pretension that the tension trans-
ducer array exerts over the pipe joint. An analysis of the
tension transducer array and the pretension over the pipe joint
shows that the joint itself acts as another spring.
It was clear that the tension transducers need a pretension
for their correct performance with the extremes of the pipes
should be as close as possible but not touching. With this in
mind, a weight (7 kg approx.) was hung from the pulley and
the friction tester was subjected to a known tension. Under
this condition, the screws that support the tension transducer

Fig. 6. Tension transducer array.

 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183 171

were adjusted to allow the extremes of the pipes to be as close The coordinate system was placed in the internal circum-
as possible but not touching. Fig. 7 shows the pulley and the ference of the pipe and converted to the polar coordinates.
cable that pull the friction tester. After this, an extra known The pressure due to the material weight was assumed to
weight was hung to check whether the signal from the tension be the hydrostatic pressure, having its maximum on the
transducer was correct. bottom of the pipe. Knowing the material density (qm), the
After several experiments, however, it was found that the expression for the maximum stress becomes
pressure ring worked better when it was placed up side down rweightmax ¼ qm gD ð3Þ
since the plug does fill the entire cross-section initially, i.e.
having the total pressure transducer on top, allowing it to Since the weight acts around the internal wall of the pipe,
measure the air pressure plus the wall pressure. In this Eq. (3) becomes:
configuration it was possible to adjust the initial signal to p
2
zero for both transducers in the pressure ring. Since the total s ¼ lw rw  A þ 2lw m rweight ðyÞdA ð4Þ
pressure transducer does not have any particle touching the p
2
sensitive surface at the beginning of each experiment, it
measures only the atmospheric pressure as well as the air Noting that the rw is a function of the polar angle (h), one
pressure transducer does. Another important point that we can write
have to consider, using this configuration, is that total 1
transducer does not measure the pressure due to the material rweight ¼ q ghð1 þ sinhÞ ð5Þ
2 m
weight. For this reason, a special analysis had to be developed
in order to add the weight effect. Since the material is Eq. (1) can then be written as follows:
considered fluidized from experimental and visual observa-
tions and to be addressed later, a linear pressure distribution, FT ¼ tan/w ½prLð2rw þ qm ghÞ ð6Þ
in the vertical direction, was assumed. Fig. 8 helps to explain
where L is the plug length. Now solving for angle of wall
the approach.
friction /w, one has
The tension transducers force FT can be related to the shear
 
stress as 1 FT
/w ¼ tan ð7Þ
FT ¼ sA ð1Þ prLð2rw þ qm ghÞ
and the shear stress can be related to the wall pressure, as rw.
Here the angle of wall friction is the average over the
s ¼ rw tan/w ð2Þ region of analysis. With this equation and the data obtained
Note Nomenclature section for symbol definitions. with the friction tester, the angle of friction between the

Fig. 7. Pretension using a pulley and a cable.

172 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183
Fig. 8. Geometry of the cross-section of the pipe in considering the linear
pressure distribution analysis.
material being transported and the internal wall of the pipe
was calculated. In addition to the angle of friction for each
experiment, we measured total tension, plug length, wall
pressure and plug velocity as functions of plug size.
3.3. Experimental procedure
The experiments carried out in the friction tester can be
classified in two groups: experiments carried out in PVC
pipe and experiments carried out in aluminum pipe. In both
Fig. 9. Typical pressure and tension traces of the transducers.
groups, six materials were tested: polyester cubic particles,
high-density polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, poly-
styrene, research polymer G96003, and polyester spherical
particles. For each material, except polystyrene, three
experiments were carried out using 500 g of material in
the inlet. The amount of material then was increased to 800
g and after achieving a stable condition, three more experi-
ments were performed. Finally, using the same procedure,
the amount of material was increased up to 1100 g and three
experiments were carried out. In this way nine experiments
for each material were performed. Using the air pressure
transducers as sensors for time of travel and knowing the
distance between them, one can calculate the plug velocity.
This value, multiplied by the oscillation time of the total
pressure transducer (TP Fig. 9), is equal to the plug length.
With this value and the internal radius of the pipe, the
contact area is easily calculated. At the same time, the
difference between the total pressure (including material
weight) and the air pressure is the wall pressure. Now one
can employ Eq. (7) to calculate the angle of wall friction.
Fig. 9 shows the typical pressure and tension traces gener-
ated by the system in each experiment.
4. Experiments with the PVC pipe
Figs. 10– 12 show the average and the extreme values of
the most important parameters for the experiments carried
out with high-density polyethylene in PVC pipe. A number
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183 173

Fig. 10. Average angle of friction, average total tension as a function of the plug size for high-density polyethylene particles in a PVC pipe.

of observations can be made from all the tests performed.
See Table 2.
Angle of friction. This parameter appeared very stable
for all materials, having its minimum with polyester
cubic particles, where the average values remained
between 12j and 14j. At the other extreme, the angle
of friction reached its maximum value, 28j, with 300 g
of polystyrene. This value remained almost constant up
to 500 g, after which it started to decrease, because this
material was larger than the other materials. It is
interesting to note that angle of friction tended to
decrease when the plug size increased. We often found
that lower angles of friction are occurred under higher
stress conditions.
Total tension. As it was expected, total tension increased
for larger plugs, having its minimum with 500 g of
polyester cubic particles, where the average value was 7 N.
On the other hand, the maximum value for total tension
was achieved for polyester spherical particles, with an

Fig. 11. Average plug length, average plug velocity as a function of the plug size for high-density polyethylene particles in a PVC pipe.
174 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183

Fig. 12. Average wall pressure as a function of plug size for high-density polyethylene particles in a PVC pipe.

average value of 32.5 N. At the same time, both polyester rest of materials. It is also interesting to note that
cubic particles and polyester spherical particles showed a polyester cubic particles increased their wall pressure in
linearity in the total tension as function of plug size. a larger ratio when their plug length was increased.
Plug length. This parameter, as well as total tension,
increased for larger plugs. Minimum values, around Table 2
Summary table, PVC pipe
0.3 m, were obtained with 500 g of polyester cubic
particles, while the longest plugs, around 1.2 m, were Plug Average Average Average Average Average
size, plug wall plug total /w, j
developed with 1100 g for low-density polyethylene. g velocity, pressure, length, tension,
Note that polystyrene was not tested with 1100 g; m/s kPa m N
otherwise, this material would have produced plugs, Polystyrene
which would have been longer than the 2 m test 300 1.12 0.164 0.67 18.55 28.72
section for the wall friction. 500 1.08 0.166 0.87 23.79 28.36
Wall pressure. This was one of the more important 800 1.04 0.192 1.13 28.46 24.75
parameters because it had direct influence in the shear
Low density polyethylene
stress that the plug developed on the internal wall of the 500 1.38 0.202 0.56 11.54 20.21
pipe. Graphically this showed that materials with large 800 1.34 0.237 1.05 19.79 17.01
particle size, such as the research polymer G96003 and 1100 1.32 0.248 1.21 24.31 17.75
polystyrene, had a larger difference between their
extreme values of wall pressure. This large difference High density polyethylene
500 1.63 0.328 0.54 12.39 16.40
was due to the number of particles which were in 800 1.58 0.204 0.86 18.50 20.41
contact with the sensitive surface of the total-pressure 1100 1.55 0.226 1.16 23.37 18.34
transducer. Fewer contacts produced points of high
pressure which could be seen as large oscillations in the Polyester cubic particles
pressure graphics. Minimum values of wall pressure, in 500 1.81 0.345 0.29 6.93 14.12
800 1.75 0.416 0.52 13.14 13.48
the vicinity of 0.16 kPa, were obtained with 300 g of 1100 1.73 0.534 0.73 18.75 11.84
polystyrene and 500 g of the research polymer G96003.
On the other hand, maximum values of wall pressure Polymer G96003
around 0.54 kPa were found in the experiments that 500 1.68 0.163 0.51 8.22 18.04
were carried out with 1100 g of polyester. An 800 1.61 0.183 0.83 14.68 18.23
1100 1.59 0.206 1.14 19.57 16.59
interesting point here is that most of materials tend to
increase the wall pressure when they move larger plugs. Polyester spherical particles
The exceptions are high-density polyethylene and 500 1.53 0.412 0.74 24.61 19.88
polyester spherical particles. In these two cases, the 800 1.43 0.378 0.92 28.64 19.77
particles shape was much closer to a sphere than the 1100 1.38 0.383 1.09 32.33 18.76
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183
Plug velocity. This parameter appeared very similar for
all materials, decreasing slightly when plug size was
increased. Minimum plug velocities, in the vicinity of 1.1
m/s, were found using 800 g of polystyrene, while the
maximum values, around 1.8 m/s, were found using 500
g of polyester.
Table 2 shows the result of the experiments carried out
for all materials with the PVC pipe.
5. Experiments with the aluminum pipe
The experiments using aluminum pipe were carried out
employing the same procedure as PVC pipe. Figs. 13 –15
show the averages and the extreme values for the parameters
studied, using high density polyethylene, with Table 3
presenting the results of all the tests performed.
Several observations can be made for all material tested
in aluminum pipe:
Angle of friction. The experiments carried out with PVC
pipe showed that, the behavior of this parameter had a
similar tendency to decrease as the plug size increased.
Minimum values, in the vicinity of 11j, were obtained
with 1100 g of polyester cubic particles. On the other
hand, experiments carried out with 300 g of polystyrene
developed the highest angles of friction, rising up to 32j.
Total tension. This parameter shows the expected
behavior, increasing as more material was used to
produce plugs. Minimum values were achieved with
500 g of polyester cubic particles, having an average of 5
N. On the other hand, maximum values, whose average
Fig. 13. Average friction angle, average total tension as a function of plug size for hig-density polyethylene particles in an aluminum pipe.
175
was 26 N, were obtained with polyester spherical
particles.
Plug length. Similar to the previous parameter, plug
lengths increased almost in direct proportion to the plug
size (mass of material). Minimum values, whose average
was 0.28 m, were found in experiments carried out with
500 g of polyester cubic particles, while the longest plugs
are produced by 1100 g of low-density polyethylene,
rising to an average of 1.18 m.
Using the same amount of material per plug, the plug
length changed by the airflow, which in turn changed the
stationary layer thickness. A different airflow also could
change the degree of fluidization, which thus could change
the plug length. However its influence seemed to be less
significant than the layer thickness.
Wall pressure. This parameter showed a similar tendency
compared with the experiments carried out in PVC pipe.
However, average values were smaller. Minimum values
for wall pressure were found in the experiments with
1100 g of low-density polyethylene having an average of
0.035 kPa. It was noted that the wall pressure rose to a
maximum average value of 0.34 kPa, when the experi-
ment was carried out using 1100 g of polyester cubic
particles.
Plug velocity. In all materials, this parameter shows a
decrease as the amount of material used to produce the
plugs was increased. Minimum values were obtained
with 800 g of polystyrene, having an average of 0.9 m.
Maximum values for plug velocity were achieved by
polyester cubic particles in the experiments where 500 g
of material were used, rising 1.9 m/s.
176 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183

Fig. 14. Average plug length, average plug velocity for high-density polypropylene particles in an aluminum pipe.

A summary of the results of the experiments carried out
in aluminum pipe can be seen in Table 3.
6. Experiment with high density polyethylene varying
the airflow
These experiments were carried out to analyze the
effect of different superficial velocities and stationary
layer thicknesses during the conveying of plugs made
with the same amount of material (800 g). Low-density
polyethylene was selected because of its stable behavior
shown in the previous experiments. Three airflows were
studied. The first one was performed with a superficial air
velocity of 2.09 m/s. Once the stable condition was
achieved, three experiments were carried out, then, the
remaining material that formed the stationary layer was
removed from the pipe and weighed. This permitted the
stationary layer thickness to be calculated. After this, the
airflow was adjusted to obtain a superficial air velocity of
2.63 m/s and several runs were performed in order to
achieve the stable condition. Again, three experiments
were completed, and the stationary layer was weighed.
Finally, following the same procedure, three experiments

Fig. 15. Average wall pressure as a function of plug size for high-density polyethylene particles in an aluminum pipe.
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183 177

Table 3 eters under study as functions of the superficial air

Summary table, aluminum pipe
velocity.
Plug Average Average Average Average Average We found the following behaviors of the wall friction
size, plug wall plug total /w, j
angle and total tensions.
g velocity, pressure, length, tension,
m/s kPa m N
Angle of friction. This parameter appeared largely
Polystyrene
300 1.00 0.122 0.38 10.43 32.11 independent of the air superficial velocity, having its
500 0.97 0.133 0.64 17.38 31.23 average points between 17j and 19j.
800 0.88 0.152 0.97 24.72 27.87 Total tension. Despite its small variation, the total tension
showed an increase as the superficial velocity increased.
Low density polyethylene
The minimum average value, which was obtained with
500 1.41 0.084 0.59 10.04 24.96
800 1.36 0.050 0.86 13.74 27.19 2.09 m/s, was 11.5 N, while the maximum average value
1100 1.28 0.035 1.18 18.38 28.47 for this parameter was achieved with 3.09 m/s and
increases to 13.3 N.
High density polyethylene Plug length. As was expected, the plug length decreases
500 1.70 0.192 0.50 7.60 15.48
as superficial velocity increases.
800 1.70 0.201 0.74 10.49 13.91
1100 1.64 0.158 1.02 14.12 15.44
The stationary layer thickness decreased as airflow in-
Polyester cubic particles creased not because the air moved the static material inside
500 1.92 0.118 0.28 4.87 17.28 the pipe, but because the particle velocity within the plug
800 1.87 0.288 0.40 7.51 12.54
1100 1.85 0.341 0.71 12.02 10.21
became closer to the plug velocity. The theoretical limit was a
plug moving as a block and with stationary layer, in this
Polymer G96003 situation the particles inside move at the plug speed.
500 1.59 0.061 0.44 7.73 26.88 The minimum average values for the plug length are
800 1.56 0.083 0.71 13.61 26.50 achieved with 3.09 m/s and giving a plug length of about
1100 1.48 0.083 1.01 17.30 24.14
0.69 m. On the other hand, maximum plug lengths are found
Polyester spherical particles using the minimum superficial velocity and giving average
500 1.49 0.290 0.49 14.05 21.60 values up to 0.83 m.
800 1.42 0.283 0.77 20.79 20.85
1100 1.40 0.284 1.03 25.46 19.13
Wall pressure. This parameter increased almost linearly
as the superficial velocity increased. The minimum
were carried out and the stationary layer was weighed average value of wall pressure was 0.093 kPa, while
with the superficial velocity set to 3.09 m/s, Figs. 16 –18 the maximum average value for wall pressure can rise
show the averages and the extreme values of the param- up to 0.218 kPa.

Fig. 16. Angle of friction and total tension as a function of the superficial air velocity for high-density polyethylene particles in an aluminum pipe.
178 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183

Fig. 17. Average plug length and average plug velocity as a function of the superficial air velocity for high-density polyethylene particles in an aluminum pipe.

Plug velocity. The plug velocity varied almost directly
with the superficial velocity. Minimum values of the plug
velocity were found around 1.35 m/s, while the highest
plug velocities rose up to an average of 1.87 m/s.
7. Relative velocity
During the study of the motion of plugs through a
transparent pipe, we found that there was a relation between
the length of the plug and the mean air velocity used to
move the material. This relation also included a uniform-
sized stationary layer, which is indispensable to have stable
conveying. For the same amount of material to be trans-
ported, the length of the plug was increased when the mean
air velocity was decreased. The stationary layer for these
conditions was thicker. At the beginning, this made sense
because a thicker stationary layer required a longer plug for
the same amount of material. However when the high-speed
video camera (HSVC) was used, we found that the particles
inside the plug, except in the extremes (front and back),
moved together with the same velocity.

Fig. 18. Wall pressure as a function of the superficial air velocity for high-density polyethylene particles in an aluminum pipe.
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183 179

Fig. 19. Relative velocity of the plug as a function of the superficial air velocity for low-density polyethylene.

The plug must not be taken as a block of moving
particles. Instead, it should be interpreted as a traveling
wave. The particles move in the horizontal direction but the
wave moves faster. The difference with respect to pneumatic
conveying is that the particles only move when they are
inside the plug. To analyze the motion of the particles when
they are transported, a series of experiments were carried out
always using the same amount of material (800 g), but
changing the airflow. Low-density polyethylene was chosen
as base material because of its stable behavior for a wide
range of superficial velocities. Thus, using the pressure
transducer and the HPVC, both particle velocity and plug
velocity were calculated, and the relative particle velocity/
plug velocity were plotted as a function of superficial air
velocity. Fig. 19 shows relative velocity as a function of the
superficial air velocity for low-density polyethylene.
8. True travel distance
The relative velocity allows us to calculate the true
travel distance. This distance is defined as the distance that

Fig. 20. True travel distance as a function of the superficial air velocity for plugs of low-density polyethylene, 800 g.
180 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183
a particle moves from the moment when it is picked up for
the plug until it is placed down in the stationary layer.
Particles are transported in distinct steps until they leave
the pipe being picked up and deposited. To calculate this
distance, it is necessary to know the length of the plug, its
velocity, and the velocity of the particles inside. Knowing
these values, it is possible to compute the residence time of
the particle in the plug. This time, multiplied by the
particle velocity, gives the true travel distance. To check
if the computation of the true travel distance was accurate,
experiments using different particles as tracers were carried
out. The system was charged with low-density polyethyl-
ene particles as the base material. Once the system was
under stable behavior, one of the clamps that joins the
pipes was removed. Taking care not to alter the stationary
layer, a small part of polyethylene particles were removed,
allowing one to insert a similar amount of polyester
particles at the same point. Since the low-density polyeth-
ylene is white and the polyester is green, an adequate
contrast was obtained. Once everything was ready, two
experiments were done to check if the mathematical
calculation gives an adequate approximation of the reality.
The values obtained, using a superficial air velocity of
1.89 m/s, were 3.40 and 3.63 m. The mathematical
calculation gave 3.5 m. This was judged to be sufficient
to establish the accuracy of the calculation. Fig. 20 shows
the values for the true travel distance as a function of
superficial air velocity, employing the method explained
above. Here one can note that the true travel distance
seems to have a limit value of approximately 4.8 m and
the fluctuation of the points shows the beginning of the
plug unstable region.
9. State of fluidization in the plug
One important point in the material behavior analysis
is the state of fluidization of the plug. The observation of
the front side of a plug moving in a transparent pipe has
suggested that some airflow is passing through the plug.
This airflow should fluidize, to some degree, the material
that is transported. To know the state of fluidization in a
Fig. 21. A moving plug schematic.
plug, a first step would be to know the volume that a
determined amount of material occupies in the pipe. This
can be done easily by filling a piece of the same pipe
used in the experiments with the amount of material
normally used, for this experiment, 800 g of polyethylene
low density. Using the piece of pipe as a vertical column,
the height of 800 g of polyethylene low density 0.67 m.
Now the next step is to find the length that 800 g of
polyethylene low density has in a moving plug. At first
one would think that a plug produced with 800 g moves
just that amount of material, which would indicate us that
the length of 800 g is the length of the plug. However, a
rigorous analysis showed us that, due to the particles’
velocity being less than the plug velocity, the plug needs
to move a larger amount of material to transport 800 g.
For an easier understanding of this situation, Fig. 21
shows a plug moving through a pipe.
We know that, under stable conditions, a plug created
with 800 g of material transports this amount of material
along the pipe. This means that, over an arbitrary point,
800 g of material pass when a plug passes. Once can
calculate the length of a plug containing 800 g of material
by multiplying the particle velocity by the time that the
plug takes to pass over a point. This time is equal to the
length of the plug, divided by the plug velocity. Thus,
mathematical expressions for this are:
L800 g ¼ Us *tP800 ð8Þ
LP800
tP800 ¼ ð9Þ
UP
where: L800 g is the length of 800 g of material inside the
plug. LP800 is the length of a whole plug produced by 800
g of material. US and UP are the particle velocity (solids)
and the plug velocity, respectively. tP800 is the time that the
plug needs to move 800 g of material over an arbitrary
point.
Note that the time that the plug needs to move 800 g
of material over an arbitrary point is the same time that
the plug takes to advance its own length. An interesting
point must be mentioned here. While the plug transports
800 g of material, the total amount of material that is
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183 181

moving is larger. This means that, at any given moment, g of material inside the plug, L802 g = 0.76 m. This L802 g
a plug that transports a determined amount of material is allows us to determine the volume of the plug:
moving a larger amount of material to compensate for the
difference between the plug velocity and the velocity of Vol ¼ pr2 L802 g ¼ 1:614 103 m3 ð10Þ
the particles inside.
The following results were determined for the polyeth- The new bulk density, qb(plug), then is:
ylene low density particles:
qbðplugÞ ¼ 0:802=1:614 103 ¼ 497 kg=m3

Material Plug Particle Plug Finally the resulting plug voidage, eplug, is:
transported velocity, velocity, length,
in single m/s m/s m
plug, kg
eplug ¼ 1  qbðplugÞ =qs ¼ 0:46
0.802* 0.99 0.74 1.02
* The system was charged with 800 g of material which weighed 802 g at
the outlet. This is considered a very stable conveying condition. 10. Stress transmission coefficient

The stress transmission coefficient K is defined as the

Properties: ratio of the wall pressure (rw) over the axial stress (raxial).
One must recognize that the degree of fluidization is small,
still permitting wall pressure and axial stress to develop.
Originally, K was used to study the pressure distribution in
epacked 0.390
silos by means of the method of differential analysis created
qs [kg/m3] 923 by Janssen [2]. Nevertheless, since this study was focused in
qb [kg/m3] 563
pneumatic conveying in horizontal direction, special con-
sideration must be given for the effect of gravity. To
calculate K for the experiments carried out in the friction
tester, the following assumptions were made:
The internal pipe diameter is 52 mm. The axial stress (raxial) equal to the stress that zone 2
Using Eq. (9), we calculate the time that the plug needs received from zone 1 and was constant through zone 2. The
to move 802 g of material over an arbitrary point, tP802 wall pressure (rw) corresponded to the values obtained with
g = 1.03 s. Now, using Eq. (8), we calculate the length of 802 the total pressure transducer placed in the pressure ring.

Fig. 22. Transmission stress ration, K, as a function of the plug size for various materials tested.
182 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183

Table 4
The plug velocities decrease with larger plugs.
Average values of K as a function of superficial air velocity for different
The angle of friction appears to be independent of the
materials
superficial air velocity.
Plug Polymer Polyethylene Polyethylene Polyester Polyester Polystyrene
The wall pressure increases almost linearly with an
size, G96003 low high spherical cubic
g density density particles particles increase in superficial air velocity.

The relative velocity of the plug and the superficial air
500 0.47 0.86 1.48 1.66 0.48 0.38
800 0.62 0.50 1.58 1.77 1.26 0.48 velocity tend toward an asymptote in the plug
1100 0.71 0.36 1.32 1.89 1.53 0.75 velocity.

The true travel distance also tends toward an asymptote
as the superficial air velocity increases.
Since the total-pressure transducer was placed in the upper
It was found that even though a fixed amount of material
side of the pipe, gravity did not affect the measurement. enters and leaves the pipe, the total amount of material
Thus, using the values obtained from the friction tester moving is larger.
and the assumptions explained above, K was calculated for
The more spherical the particles, the larger the values of
six materials with different plug sizes. Fig. 22 shows the the stress transmission ratio.
average values obtained for K.
The friction tester provides a measure of the actual wall
Table 4 is a summary of the average values of K as a func- friction of a plug.
tion of the superficial air velocities for different materials.
The relative velocity is closely related to the superficial
Observations: The transmission coefficient K shows its air velocity, which affects the stationary layer thickness,
minimum value for low density polyethylene particles, plug length, and plug velocity.
when using plugs created with 1100 g of material. The
average K for these conditions is 0.36. On the other hand, Nomenclature
the maximum values for K are obtained using polyester Ac internal area of pipe
spherical particles when the plugs are created using 1100 g D the internal diameter of the pipe
of material. In this case, the average value for K increases up FT Tension force
to 1.89. It is interesting to note that the polyester spherical g gravity
particles and the high density polyethylene, which have the h height of the particle layer
highest sphericity, show the greatest values for K. One L plug length
notes, then, that particle shape plays an important role in L800 g length of 800 g of material inside the plug.
the stress transmission. Neiderreiter and Sommer have also LP800 length of a whole plug produced by 800 g of
seen values of K larger than 1.0 in their study of vertical material measured under static conditions
plugs using piezoelectric transducers to measure both the K stress transmission ratio
radial and transverse stress simultaneously. r radius of the pipe
As one notes, the values of K are larger than those tP800 time that the plug needs to move 800 g of material
generally seen in bin and hopper flow analyses. We over an arbitrary point
believe that the conveying operation has a higher degree Us article velocity
of fluidization present than the bin and hopper situation. UP plug velocity
We conjecture that this fluidization as well as the shape y vertical distance
effect contributes to larger K values being measured.
Greek
/w angle of wall friction
11. Conclusions qm density
rw wall stress
The following conclusions can be drawn from the experi- rweight stress due to the weight of the material
ments performed. rweight max maximum stress
lw coefficient of wall friction

For the PVC pipe as well as the aluminum pipe, the angle h solar angle
of friction decreases when the plug size increases. Often s hear stress
one finds lower angles of friction under higher stress
conditions. The PVC pipe produces larger angles of
friction then the aluminum pipe.

The total tension of the plug increases with larger References

plugs.
[1] R. Evans, T. Dyakowski, A. Jaworski, J. Li, L. Marzurkiewics,

Fewer particle contact points produce high wall pressures

I. Sotiriadis, Investigation of transport modes in dense pneumatic
seen as large fluctuations in the pressure. For larger conveying, Proceedings of the 4th World Congress of Particle Tech-
plugs, larger wall pressures are observed. nology, Sydney, Australia, July, 2002.
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183
[2] H.A. Janssen, Ver. Dt. Ing. 39 (1897) 1045.
[3] K. Konrad, Dense Phase Pneumatic Conveying of Particles, PhD Dis-
sertation, Cambridge University, Great Britain, 1981.
[4] B. Mi, Low-Velocity Pneumatic Transportation of Bulk Solids, PhD
Dissertation, University of Wollongong, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Australia, 1994.
[5] W. Muschelknautz, E. Krambrock, Chemieingenieurtechnik 41 (1974)
1164 – 1172.
[6] G. Neiderreiter, K. Sommer, Investigations on the formation and stabil-
183
ity of plugs at dense-phase conveying, Proceeding of the 4th World
Congress of Particle Technology, Sydney, Australia, July, 2002.
[7] L.G. Sanchez, Characterization of Bulk Solids for Dense Phase Pneu-
matic Conveying, MS Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,
2001.
[8] J. Yi, P.W. Wypych, Prediction of pressure drop for low-velocity pneu-
matic conveying, Proceedings of the 4th World Congress of Particle
Technology, Sydney, Australia, July, 2002.