Reprinted with permission from CEP (Chemical Engineering Progress), April 2008.

Cover Story
Copyright © 2008 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE).

Successfully Scale Up
Solids Handling
A sound theoretical model of the process to
be scaled is the best approach;
John W. Carson
Thomas G. Troxel if one is not available, bench-scale testing,
K. Eric Bengtson physical scale modeling or full-scale modeling
Jenike & Johanson, Inc.
is required. Here are guidelines
as to which method is appropriate
for various solids-handling operations.

M
ost industrial plants handle powders or other bulk
solids (e.g., coal, plastic pellets, sand, alumina),
whether as incoming raw materials, intermediates
within the process, or finished products. Scale-up of new
solids handling processes can be very troublesome, particu-
larly if they involve equipment or process steps that differ
significantly from those of any existing facility. For
example, perhaps the solids themselves are different
because they come from new sources (a typical situation
when the plant receives material from a mining operation),
or the particle size distribution is to be changed. Maybe
process conditions (such as operating
temperature, the amount of time the bulk 8
solids will be stored without movement,
throughput rate, type and flowrate of
Average Plant Start-Up Time, mo
24 to 60 months to reach complete steady-state operation at
the original design rates (1).
At the root of such start-up and operating problems are
the lack of fundamental knowledge of bulk solids process-
ing technology and the difficulty in extrapolating results
from one facility to another when the designs are not iden-
tical. If scale-up is not handled correctly, commercial oper-
ation suffers in terms of the time and expense it takes to
correct problems, the time needed to get a new product to
market, customer complaints, and perhaps derating of the
equipment or process.
Whether the new equipment or
processes being designed involve gases,
“Raw”
Solid liquids or bulk solids, the best approach
Feedstock
to scale-up is to use a sound theory that

process gas, batch vs. continuous operat-
ing mode, etc.) will be different.
A study of more than 500 recently
completed projects found a clear rela-
tionship between increased particle-pro-
cessing difficulty and the time required
for the plant to start up (Figure 1) (1).
Furthermore, plant operability (defined
as percent of design after start-up)
decreased as the number of process steps
increased, most dramatically for solids-
processing plants using bulk solid feed.
For example, a highly innovative solids-
processing facility with many new
process elements commonly requires
has been (or can be) developed to accu-
6 rately model the process and equipment
Previously
Processed, independent of scale. Key variables can
Reasonably
Homogenous be readily identified, bench-scale tests
Feedstock can be run, and the results used as input
4
data for the mathematical model.
Typical
Liquid Lacking a sound theory, the next-best
or Gas
Process approach is to test small physical models
2 and scale up the results using well-under-
stood and proven scale-up rules. If neither
a sound theory nor proven scale-up rules
0 are available, the only safe approach is to
model some or all of the system’s critical

Figure 1. Particle processing, and its
complexity, affect the time needed for
elements at or close to full-scale.
plant start-up. Source: (1). The key is determining which processes

CEP April 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 33

Cover Story

Use a theory or a mathematical model

Axis of
Symmetry One area of bulk solids handling for which there is a
sound theoretical basis involves the flow of bulk solids
through a converging hopper (2–4). During gravity dis-
Ψ σr charge from converging hoppers, both stress and velocity
τrθ σθ fields develop in a radial manner, emanating from the apex
σθ of the hopper. This is perhaps more obvious for velocity
τrθ fields than for stress fields, since if mass flow (i.e., a condi-
σr tion in which all the material is in motion whenever any is
σ1
withdrawn) develops, particle movement will vary from
being vertical at the axis of symmetry to being parallel to
ρbgc
θ the hopper walls in the region just inside the walls. For
r stress fields, Jenike postulated the following based on an
θ′
analogy from soil mechanics (5):

σ = ρb gc r s (θ) (1)
Φ′ ψ = ψ (θ) (2)

where, as illustrated in Figure 2, σ = mean normal stress

y
x less), and ψ = angle between direction of major principal

Figure 2. Nomenclature for Jenike’s radial stress field theory (2–4).

Figure 3. A split model of a converging hopper (left) shows
the displacement field in the mass flow model. The predicted
displacement field (right) based on the assumption of a radial
velocity field is in close agreement.
and equipment have a sound theory of operation or sound
scale-up rules so that scale-up can be done effectively and
correctly. This article discusses the types of systems that can
and cannot be scaled up using the various techniques, and
provides some scaling rules. The focus is on storage and pro-
cessing vessels and does not include other types of bulk
solids handling systems, such as conveyors.
(kPa); ρb = bulk density (kg/m3), gc = acceleration due to
gravity (9.81 m/s2), r = radial distance from hopper apex
(m), s = stress function dependent on angle θ (measured
from vertical) of a ray emanating from the apex (dimension-
stress, σ1, and coordinate ray (deg.).
As shown in Figure 3, split-model tests (discussed later)
showing displacement fields in mass-flow hoppers confirm
the assumption of a radial velocity field. Pressure measure-
ments at the hopper wall confirm the development of a
radial stress field.
This theory led to the development of design procedures
for achieving mass flow while avoiding problems of rat-
holing and cohesive arch formation. Thousands of bins and
silos have been designed and built using this theory as the
design basis, and almost without exception they have
worked as designed. Successful applications involve con-
tainers varying in size from small press feed hoppers and
portable bins all the way up to multi-thousand-ton-capacity
silos (Figure 4).
Since this theory is well-developed and proven, there is
no need for scale model tests before designing most full-
scale equipment, such as bins and silos. Key variables can
be identified, so when there is a change in any of them (e.g.,
temperature or moisture content of bulk solid), bench-scale
tests are run and these results used to obtain data for design-
ing full-scale equipment.
Another area of bulk solids handling for which a
proven model has been developed involves fluid flow
through a packed bed of bulk solids. The rate at which
interstitial gas (fluid) migrates through a granular material
under the influence of a pressure gradient depends on per-

34 www.aiche.org/cep April 2008 CEP

 meability, and this may
be expressed for laminar
flow conditions using
Darcy’s Law as:
u = –K(dp/dx)/ρbgc (3)
where u = superficial gas
velocity through the solids
bed (m/s); K = permeabil-
ity factor (m/s); and dp/dx
= gas pressure gradient
across the bed (kN/m3).
More-detailed forms of
this relationship have
been developed, including
the well-known equations
of Ergun (6) and Leva (7).
These newer forms are
difficult to use directly, in
part because one must
choose an appropriate par-
ticle diameter. Since prac-
tically no bulk solids in
industrial use consist sole-
ly of uniformly sized
spherical particles, a bet-
ter approach for laminar
flow conditions is to use

Figure 4. Radial velocity and Darcy’s law (Eq. 3) with
stress field theory is the basis an empirically determined
for the design of small portable permeability factor (K).
containers (top) as well as large This factor (Figure 5) can
storage silos (bottom). usually be expressed as:
0.030
Permeability, K, m/s
0.010
Note: log-log plot
0.005
20 30
Bulk Density, ρb, kg/m3

Figure 5. Bulk solids permeability is a function of bulk density.
K = K0(ρb/ ρb0)a (4)
where K0, ρb0 and a are
empirically determined
constants.
Combining radial stress
and velocity field assump-
tions with Darcy’s law, it is
possible to design full-scale
bulk solids processing ves-
sels into which gas is intro-
duced. Examples include
gravity-driven dryers, purge
columns (Figure 6), and
Figure 6. The design of a purge
column is based on radial stress
moving bed reactors.
and velocity field theory combined
Discrete element mod- with Darcy’s Law.
eling (DEM) is a third area
that shows promise for the future. Since bulk solids consist
of particles, modeling particle interactions with DEM has the
potential to accurately predict full-scale behavior. The major
limitation with this approach is currently computational,
since it is not possible to model the interaction of billions of
irregularly shaped particles contained in a full-scale vessel.
Conduct bench-scale tests
to obtain input for the theories
In order to design bins, silos, hoppers and other types of
storage and processing vessels for bulk solids, several key
parameters are required, including:
• cohesive strength, internal friction and wall friction.
These parameters are measured using a small (typically
20-L) representative sample of the bulk solid. The major
variables include moisture/volatiles content, time of
storage at rest, temperature, consolidating pressure, and
particle size and shape. The most common devices
used for these measurements are the Jenike Shear Tester
(3, 8), shown in Figure 7, and the Schulze Ring Shear

Figure 7. The Jenike Shear Tester (3, 8) is used to measure
shear properties of a bulk solid.
CEP April 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 35
Cover Story

Tester (9), shown in Perform physical scale modeling

Figure 8. Typical Scale models can sometimes be used when the complex-
results are presented ities of a solids handling system cannot be accurately mod-
in Figures 9 and 10. eled solely by theory combined with bench scale tests. The
• compressibility. validity of the scale-up, however, in many cases depends on
The bulk density is utilizing underlying theory of solids flow.
a function of the Scale modeling is useful for vessels into which gas is
applied consolidation introduced and/or that contain inserts. Of particular interest
stress. A test to mea- are the effects of an insert or introduced gas on the solids
sure this parameter velocity pattern, and whether any regions with no flow or
can be found in Ref. rapid velocity changes are present. Such regions must gen-
10. Figure 11 is the erally be avoided if the equipment is to perform optimally.
test apparatus, and While theory can provide some useful insight into these
Figure 12 shows typi- effects, details are best obtained using scale models.

Figure 8. Another instrument for cal test results. Care must be taken in constructing scale models so that
measuring a bulk solid’s shear
properties is the Schulze Ring Shear • permeability. The proper conclusions can be drawn from observations of the
Tester (9). ability of air (or other solids flow pattern. Building a vessel of transparent material
gas) to flow through a so one can observe particle movement at the walls provides
packed bed of solids varies strongly with the bulk density of only very limited information as to flow behavior within the
the material (Eq. 4). A permeability tester, such as the one in vessel. Furthermore, the observations may not be scaleable,
Figure 13, measures this parameter. since wall friction between the particles and the transparent
• abrasive wear. An abrasive wear tester (Figure 14) (11) wall material is unlikely to be the same as between the parti-
measures the absolute wear rate as a function of applied pres- cles and the actual material of vessel construction (e.g., steel,
sure. It uses a sample of the bulk solid and a coupon of the aluminum, concrete, plastic liner).
wall material upon which the bulk solid will be sliding. This Observing the solids flow pattern within a vessel must be
test is limited to wear due to sliding abrasion, not impact. done carefully if the results are to be meaningful. Splitting a
Combining these data with radial stress and velocity field vessel along its vertical centerline and replacing one half with
assumptions, one can accurately estimate the wear life of bins a transparent wall provides a means of observing the internal
and other similar storage and process equipment (12). flow pattern; however, this flow pattern will be strongly

70 60
and Phi (Φ), deg.

Shear Stress, τ, kPa

Delta (δ)

50 Delta (δ) 40
Phi (Φ)
Storage Time at Rest
20
30
0.0 200 400 600 800 1,000 0.0 h, 72°F 24.0 h, 72°F
Consolidating Pressure, σ1, kPa 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
600
Flow Functions Normal Stress, σ, kPa
Strength, f, kPa

60
Wall Friction Angle,

24.0 h, 72°F
400
Storage Time at Rest
40
Φ′, deg.

Flow 0.0 h, 72°F 24.0 h, 72°F

Factor
200 0.0 h, 72°F 20

0 0
0.0 200 400 600 800 1,000 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Consolidating Pressure, σ1, kPa Normal Stress, σ, kPa

Figure 9. Shear tests determine internal friction (top) and flow
Figure 10. Wall friction tests are used to calculate mass flow
function (cohesive strength) hopper angles.

36 www.aiche.org/cep April 2008 CEP

 influenced by the pres- hopper walls is strongly
ence of the vertical, sta- affected by wall friction
tionary wall — the angle, this variation must
flow pattern will not be be taken into account if
the same as within a the scale model is to
full three-dimensional accurately represent full-
vessel without a verti- scale conditions.
cal wall. Similarly, Sometimes this requires
observing flow between the use of different wall
two parallel walls is not materials in the model
a proper simulation of than at full scale.
the stress and velocity One material property
fields that develop in, that cannot be scaled is
for example, an axi- the minimum outlet size
symmetric vessel such required to prevent arch-
as a cylinder or conical ing. This value, which is

Figure 11. A compressibility tester
measures bulk density as a function of hopper. calculated from bench-
consolidating pressure (10). A better approach scale tests, is fixed for a
is to use split three- given bulk solid with a
dimensional models (13). The model is built in two halves particular particle size
that are bolted together before material is added for the test distribution, moisture
run. After the appropriate amount of material has been dis- content, temperature, time
charged, the model is plugged at its top and bottom sur- of storage at rest, etc.
faces, then rotated such that its axis of symmetry is horizon- Deaeration of fine
tal. Next, the top half is removed, and the material that powders, as well as the
remains carefully scraped off to reveal the displacement effects of body forces
Figure 13. Permeability,
profile along the centerline. Figure 3 shows an example of due to gas pressure measured by this instrument,
refers to the ability of a gas to flow
the results of such a test. gradients or applied through a packed bed of solids.
An important consideration when designing scale models vibration, are sometimes
is the variation of certain material properties with consolida- more pronounced in small vessels than in larger ones
tion pressure, in particular internal friction, wall friction and because the material’s bulk density is lower. As long as the
bulk density (14). For many bulk-solid/wall-material combi- effects of body forces are properly taken into account,
nations, the wall friction angle increases as the pressure of scale-up can proceed with confidence.
the solids against the wall decreases. Since flow along Scale-up of some types of blenders is also possible. If
the blending mechanism involves in-bin, gravity flow, the
scaling rules are the same as for any other bin configura-
30 tion (15). If the blender operates by tumbling, it is essen-
tial that geometric, dynamic and kinematic similarity be
maintained (16). Geometric similarity requires a constant
Bulk Density, ρb, kg/m3

ratio of linear dimensions between the test unit and full

20
scale. This includes not only the relative dimensions of
the container and axis of rotation, but also such factors
as the percentage of the container that is full and the
sequence of individual ingredient addition into the con-
tainer. Dynamic similarity requires constant dynamic
Note: log-log plot
forces (expressed as the Froude number) at corresponding
10 points of both units.
40 100 1,000 The means of obtaining kinematic similarity is less cer-
Consolidating Pressure, σ1, kPa tain. Some authors (17) state that a constant ratio of veloci-
ties at corresponding points is required. Empirical data are

Figure 12. A solid’s bulk density varies with applied pressure. available for scaling rotating-drum, twin-shell (V-type), and

CEP April 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 37

Cover Story

tive. The bottom line is that the only sure

way of knowing whether or not a change will
be effective in a large vessel is to implement
the change and observe the result.
• feed rate uniformity. While there is a
Mass Flow Hopper Force on coupon good basis for estimating critical discharge
and revolution count
rates from an orifice, the uniformity by
which material will flow — particularly over
Wall coupon
in wear head Slip short time intervals — can only really be
Ring
understood in a full-scale model.
• segregation problems. There are many
Gear
Reducer mechanisms of segregation (21), and bench-
scale tests can be used to investigate some of
them (22, 23). However, for many segrega-
Motor tion problems, the only way to assess the full
Feed screw forces magnitude of the problem, as well as the
bulk material Horizontal load applied
against wear coupon by pneumatic cylinder
effectiveness of modifications, is to run a
Clearance gap
full-scale test.
discharges material,
allowing continuous
• anisotropic materials. Such materials
fresh material
against wear coupon
(which exhibit different properties along dif-
ferent axes) are difficult to test in most shear
testers, particularly if the anisotrophy is due
to particle shape effects. Sometimes scale-
model tests provide insight into this behavior,

Figure 14. An abrasive wear tester is used to estimate the life of hopper liners (11, 12). but often full-scale tests are required.

double-cone mixers. An alternative means of achieving
kinematic similarity is to maintain a constant number of
revolutions of the blender; this has been found to be appro-
priate for tumble blenders, mostly for materials with low
cohesive strength (18).
When full-scale tests are required
For some applications, neither a well-developed theory
nor scaling rules have been developed that would allow con-
fident design at full scale. Examples of such situations
include:
• transmission of vibrations. The ability of an external
or internal vibrator to activate material within a storage
vessel is not well-understood. As a result, sizing and place-
ment of vibrators is done essentially by trial-and-error, and
if possible, is based to some extent on past experience of
what works and what does not.
Sometimes vessels vibrate on their own due to move-
ment of the material within. The resulting vibrations can
either be high-frequency, low-amplitude (a humming
sound), or low-frequency, high-amplitude (known as “silo
quaking”). Vibrations can occur by various mechanisms
(19, 20). Scale models may be effective in identifying
changes that will affect the severity of the vibrations, or
may give a false impression of changes that will be effec-
Putting the principles into practice
Blending plastic pellets. A new plant was being designed
to produce a wide range of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene
(ABS) pellets compounded to customer specifications.
Production runs would be relatively short and formula
changes frequent. Based on experience at smaller plants,
engineers selected a V-type rotating blender. Batch ingredi-
ents would be fed into a weigh hopper and discharged into
the blender. The blended batch would then be discharged
into a surge bin feeding the extruder. While this process
had worked successfully at other compounding plants, this
facility would blend ingredients with a wider size range.
The most extreme case involved blending two materials that
consisted of cylindrical pellets with a nominal size of about
3 mm and nearly spherical particles (beads) with a size
range from about 1 mm down to 150 µm.
Engineers evaluated V-type rotating blenders by analyz-
ing samples from a scale-model blender (18). They found
that significant segregation could occur, and maintaining a
blend in the discharged material would be difficult. In a typ-
ical blending test (Figure15), only about 9% of the batch
fell within the acceptable range of 15% ±2% beads blended
with pellets. Numerous modifications were made to the
model blender to try to improve discharge uniformity, with
only moderate success.

38 www.aiche.org/cep April 2008 CEP

 The cause of the problem was a combination of inade-
quate blending and segregation that occurred during dis-
charge. When the blended material flowed out of the V-
blender, it flowed in a funnel flow pattern, with a fast-mov-
ing central flow channel and no flow along the blender
walls. The resulting shear and central depression allowed
sifting segregation and rearrangement of the smaller parti-
cles in the blend, resulting in non-uniform discharge.
Using a closed insert in the scale-model V-blender sig-
nificantly improved the blending, but still only about 72%
of the batch was within the desired blend specification.
An alternative geometry consisting of a conical blend
vessel with an insert was designed based on the flow prop-
erties of the materials. The vessel geometry was selected to
ensure uniform mass flow during discharge to minimize
segregation. Tests of this configuration in a scale model
showed much better performance than in the V-type blender
of similar scale, with more than 90% of the discharge being
within the acceptable range (Figure 15).
Three full-scale, 6,000-lb conical blenders (Figure 16)
were designed and built. Before they were shipped to the
plant, blend tests were run on one of the blenders. Results
were consistent with those from the scale model, providing
proof that the scale-up had been done properly.
Although theoretical models do not exist for this type of
application, the scaling parameters are understood, enabling
a successful scale-up.
Purge column. Purge columns are used in chemical plants
producing polypropylene and polyethylene to reduce resid-
ual volatiles, deactivate trace catalyst residues using a small
quantity of steam or inert gas, and provide surge capacity
between the reaction and pelletization sections of the plant.
Mass flow is an important design parameter for the
purge column because product transitions are done as
needed, not necessarily on a fixed schedule. Operating in
mass flow minimizes the amount of cross-contamination
between product grades and short-circuiting of product
30
Beads in Total Sample, %
25 V-Blender
20
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60
Material Discharged, lb

Figure 15. A conical mass-flow blending vessel with an insert
provides a more uniform product than a V-blender.
that could result in high levels of volatiles. The require-
ments of low volatiles, no cross-contamination and deacti-
vated catalyst residues are important for high-quality poly-
mer products.
Over the last 20 years, many poorly designed purge
columns have been retrofitted to provide mass flow and uni-
form purge gas introduction, and many new plants around the
world use this technology. Scale-up uses proven theoretical
models, along with bench-scale test data, to predict solids
stresses as well as gas and solids velocities.
Air-assisted discharger. Reliable, controlled discharge of
fine powders from large bins and silos is critical in many
industrial plants, but funnel flow designs often result in
ratholing and flooding (uncontrolled flow) problems.
Sometimes the powder has to be equally split to several feed
points downstream, and this can prove to be problematic.
One approach to correct or avoid such problems is to use
a mass flow bin with a screw or belt feeder to control dis-
charge. While such systems often work well, sometimes
unreasonably large feeders are required to achieve the desired
discharge rate. Gravimetric metering of powders with such an
approach is also problematic, particularly if the time interval
over which the feed must remain constant is very short (e.g.,
a few seconds). Splitting the discharge stream can also pres-
ent challenges with a standard mass flow approach.
An alternative approach is to partially fluidize the mate-
rial in the vessel via an air-assisted discharger. Small
Target Range
Conical Blender
with Insert
80 100 120

Figure 16. A conical mass-flow blend vessel with an insert is
successfully scaled up to a 6,000-lb blender.
CEP April 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 39
Cover Story
Literature Cited
1. Merrow, E., “Problems and Progress in Particle Processing,”
Chemical Innovation, 30 (1), pp. 35–41 (Jan. 2000).
2. Jenike, A. W., “Gravity Flow of Bulk Solids,” Bulletin No.
108, Univ. of Utah Engineering Experiment Station, Salt
Lake City, UT (Oct. 1961).
3. Jenike, A. W., “Storage and Flow of Solids,” Bulletin No.
123, Univ. of Utah Engineering Experiment Station, Salt
Lake City, UT (Nov. 1964).
4. Johanson, J. R., “Stress and Velocity Fields in the Gravity
Flow of Bulk Solids,” J. Appl. Mech. Series E, 31, pp.
499–506 (1964).
5. Sokolovski, V. V., “Statics of Soil Media,” Butterworths
Scientific Publications, London (1960).
6. Ergun, S., “Fluid Flow through Packed Columns,” Chem.
Eng. Progress, 48 (2), pp. 89–94 (Feb. 1952).
7. Leva, M., “Fluidization,” McGraw-Hill New York, NY (1959).
8. ASTM International, “Standard Test Method for Shear
Testing of Bulk Solids Using The Jenike Shear Cell,” ASTM
D6182-06, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA (2006).
9. ASTM International, “Standard Shear Testing Method for
Bulk Solids Using Schulze Ring Shear Tester,” ASTM
D6773-02, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA (2002).
10. ASTM International, “Standard Test Method for Measuring
Bulk Density Values of Powders and Other Bulk Solids,”
ASTM D6683-01, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA (2001).
11. Johanson, J. R., and T. A. Royal, “Abrasive Wear Tester,”
U.S. Patent No. 4,446,717 (May 8, 1984).
12. Johanson, J. R., and T. A. Royal, “Measuring and Use of
Wear Properties for Predicting Life of Bulk Materials Handling
Equipment,” Bulk Solids Handling, 2, pp. 517–523 (1982).
13. Johanson, J. R., “The Use of Flow-Corrective Inserts in
Bins,” J. Eng. Industry, Series B, 88, pp. 224–230 (1966).
14. Carson, J. W., “Addressing Critical Solids Handling Aspects
at the Pilot Scale,” presented at the AIChE Spring Meeting,
New Orleans, LA (Mar. 1988).
15. Carson, J. W., and T. A. Royal, “In-Bin Blending Improves
Process Control,” Powder Handling & Processing, 4 (3), pp.
301–307 (Sept. 1992).
16. Carson, J. W., et al., “Tumble Blending with Mass Flow
Containers Improves Productivity and Quality,” Powder
Handling & Processing, 6 (4), pp. 413–416 (Oct/Dec 1994).
17. Wang, R. H. and L. T. Fan, “Methods for Scaling up
Tumble Mixers,” “Solids Handling,” published by Chem.
Eng., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 245–251 (1981).
18. Troxel, T. G., “Modeling and Scale-Up of Tumble Blenders
for Highly Segregating Materials,” presented at the 5th World
Congress on Particle Technology, Orlando, FL (Apr. 2006).
19. Purutyan, H., et al., “Identifying and Controlling Silo
Vibration Mechanisms: Part I,” Powder and Bulk
Engineering, 8 (11), pp. 58–65 (Nov. 1994).
20. Purutyan, H., et al., “Identifying and Controlling Silo
Vibration Mechanisms: Part II,” Powder and Bulk
Engineering, 8 (12), pp. 19–28 (Dec. 1994).
21. Carson, J. W., et al., “Understanding and Eliminating
Particle Segregation Problems,” Bulk Solids Handling, 6, pp.
139–144 (Feb. 1986).
22. ASTM International, “Standard Practice for Measuring
Sifting Segregation Tendencies of Bulk Solids,” ASTM
D6940-04, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA (2004).
23. ASTM International, “Standard Practice for Measuring
Fluidization Segregation Tendencies of Powders,” ASTM
D6941-05, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA (2005).
Acknowledgment
This article is based on a presentation given at the AIChE Annual Meeting, Salt
Lake City, November 2007.
40 www.aiche.org/cep April 2008 CEP
amounts of air are injected into the material via a porous
membrane. The air fluidizes a small boundary layer of
material, thus reducing the boundary friction and enabling
the material to be discharged at higher rates than would
be possible without air injection. The discharger is com-
prised of several different gas plenums, each designed to
allow, nominally, different amounts of gas to be injected
into the material. Control of the air-assisted discharger
is critical from the standpoint of obtaining mass flow in
the silo above.
Bench-scale fluidization tests are carried out to deter-
mine fluidization characteristics of the powder. Scale-model
air-assisted discharger tests are also run. If both sets of tests
show that the powder is a good candidate for this type of
feed system, scale-up can proceed.
This is an example of scale-up using a combination of
theoretical models with inputs from bench-scale tests, in
conjunction with proper scaling approaches. CEP
JOHN W. CARSON, PhD, is president of Jenike & Johanson, Inc. (400 Business
Park Dr., Tyngsboro, MA 01879; Phone: (978) 649-3300; E-mail:
jwcarson@jenike.com), an engineering consulting firm specializing in the
storage, flow and processing of powder and bulk solids. He is the author of
more than 100 articles on various topics dealing with solids flow, including
bin and feeder design, flow of fine powders, design of purge vessels, and
structural failures of silos, and he lectures extensively on such topics. He
received a BS in mechanical engineering from Northeastern Univ. in Boston
and a PhD in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Carson is a member of AIChE and founding member of AIChE’s
Powder Technology Forum, and he belongs to ASME, ASCE, and ASTM
International, where he is chair of committee D18.24, “Characterization and
Handling of Powders and Bulk Solids.” He recently received the U.K.
Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ Solids Handling Award, and is a
permanently invited guest to the European Federation of Chemical
Engineering’s Working Party Mechanics of Particulate Solids, one of few
non-Europeans to be so honored.
THOMAS G. TROXEL is vice president of Jenike & Johanson, Inc. (3485
Empresa Dr., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; Phone: (805) 541-0901; E-mail:
tgtroxel@slo.jenike.com), where he has been intimately involved in many
aspects of the firm’s consulting and research activities on a wide range of
projects, including flow properties testing, modeling, blending, pneumatic
conveying and fluidization. He has been a major force behind the firm’s
expansion of services in the areas of mechanical design engineering and
supply of custom-built equipment, such as mass-flow screw feeders,
portable anti-segregation bins for pharmaceuticals, tumble blenders and
storage bins for a wide variety of applications. Troxel has published
numerous articles and papers in the field of bulk solids handling, and
lectures frequently on the subject. He is a graduate of California
Polytechnic State Univ. (Cal Poly) in San Luis Obispo, CA, with a BS in
engineering science.
K. ERIC BENGTSON is a senior project engineer and laboratory manager at
Jenike & Johanson. Inc. (3485 Empresa Dr., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401;
Phone: (805) 541-0901; E-mail: ebengston@slo.jenike.com), where he has
been involved in a wide range of consulting and research projects, such as
flow properties testing, physical scale modeling, feeder design, gas-
assisted discharge, blending, pneumatic conveying and fluidization. He has
published several technical papers in the field of bulk solids handling, and
has been awarded two U.S. patents in this field. He holds a BS in
mechanical engineering from California Polytechnic State Univ. (Cal Poly) in
San Luis Obispo.