Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Laboratory Investigation of a New Trommel Model

Richard Ian Stesscl & Keith Cole

To cite this article: Richard Ian Stesscl & Keith Cole (1996) Laboratory Investigation of a New
Trommel Model, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 46:6, 558-568, DOI:
10.1080/10473289.1996.10467491

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1996.10467491

Published online: 09 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2041

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
TECHNICAL PAPER
Laboratory Investigation of a New Trommel Model
Richard Ian Stesscl
University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
Keith Cole
Groundwater Technology, Marietta, Georgia
ABSTRACT
Rotary screens, or trommels, are an important unit operation
in material and fuel processing. A computer model has been
developed based upon fundamental mechanics. The coeffi-
cients and variables employed in the model thus have real
physical meaning; adjusting them based upon laboratory data
allows the model user to draw conclusions about the behav-
ior of the trommel that can be applied to design and opera-
tional changes. The laboratory testing program was specifically
designed to test the model described in this paper.
The model proved able to track the laboratory data. Impor-
tant phenomena that were validated or revealed included the
significance of particle layering, changes in bed sliding with
rotational velocity, and the pre-eminence of residence time.
INTRODUCTION
Trommels, or rotary screens, are an important unit opera-
tion in materials processing. They have a long history in
the mineral dressing industry, and are of particular interest
to those concerned with solid waste processing because of
the difficulty of the material processing task. Trommels pro-
vide an elegant screening option with low maintenance and
operating costs that could often justify a higher initial cost.
A trommel is a rotating, cylindrical screen, lying on its
side at a small angle from the horizontal plane. Material is
fed at its elevated end, and size-separation occurs as the ma-
terial spirals down the drum at an axial speed governed by
the angle of the drum to the horizontal plane. Behavior of
the material normal to the drum axis is governed by the
rotational velocity.
IMPLICATIONS
Trommels play a key role in solid waste processing, both
for RDF preparation and for removal of undesirable com-
ponents in the feed of mass-burn facilities. Trommel
theory may also find application in rotary-drum com-
bustors. Test results showed that the model developed
in previous work was useful in understanding trommel
operation, and could serve as an aid to trommel de-
sign. The addition of airflow, producing the air trommel,
also showed potential.
5S8 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
ISSN 1047-3289 /. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 46: 558-568
Copyright 1996 Air & Waste Management Association
Implementation of trommels within the waste industry
began at a small refuse plant in Glasgow, Scotland in 1928.1
However, there is very little information concerning this
trommel. The dearth of information about trommel use con-
tinued until 1966 when the Greater London Council in-
stalled a trommel at a Barking, England refuse plant.2 The
first testing, analysis, and evaluation of a trommel for the
sizing of wastes was conducted at the Barking facility. It was
not until 1974 that the United States began a test program
aimed at optimizing the design of trommel performance
for use with municipal solid waste (MSW). Unfortunately,
due to lack of funding, the work went largely unfinished.
This paper presents a laboratory evaluation of a computer
model of a trommel developed in the last few years. The
exercise of matching the laboratory results to the computer
output both confirmed the model's applicability and pro-
vided insight into the trommel design and operation. A brief
theoretical background is presented first, familiarizing the
reader with the model's characteristics and uses that have
already been made of the model. After presenting results of
the experimentation and computer analysis, conclusions are
drawn concerning trommel operating parameters.
BACKGROUND
An earlier era of solid waste research permitted substantial
research efforts in trommeling. Large laboratory studies were
conducted, some using research trommels that allowed con-
siderable variation in operating parameters, but were nearly
full-sized. In conjunction with laboratory testing, theory was
developed and refined. Attempts were made at analytical
solutions for the underlying equations. Significant simplifi-
cations were necessary to allow any use at all of the equa-
tions; computational resources were not available to use
equations in their differential forms.
Most of the past analyses of trommel behavior were geo-
metrically oriented. Alter et al.3 focused principally on de-
parture location and an assumed location angle of impact.
The actual trajectory of the particle in flight was of little
significance to their analysis. Glaub, Jones, Tleimat, and Sav-
age,4 and Glaub, Jones, and Savage5 added more factors to
Alter's paper. None of these approaches fully included the
effects of drag. Glaub, Jones, Tleimat, and Savage4 began a
Volume 46 June 1996

discussion, but left the drag force coefficient unspecified. In
the case of small particles, when, for example, minerals are
pulverized—or in the case of light particles, such as paper or
very small particles in solid waste—the drag on a particle
becomes a serious component in the force balance. With
trommel diameters of lm to 2 m, it is quite possible that the
aerodynamically lighter particles will achieve terminal ve-
locity in flight.6
The development of the present model is described in an
earlier paper.7 There are three major components of the
trommel: the particle rise along the turning screen; passage
of certain particles through the screen; and the particle tra-
jectories after they leave the screen during their cataracting
motion. The right side of Figure 1 shows the trommel's ro-
tation, the movement of the bed up the side of the trommel,
and the trajectory of the particles. The final results devel-
oped in Stessel's first paper7 are summarized below.
Particle trajectories come from a pair of equations bal-
ancing drag and gravity and neglecting buoyancy.8 Solving
for acceleration in the horizontal and vertical directions,
respectively, these are:
(1)
where FD is the drag force, m is particle mass, and g is the
acceleration of gravity.
The movement down the trommel depends on both the
axial component of the vertical departure velocity, and the
angle of declination of the trommel. The z-direction shown
in Figure 1 is tilted by the declination angle, p. The vertical
coordinates of the point of departure and impact, zD and zv
Figure 1 . Sketches of the trommel; the left figures are definition
sketches viewed from the discharge end; the right are perspectives;
the bottom define the bed.
Volume 46 June 1996
Stessel and Cole
respectively, are known, and the increment of axial move-
ment during one turn in the particle's spiral path down the
drum is:
(2)
where the variables are as defined in Figure 1. The incre-
ment of axial movement is better visualized by renaming it
"bed width." If a given particle is taken to represent the
leading edge of the bed, its progress down the trommel one
revolution later defines the bed width. In addition to its
importance in calculating overall trommel length, the bed
width is required to determine the thickness of the bed.
The rise of particles in contact with the rotating screen
gives the departure location of the particles and the area of
the screen occupied by the material. The contact area on
the screen occupied by particles in one pass is defined as the
bed, as shown in Figure 1. The number of bed-widths re-
quired to allow the feed to spiral down the trommel yields
the design length of the device. Previous efforts have not
succeeded in accounting for slippage of the particle against
the screen.3S Combining accelerations in the radial and tan-
gential directions yields the following expression for accel-
eration of a particle against the screen:
e=jue2- 4fju sine + cosej (3)
where n is the coefficient of friction, which can be either
static or dynamic. Whether the particle is slipping is deter-
mined by checking the force balance between the tangen-
tial gravity force and static friction.
While the material is moving on the screen, it is being
separated. The model incorporates the screening of particles
in conjunction with their rise up the screen, in the bed. An
average number of particles passing through a hole is calcu-
lated by knowing the number-concentration of particles both
larger and smaller than the hole. To obtain the volume par-
ticle size distribution (PSD) of particles passing:
dh PN(d)V(d)
V _/ d dd
~ min (4)
where Vp is the total volume of particles passing, dmin is the
diameter of the smallest particle in the material and dmax is
the diameter representative of the largest, PN is the number
PSD, dh is the diameter of the trommel openings, and V(d)
is the volume of the particle of diameter d. The absolute vol-
ume of particles passing through a single opening of a given
size, given input number-PSDs is given by Eq. 4. Number-PSDs
are easily obtained from the more common mass-PSDs.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 589
Stessel and Cole

Material that has passed through the bed leaves a cone
or cone segment (frustum) as a void. The wall angles of the
cone are a function of the material properties. In the model,
an algorithm was developed for calculation of frustum vol-
ume depending upon cone angle and depth of bed. The
total volume of material passing through the bed is:
V= IV V
ifV<V V
T 1 PB * PB h
V_ otherwise
(5)
Vh= EHVrifVp<V
EHV otherwise
where Vc is the volume of an individual frustum, Vh is the
volume of particles calculated from passing through holes,
VPB is the total volume of particles in the bed, and Pv is the
volume PSD. This sequence of equations sets maxima for
the number of particles passing through the screen: first,
the particles passing could not exceed the volume of the
cones in the bed; second, the particles could not exceed those
contained in the bed as a whole.
Additionally, particle screening is calculated in the case
of a striated bed, with particle diameter increasing as a func-
tion of distance from the screen. Originally, striation was
included to determine the effect of introducing airflow. How-
ever, the work of Voorstman and Tels,9 and data from
Barton,10 showed that striation is evident in normal trommel
operation. The thickness of separate layers is calculated for
each input particle size increment.
the "overs," and the particles smaller than the screen openings
are hereafter termed the "unders.") Input was divided into
general particle characteristics, particle size distribution, and
trommel characteristics. Specifically, input variables include
the following. General particle characteristics include mass
feedrate; bulk and material densities; static and dynamic
coefficients of friction, which can be set to 1 to model the
effect of flights; and cone angle, which became an impor-
tant modeling variable, as it was not measured in any of the
work reported in the literature. For particle size distribution,
variables include the number of increments and whether
the user desires to input a particle size distribution or have
the model calculate a Rosin-Rammler distribution. In the
event the modeler wishes to input a distribution, for each
particle size increment, the variables of concern are the rep-
resentative particle diameter and either the raw mass of that
component, or its percent of the total. In the event the mod-
eler wishes the model to calculate the Rosin-Rammler dis-
tribution, the variables to consider are the diameters
representative of the largest and smallest particle size incre-
ments; the shredder exponent; and critical size. Trommel
characteristics include trommel diameter; rotational veloc-
ity; hole size; number of holes per unit area (which could be
specified as a smaller number than the actual number of
holes, in cases where effective screen area is less than the
bed area); trommel incline; and the fraction of the particles
obeying the striation phenomenon discussed above.
The model gives output for each revolution of the
trommel. This output includes: rotation number; cumula-
tive axial distance travelled; total time elapsed; mass of ma-
terial remaining in the screen; cumulative mass in the unders;
particle size distribution of the material remaining in the

The Air Trommel

It was further desired to investigate the potential of an ac-
tual air trommel. Given equivalent densities, particles that
are very small tend to have larger impact angles (see Figure
1) because drag has a greater effect on smaller particles; this
phenomenon was first recognized as significant in work on
air classifiers. This phenomenon could be used to improve
trommeling by introducing airflow at the point of depar-
ture from the screen (ocD), with the air moving in the -x
direction. This would project fines further across the
trommel. With judicious selection of air velocities, small,
light particles that would have fallen on top of larger, heavier
particles with a higher trajectory could be induced to have a
still higher trajectory. Thus, for better separation, the small
particles would be layered closest to the screen.

Modeling DISTANCE DOWN TROMMEL (M)

The theory of the rise of a particle on the screen, particle
trajectory, and screening of undersized particles were inte-
grated into a computer model written in Fortran. (Note: par-
ticles larger than the screen opening are hereafter termed
Figure 2. Unders PSDs from the model (filled symbols) and WSL
(hollow symbols): circles are smaller particles, and squares are larger
particles.

5 6 0 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 46 June 1996
 Stessel and Cole

Tablet. variables assessed in the particle dynamics and screening tests.

Particle Dynamics Screening

Test Repetitions Rotation (rad/s) Airflow (m/s) Test Repetitions Rotation (rad/s) Airflow (m/s) Bed width (m)

A 5 5.23 0 A 5.23 14 0.508

B 5.23 14 0.635
B 5 5.02 0 C 5.23 14 0.762
D 5.23 9.4 0.508
C 3 4.81 0 E 5.23 9.4 0.635
F 5.23 9.4 0.762
D 4 5.23 9.4 G 2 5.23 0 0.508
H 2 5.23 0 0.635
E 5 5.02 9.4 I 2 5.23 0 0.762
J 5.02 14 0.508
F 6 4.81 9.4 K 5.02 14 0.635
L 5.02 14 0.762
G 4 5.23 14 M 5.02 9.4 0.508
N 5.02 9.4 0.635
H 4 5.02 14 0 5.02 9.4 0.762
P 5.02 0 0.508
1 2 4.81 14 Q 5.02 0 0.635
R 5.02 0 0.762
S 4.81 14 0.508
T 4.81 14 0.635
U 4.81 14 0.762
V 4.81 9.4 0.508
W 4.81 9.4 0.635
X 4.81 9.4 0.762
Y 4.81 0 0.508
Z 4.81 0 0.635
AA 4.81 0 0.762

screen; particle size distribution of the unders passing
through the screen on that revolution; angle of departure;
and angles of impact for each particle increment.
This model was used to analyze published data. As an
example, early researchers expected depletion of unders in
the bed to occur in a linear fashion. Depletion, however,
proved not to be linear; subsequent researchers gathered
additional data to investigate non-linear depletion. Results
from Warren Spring Laboratory (WSL) are analyzed.12 The
results obtained by WSL compared to the model output are
shown in Figure 2. In both cases, only the two particle size
intervals that are smaller than the holes are analyzed. The
critical result is that the smaller particles first pass through
the screen at a greater rate, then a lesser rate, than the next
larger particle size. Initial screening of the smaller of the
undersized particles illustrates the phenomenon of bed stria-
tion reported by Voorstman and Tels.9
In comparison with data published during the era of re-
search in resource recovery, this model proved that it could
be used to represent test results accurately.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Before any experimentation could take place, key output pa-
rameters had to be determined to measure trommel performance.
Experiment Variables and Parameters
Aspects of trommel operation that are typically varied in
the field include rotational velocity and inclination. Rota-
tional velocity would influence angles of departure and im-
pact (see Figure 1), which would also change the bed width
(see Eq. 2). Inclination ((3) would also influence bed width.
Bed width, in turn, would control trommel length: a given
number of rotations, with varying bed widths, would pro-
duce different length trommels; conversely, the same length
trommel would rotate its feed a different number of times
depending upon inclination.
From its inception, the model was designed to include
airflow, thus incorporating the concept of the air trommel.
Airflow proved useful in modeling trommel studies reported
in the literature because one of its key effects is to layer the
particles, as discussed above. With a very low airflow, little
actual change occurs in the particles' trajectories, but the
layering function in the model is implemented.
Examination of these variables led to the recognition that
the particle dynamics and their effect on departure and im-
pact angles had to be tested first, involving only the study
of rotational velocity and airflow. This work is shown on
the lefthand side of Table 1; the number of repetitions of
each test is shown in the last column of that part of the

Volume 46 June 1996 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association §61
Stessel and Cole
table. A factorial design was applied to the experiments, of-
fering a range from three values: low, medium, and high.
The factorial test required each variable to be tested at each
of the values; hence the number of particle dynamics tests
were 3 2 or 9 tests.
Screening tests involved sampling the trommel unders
at intervals of five rotations. A PSD had to be determined
for each such sample. Screening tests were thus much more
involved than dynamics tests. Still another variable, inclina-
tion, was involved. Thus, a greater number of tests was re-
quired. These are shown on the righthand side of Table 1.
Due to the time involved, only three of these tests were re-
peated; these are shown in the first column of that part of
the table. The factorial design gave 3 3 or 27 tests. The tests
were run in random order to minimize theinteraction of ex-
perimental conditions, such as changes in volunteer helpers.
Equipment Selection
The equipment used for the experiment consisted mainly of
that in the Solid Waste Processing Laboratory. The trommel
was handbuilt, employing a carbon steel industrial dryer drum.
The drum was 1.08 m long and 1.13 m in diameter. The screen
had 0.8 cm diameter apertures spaced in a staggered array to
yield 5320 holes per m2. Larger holes and a longer screen drum
would have been preferable, but as this research was not funded,
custom fabrication was not possible. An aluminum housing
surrounded the drum to prevent particles from being projected
away from the screen. An aluminum chute was used under
the drum to collect the unders for analysis. The trommel was
powered by a variable-speed Dayton 0.5 kW motor coupled to
a 1.75 gear reducer. For the screening tests, the trommel block,
consisting of a plywood circle, was created that fixed the length
at one bed width.
All particles were sieved and separated in a automatic
Gilson TS-1 Sieve Shaker. The shaker included three shaker
screens: a 4.75 mm (#4) screen, an 8 mm screen, and a 12.5
mm screen, allowing for separation of the particles into four
size distributions. During each screen test, particles were re-
sieved into their respective particle sizes using a hand oper-
ated Soil Test Sieve Shaker with the same screen sizes.
Airflow was produced by two Dayton 0.7 kW blowers.
These were connected in parallel and valved to control ve-
locity. Airflow was measured with a Dwyer pitot/manom-
eter-type velometer.
Particles
The determination of a suitable type of particle involved
meeting certain criteria that would allow for adequate com-
parison with the analytical model and be easy enough to
work with in the laboratory. The particle had to have con-
sistent density, not be too slippery, exhibit little rebound
upon impact; be close to spherical, but not so close as to
roll on the screen; be available in different sizes; and be
easily obtainable and inexpensive. Many different
5 6 2 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
materials were evaluated, including plastic spheres, wood
cubes, paperboard cubes, and charcoal briquettes. Based
upon observation of full-sized units, it appeared that the
small holes in the laboratory trommel greatly limited the
selection of particles that would exhibit reasonable trajec-
tories. Use of low-density materials such as plastic and card-
board resulted in unders that were so small they lofted upon
leaving the screen; their fall was visibly unreasonably slow.
In solid waste practice, a trommel might be used to remove
glass, ceramics, gravel, and dirt from less brittle materials.
Thus, gravel screening represented a use of trommels for
waste processing. Gravel particles can be described as having
sphericity, like sand, allowing application of the spherical-
shape assumption in the trajectory component of the model
without resorting to laboratory measurement of equivalent
diameters. The model verification undertaken made constant
density important; thus, the particles larger than the screen
opening, the "overs/' had to be made of the same material as
the the particles smaller than the screen openings, the
"unders." The use of gravel allows application of these re-
sults to mineral dressing and combustor ash processing.
The input particle size distribution was determined based
upon the test trommel's screen aperture size and experi-
ment simplification. It was decided that four particle sizes
would be used: two unders and two overs. The trommel
had 0.8 cm (5/16") diameter apertures; therefore, particle
sizes of < 0.476 cm (3/16"), 0.476 cm to 0.8 cm, 0.8 cm to
1.27 cm, (1/2"), and >1.27 cm were chosen. For simplicity,
the size denoting the difference between the two unders
particles, 0.476 cm, will be referred to as 0.5 cm henceforth.
An arbitrary mass composition of 25% of each size was de-
cided upon for simplicity.
Particle density was determined using fluid displacement
to determine volume. This value was determined to be
2456.0 kg/m3. Bulk density was determined by filling a one-
liter container with gravel and weighing it. The average bulk
density of the particle size distribution was determined to
be 1687 kg/m3.
The particle's coefficients of static and dynamic friction
were measured using an inclined surface of the same mate-
rial as the trommel screen (perforated steel) to simulate the
trommel's surface. However, it was theorized that, as par-
ticles moved to greater elevations on the screen, the coeffi-
cient of friction would drop as particles ceased to protrude
through screen holes. To account for this situation, coeffi-
cients of friction were also measured against solid steel. The
static coefficient of friction was 0.66 against perforated steel
and 0.465 against solid steel. The kinetic coefficient of fric-
tion was 0.61 and 0.463 for perforated and nonperforated
steel respectively. Coefficients of static and kinetic friction
were also measured for particle-to-particle contact using an
inclined surface to which gravel was glued. Values
determined in this way were 1.35 and 0.61, respectively,
for the static and kinetic coefficients of friction.
Volume 46 June 1996

Trommel Operation
Due to the trommel's small size and the method selected for
analyzing screening, batch testing was used. Batch testing did
not hinder the correlation with the analytical model, since the
model calculations followed the fate of a bed moving down
the trommel. Using a feed rate of 18 tonnes/hour, assuming
two seconds to deposit the pail of feed into the trommel, a
batch of 10 kg was chosen. The total feed was arbitrarily di-
vided equally, by mass, among the four particle sizes.
Proper particle motion in a trommel is usually called
cataracting, which refers to motion in which a trajectory can
be observed. Preliminary testing showed that a small range
of rotational speeds allowed particles to exhibit the entire
range of cataracting behavior. This range was between 46
revolutions per minute (rpm) and 50 rpm. Therefore, it was
decided to use three rotational speeds for the experiment.
The low speed was 46 rpm, the medium speed was 48 rpm,
and the high speed was 50 rpm.
Inclination was the next parameter used as an operating
variable. Due to the shortness of the laboratory trommel,
this parameter could not be applied directly to the trommel
as could rotation. As the direct effect of inclination is on
bed width, the trommel was used to evaluate sequential ro-
tations of a single batch feed, but fixed in one position. Since
no material was being fed after the test batch, fixing the
trommel length at one bed-width approximated movement
of a given bed down the length of the trommel. Limiting
trommel length to a single bed-width was accomplished by
physically closing off the output of the trommel with a move-
able disk, and leaving the machine horizontal. A combina-
tion of limitations of the trommel and the ability to feed it,
with a desire to evaluate a wide range of inclinations, led to
three values of bed width to use in the experiment: 0.508 m
(20"), 0.635 m (25"), and 0.762 m (30").
The final parameter used as a testing variable was air-
flow. Variations involved using no blower, using one blower,
or using two blowers in parallel. Airflow was measured in-
side the trommel with a velometer and pitot tube. The aver-
aged low, medium, and high values for airflow were 0 m/s,
9.4 m/s, and 14 m/s, respectively.
Testing Procedure
The particle dynamics testing utilized a fluorescent-painted
rock from the median (0.8 cm to 1.27 cm) size fraction that
would not fall through the trommel's apertures. A black cur-
tain was placed behind the trommel to offset the fluores-
cent-painted rock. Crosshatches were drawn on the drop
cloth at the horizontal (0 rad) and vertical (n/2 rad) axes to
provide a way to measure particle departure and impinge-
ment angles in the photographs. A strobe light was placed
behind the camera, and was set approximately 4.0 ft from
the discharge end of the trommel. After allowing the
trommel to reach the desired test speed, the particle was
dropped in and allowed to make one complete revolution,
Volume 46 June 1896
Stessel and Cole
whereupon the camera shutter was opened. The particle
made approximately 1.5 revolutions, or about 2 trajecto-
ries, before the shutter was closed. After film development,
the particle's path was traced on each of the photographs.
From these tracings, departure and impingement angles were
determined.
In screen testing, five square 10-liter containers were at-
tached end-to-end, and the first was placed below the
trommel's unders chute. The trommel's length was set to
the predetermined position using the trommel block. The
trommel speed was set to the desired rate and turned on.
The 10 kg feed was placed into the trommel and the revolu-
tions were counted. At intervals of five revolutions, the
"train" of 10-liter containers was pulled so as to locate a
fresh container beneath the unders chute. After five con-
tainers were filled, the trommel was turned off. A mass PSD
was determined for each of the unders fractions, as well as
for the overs and particles that escaped.
Following the completion of the laboratory work, mod-
eling was undertaken. Model parameters were adjusted so
as to best fit the laboratory data.
RESULTS
Results of this work consisted not only of the laboratory data,
but also of the results of the modelling. The model parameter
adjustment necessary to produce the best available replica-
tion of the laboratory data was important information for
analysis. Results from particle dynamics, screening, and data
quality evaluations are presented below.
PARTICLE DYNAMICS
The dynamics testing measured departure and impingement
angles. The particles' coefficients of friction and the amount
of drag through the trajectory were determined to be the
key variables.
Results with no added airflow are shown in Figure 3. A
good fit was obtained. Departure angle correlation required
manipulation of both static and dynamic coefficients of fric-
tion in the model. The adjustments made for the coefficient
of static friction did not seem to influence the departure
angle to a great degree. Dynamic coefficients of friction had
to be reduced to match higher rotational velocity results.
Lower effective dynamic coefficients of friction may have
resulted from particles spending a greater fraction of the
climb with gravity working to push the particles away from
the top half of the trommel; thus, the coefficient of friction
more closely approximated that of a smooth (rather than a
perforated) plate. Even though the particles moved with a
greater angular velocity, that velocity was not as great as it
would have been had the particles been more enmeshed in
the trommel's holes.
Further confirmation of lower departure velocities was
provided by the need to use airflow, even when not testing
the air trommel, to get the model to mimic particle
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 56.3
Stessel and Cole

1.2

1.1

| 1.0

fj 0.9

~ 0.8

0.7
o Lab.: Total
0.6 A Model: <5 mm
& Laboratory • Model: > 5 mm
o Model A Lab.: < 5 mm
0.5
4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 o Lab.: > 5 mm
4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3
Rotational Velocity (rad/s)
Rotational Velocity (rad/s)

T Figure 4. Recovery of components of the unders stream as a func-

-1.9
tion of rotational velocity comparing laboratory and modeling results.

Q -2.0
2
I "21
•5 -2.2
< -2.3 - >
-2.4
4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2
Rotational Velocity (rad/s)
Figure 3. Angle of departure (top) and angle of impact (bottom) as
a function of rotational velocity.
impingement angles. Airflow was added in the positive di-
rection, so as to give a larger angle of impingement, with
higher rotational velocities. Thus, by the time the particle
actually left the screen, the model then indicated a lower
horizontal velocity component, in the negative direction.
Higher departure velocities may also have been due to the
difficulty in representing jagged particles, such as these rocks,
with idealized spheres. Perhaps another stage of the model
development could provide the modeler more options in
drag coefficient expressions.
The addition of airflow, simulating the air trommel,
showed a flaw in the experimental trommel design: the air
pipe was located too low, near the 0 point in Figure 1. Turn-
ing on the air actually reduced the departure angle. The con-
cept would call for location of the air nozzles only slightly
below the point of departure, thus, by definition, not greatly
affecting it. Nevertheless, the impact angle was shown to
decrease, and by a greater amount than the departure angle
was reduced. Thus, it was still hoped that results from screen-
ing tests would be of interest.
Screening
After adjusting some of the model's input variables, how-
ever, the resultant data fit almost perfectly with the
experimental results. Specifically, the particle's cone angle
(related to angle of repose) was increased from 2.46 to 2.56.
Also, the number of screen holes per area had to be reduced
from the actual measured amount of 5820 holes/m2 to 3300
holes/m2. The airflow effectiveness parameter was left at the
- same value of 100%.
A Laboratory After understanding how the model reacted to changing
o Model
5.3 parameters, the following conclusions could be made. The
increase in cone angle served to actually increase the differ-
ence in recoveries between the two particle sizes. Hole fre-
quency, on the other hand, was reduced to decrease the
total recovery fraction. This type of correlation allowed for
a near perfect match to the experimental data. The effect of
reducing the hole frequency in the model may show that
the entire trommel screen area was not being used during
the experimentation. The trommel bed width available dur-
ing the test (0.635 m) may have been limited by the lack of
any inclination that would have spread the particle bed out
to a greater degree and effectively utilized more screen area.
Also, observations showed that even though particles were
in contact with the screen up to their departure point, screen-
ing stopped considerably shy of it. Clearly, the net force
holding the particle against the screen was reduced as grav-
ity acted to push particles away from the screen above the
trommel midpoint. A lower effective screening area further
reinforced the conclusions discussed above that reduction
of the coefficient of friction with higher rotational veloci-
ties promote extended particle residence against the screen
near and above the trommel midpoint. As previously dis-
cussed, the air effectiveness was left unchanged; therefore,
no adjustment was needed.
Recovery of the unders components was analyzed for dif-
ferent rotational velocities, as described in Table 1. Results
for the midpoint of the test, at a rotation number of 15, are
presented in Figure 4. The overall result showed that a lower
rotational velocity, given cataracting behavior, was prob-
ably the most desirable, although the middle velocity showed

5 6 4 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 46 June 1996

an improved recovery of the larger particles. Matching the
laboratory data with the model required increasing cone angle
with velocity, indicating increased bridging. Layering was re-
duced and effective hole frequency increased, which would
indicate that presentation of the fines to the screen suffered
with higher velocities, although the trajectories achieved by
the higher velocities did expose them to more of the screen;
these factors counteract each other somewhat, and more in-
vestigation would be required to ascertain their relationship.
To further analyze recovery, the two size fractions in the
unders were analyzed as a function of rotation number. These
results are shown in Figure 5. The key result is how the data
replicated the results from Warren Springs Laboratories,
shown in Figure 2. The first rotation is somewhat at vari-
ance, but that may be due to the batch feed conditions. The
model results shown resulted from a layering effect of 0.7
and a high cone angle of 2.94, indicating significant layer-
ing and considerable bridging. Hole frequency was fixed at
the trommel's value. The crossover point could be delayed
by increasing cone angle and/or decreasing layering.
Tests of increased inclination were accomplished by mov-
ing the trommel block, as discussed above. Thus, the pri-
mary effect of increasing inclination—increasing the bed
width—was directly tested. In this case, the number of revo-
lutions at which the analysis was undertaken had to be dif-
ferent for each bed width, so as to model a fixed-length
trommel. The laboratory and fitted model results for the
variation of incline are shown in Figure 6. As the bed width
increased, corresponding recoveries decreased. Thus, the
trommel operator should seek the minimum inclination,
and the longest residence time. Correlation with the model
results required only, a reduction in hole frequency with
greater bed width. Thus, the wider the actual particle bed,
the less amount of screen seemed to be available to the par-
ticles. The reduction in effective screen area may have been
due simply to the particles' not covering the wider beds at
• Model: > 5mm
• Model < 5 mm
D Lab.: > 5 mm
O Lab.: < 6 mm
10 15
Rotation Number
Figure 5. Recovery fraction of small and large unders as a func-
tion of rotation number showing crossover phenomenon.
Volume 46 June 1998
Stessel and Cole
sufficient depth across the entire bed, and being concentrated
instead in the middle or at one side. Variations in bed depth
were very hard to determine by observation, as the interior of
the trommel was a very confused place during operation.
It remained to evaluate the air trommel. Only the labora-
tory results are presented; the model's ability to replicate
these data had already been determined. Overall recovery
as the bed moved down the trommel is shown in Figure 7.
Of the greatest significance is that there was an optimum
airflow, neither the maximum nor the minimum. It is also
interesting that the improvement was most noted prior to
the 15th revolution. Separation enhancement in the early
stages of screening was related to the conclusion reached in
conjunction with Figure 5: airflow helped by furnishing ad-
ditional layering, speeding up the depletion of the small
unders, which occurs first. Recovery, as a function of air ve-
locity, attained by the 15th revolution, is shown in Figure 8.
In Figure 7, not much difference can be observed between
the air velocities. For total unders, Figure 7 also shows mini-
mal difference. The two unders components acted quite dif-
ferently, however, to produce this effect. The intermediate
airflow benefited recovery of the small unders, and hurt re-
covery of the large unders. Thus, particles even larger than
the large unders (i.e., the overs) would be even more hin-
dered in reaching the screen, actually aiding recovery of all
the unders. The highest airflow aided the large unders be-
cause they were lofted nearly as high as the small unders,
actually minimizing the difference between the two cat-
egories, given that most of the small unders had already been
removed by the 15th rotation, as shown in Figure 5. Thus,
modest airflow does aid separation, as the model indicates.12
Statistical Evaluation
The statistical analysis for experimental particle dynamics
testing was fairly straightforward. For each test, multiple runs
were performed, as indicated in Table 1. The standard error
0.8
• Calculated
0.4 o Experimental
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bedwidth (m)
Figure 6. Recovery fraction as a function of bed width comparing
experimental and modeling results.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 565
Stessel and Cole

1.0
1.0

0.8

o 0.6

0.4

02
--- 14 m/s D Total Unders
9.4 m/s A Unders > 5 mm
0.0 0 m/s o Unders < 5 mm
0.0
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15
Rotation Number Air Velocity (m/s)

Figure 7. Recovery as a function of rotation number for varying Figure 8. Recovery for different unders components as a function
airflows. of air velocity.

of the mean was also computed. These values are represented
in the error bars in Figure 3. In both cases, the error is quite
high, but the first and last data points begin to show some
significant separation. To validate the assumption that
changing variables did affect the resultant departure and
impingement angles, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was tabu-
lated to determine if each tests' treatment means exhibited
significant differences. The conclusions were the same for
each of the analyses: increasing rotation or airflow did not
significantly change the particle departure or impingement
angle. Again, given that the experimental conditions in-
volved a rock bouncing inside a spinning drum, these re-
sults were expected.
For each screen test, a mass balance was undertaken to
account for error. In such testing, it is common that a sig-
nificant fraction of the feed is lost, due to being trapped in
nooks and crannies in the equipment, etc. A bar graph de-
picting the results of the error analysis for all the screening
tests is shown in Figure 9. "Accounted-for" losses consisted
of the results of cleaning the floor and nearby surfaces after
each experiment. "Unaccounted-for" errors comprised that
fraction that could not be found. The percent error of par-
ticles that were unaccounted for ranges from 0.04% to 5.20%,
with only 8 out of 27 tests showing error greater than 2%.
These low errors showed that there were fairly good con-
trols on keeping account of all particles. The percent error
of particles not reaching the unders or overs fraction ranged
each test, replication of 10% of the tests was performed, as
shown in Table 1. Rotational speed was chosen as the repli-
cation variable because it was thought that it would have
the greatest impact upon results. The results of the entire
replication set showed that the differences were significant
at the 90% level.
An analysis was performed on the experimental data to
determine the magnitude of the effect each variable had
upon the final recovery output. The measurement of effects
and interactions was calculated using a Pearson Correlation
Matrix and compiled using a statistical analysis computer
package.13 Results are shown at the top of Table 2. This
analysis allowed a probability to be calculated using a Bartlett
Chi-Square statistic, which provided a measurement as to
how strong a correlation the particular variable(s) had upon
the results. The second matrix calculated a set of probabili-
ties based upon the number of observations made to deter-
mine how much confidence there was in the calculated
correlations (first matrix).14 None of the correlations were
0.3
in I | i '•
0.2 - i 111 B I
; j | ' | j 1 |
ilj
c
n '• * ' ; * j '
ractio

i _ i „
from 7.15% to 19.35%, with only 6 out of 27 tests having ' i ' !

greater than 16% error. Though these percentages are not as 0.1 • -
small as the unaccounted-for error, they are fairly consis-
tent and within range of experimental error, particularly for
H Unaccounted-for
this type of testing. • Accounted-for
0.0
Experimental screening analyses provided an enormous
Test
database. However, as each specific test result of the model
comprised a sample size of one, few statistical tests lent them-
selves to proper application. To measure the precision of Figure 9. Errors in laboratory screening tests.

566 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 46 June 1996
 Stessel and Cole

Table 2. Recovery correlation matrices for the screening tests.

Pearson correlation matrix

Rotation Air flow Bed width Recovery <5mm Recovery > 5 mm Total recovery

Rotation 1.000
Air flow 0.000 1.000 — — — —
Bed width 0.000 -0.034 1.000 — — —
Recovery < 5 mm -0.209 0.014 -0.287 1.000 — —
Recovery > 5 mm 0.055 0.184 -0.245 -0.404 1.000 —
Total recovery 0.096 0.201 -0.465 0.314 0.742 1.000

Matrix of probabilities
Rotation Air flow Bed width Recovery <5mm Recovery > 5 mm Total recovery

Rotation 0.000 __
Air flow 1.000 0.000 — — — —
Bed width 1.000 0.857 0.000 — — —
Recovery < 5 mm 0.268 0.940 0.125 0.000 __ —
Recovery > 5 mm 0.774 0.331 0.192 0.027 0.000
Total recovery 0.612 0.286 0.010 0.092 0.000 0.000

Bartlet %2 probability 0.725 0.848 —

strongly either negative or positive, but strong correlations are
hard to develop in this type of laboratory testing. The follow-
ing conclusions can be drawn from these statistical analyses:
• The 0 probability calculated for the total matrix con-
trasted with significant probabilities for the small and
large unders recovery alone. In the main matrix, the
explanation became clear; the second most signifi-
cant correlation in the entire table is the negative
interaction between the small and large recoveries.
If a recovery factor aided recovery of the small unders,
it hurt the recovery of the large unders, and vice-
versa.
• Trommel incline (bed width), given a fixed-length
trommel, was relatively strongly negatively associ-
ated with all recoveries. Residence time was thus
found to be much more important than low bed
depth.
• Rotational velocity hurt recovery of the small
unders, with a fairly strong negative correlation.
Even though it somewhat helped recovery of the
large unders, the penalty to the small unders over-
shadowed it. A high rotational velocity contributed
to mixing, destroying the layering that helped the
recovery of the fines.
• Airflow had a strong effect on recovery of the large
unders, with relatively modest confidence.
CONCLUSIONS
This research effort comprised a laboratory exercise designed
to assess directly the performance of a computer model of
trommel operation. The benefits of using a computer model
based upon mechanics, rather than on statistical analysis,
were that analysis of the comparison helped develop the
understanding of trommel behavior.
The model was able to replicate laboratory data quite
well. The one point of comparison provided by the previ-
ously published work of other researchers showed that one
of the most sophisticated analyses, that of the crossover of
the unders recoveries, was also found in this work. Analysis
with the model showed that bridging and layering were
very important phenomena in trommel operation. When
feeds contained particles larger than the openings, as they
should, bridges formed over the holes, occluding them. With
a feed containing many still-less-spherical items than gravel,
such as solid waste, bridging would be expected to be even
more significant. To a limited degree, small particles were
presented to the screen first.
Rotational speed showed that slower was better. It must
be remembered that the range of rotational velocities man-
dated proper cataracting action; slowing velocities to cas-
cading (tumbling) speed greatly reduced effectiveness. Tests
with incline similarly showed that residence time was the
most important factor to good separation within a given
length trommel.
The question then became how to make use of a trommel
cataracting as slowly as possible, as level as possible. Identi-
fication of layering as an important phenomenon led to
concepts to enhance layering. The addition of air, at or
slightly below the point of departure, showed great prom-
ise in enhancing separation efficiency. A side-benefit might

Volume 46 June 1996 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Stessel and Cole
be clearing of the screen holes without the need for brushes.
Analyses of data quality showed results indicative of fairly
high system losses. Such losses are, however, typical for in-
vestigator-built, laboratory-scale equipment operating for
short periods. After accounting for these errors, the model
showed itself worthy of further development and testing.
REFERENCES
1. Williams, E. Review of the Literature on the Use of Trommels in Waste
Processing and Resource Recovery, DOE Contract No. AC01-76CS20167,
National Center for Resource Recovery, Washington, D. C, July, 1981.
2. Parker, W. S. "Application of trammeling to prepared fuels," in Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Prepared Fuels and Resource
Recovery Technology, DOE Contract No. W-31-109-Eng-38, Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, February, 1981.
3. Alter, H.; Gavis, J.; Renard, M.L. "Design models of trommels for
resource recovery processing," Resources and Conservation 1980,6:223.
4. Glaub, J.C.; Jones, D.B.; Tleimat, J.U.; Savage, G.M. Trommel Screen
Research and Development for Applications in Resource Recovery, United
States Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1982.
5. Glaub, J. C; Jones, D. B.; Savage, G. M. "The design and use of
trommel screens for processing municipal solid waste," in Proc. 1982
National Waste Processing Conference, American Society of Mechani-
cal Engineers, New York, 1982; 447-457.
6. McNabb, M. B. "A new test for evaluation of air classifier perfor-
mance," in Fundamental Aspects of Air Classifier Operation and De-
sign, Duke Environmental Center, Durham, NC, 1980, ch. 4.
7. Stessel, R. I.; Kranc, S. C. "Particle motion in a rotary screen," ASCE
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1992, 118(3):604.
8. Stessel, R. I.; Peirce, J. J. "Particle separation in pulsed airflow," ASCE
J. of Engineering Mechanics 1987, 213:1594.
5 6 8 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
9. Vorstman, M. A. G.; Tels, M. "Some experiments in trammeling of
particles in multilayers," in Materials and Energy from Refuse: Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd International Symposium, Koninkli)ke Vlaamse
Ingenieursvereniging, Antwerp, 1981;. 1.27-1.34.
10. Barton, J. R. Evaluation of Trommels for Waste to Energy Plants Phase
2: Report of the Warren Spring Laboratory Pilot Plant Test Series, War-
ren Spring Laboratories, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, U. K., 1981.
11. Stessel, R. I.; Peirce, J. J. "Separation of solid waste with pulsed air-
flow," ASCE f. Environmental Engineering 1986, J21(6):833.
12. Stessel, R. I. "A new trommel model," Resource, Conservation, and
Recycling 1991, 6:1.
13. SYSTAT Inc. SYSTAT Users Manual, Evanston, IL, 1985.
14. Box, G.E.P.; Hunter, W. G.; Hunter, J. S. Statistics for Experimenters,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1978.
About the Authors
R.I. Stessel, Ph.D., P.E., is an Associate Professor in
the Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics,
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620-5350.
K. Cole is a Project Engineer with Groundwater Tech-
nology, Marietta, GA, 30066. Please address all cor-
respondence to Dr. Stessel or send e-mail to
stessel@eng.usf.edu.
Volume 46 June 1996