Jamming and Flow

in 2-D Hopper

Sepehr Sadighpour (Duke University)

Paul Mort (Proctor & Gamble)
R. P. Behringer (Duke University)

Supported by IFPRI

1
Motivation
How do grain size and
outlet diameter
influence jamming
probability?

What does the

probability distribution
of jams look like?
Grains exiting silo often jam. Above:
Typical method of un-jamming a hopper

2
Anatomy of a Jam

Grains self-support on
container walls by forming
“stress chains”

Pressure maxes out with depth

Hence, lower particles don’t

feel all the weight

This is how a small arch near

outlet can hold up an entire
silo 2-D jam of photoelastic
disks in our apparatus
3
Prelude to the Beverloo Equation
The Variables of Flow:
. dm
M through the opening
dt
  apparent density
de  effective particle diameter
D  diameter of the outlet
g  acceleration due to gravity D

Basic Assumption :
Grains ~ D from outlet are in free fall,
uninfluenced by aboveparticles
4
Beverloo Equation in 3-D: A Derivation
1
v  (g D) 2 Speed of particles passing through outlet
after falling a distance D from rest

mass
j v mass flux through outlet area A
area time
. mass 1

M   jA   (g D) 2 D 2

time
. 1 5 .
M   g 2 D2 but M  0 as d e  D (Boundary Layer Effect)
. 1 5

 M  C g 2 (D  k d e ) 2

5
Beverloo Equation in 2D

Same logic carries over to the 2D case.

Except A  D rather than D , so that :

2

. 1 3
M  C g 2 (D  k de ) 2

6
Founding our Hypothesis
The screening effect explains
Macroscopic effects
Plateauing pressure

Microscopic effects
Jamming

Free falling particles The Beverloo equation

So what does the insulation of the outlet region suggest

about the probability distribution of jamming?

7
Our Hypothesis
Over a short time dt , the probability of a jam is

dt
dPj  where τ i s a charactersitictime.

Then the probability of flow surviving to time t without a jam
is :
dt
Ps (t  dt)  Ps(t) (1  )

d P(t) dt
Ps (t)  s
dt  P s(t)  Ps (t)
dt 

t
d P(t) 1
s
  Ps (t)
dt 

Ps(t)  A e
t
 but Ps(0)  A 1  Ps(t) e 

8
Our Hypothesis
Over a short time dt , the probability of a jam is

dt
dPj  where τ i s a charactersitictime.

Then the probability of flow surviving to time t without a jam
is :
dt
Ps (t  dt)  Ps(t) (1  )

d P(t) dt
Ps (t)  s
dt  P s(t)  Ps (t)
dt 

t
d P(t) 1
s
  Ps (t)
dt 

Ps(t)  A e
t
 but Ps(0)  A 1  Ps(t) e 

9
Sketch of our Apparatus
Flips like an hourglass to quickly run trials on both inclines.
Diameter of opening is variable.

Plug

10
Experimental Setup
2 sheets of Plexiglass

~5000 bidisperse
photoelastic disks in between
(diameter = 3mm & 5mm)

Polarizers taped to front and

back for high speed video, in
order to see arch formation
dynamics.

11
 Actual Experiment
• We measured
duration of
continuous flow
for various outlet
sizes on the two
inclines
• 100s of runs per
opening size
gave probability
distribution for
survival time
2.3cm outlet, 45° incline. Slightly faster than real 12
time.
Results: An Example
P (t)  e t /  form confirmed
s
The survival probability exhibits expected exponential decay.

13
Characteristic Time τ
What form could it have?

τ vs. Outlet Diameter

8
7
6
5
τ (s)

4
3 45° τ (s)
2 30° τ (s)
1
0
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
Outlet Diameter (cm)

14
A Reasonable Guess at τ
1
Just as the natural velocity scale was v  (g D) 2

we might expect the natural time scale to be

1
D D 2
  ( )
v g
Making D  D  k de

(D  k1d e ) 1
τ  C1 [ ] 2
g
15
Verifying τ

16
Verifying τ

τ2 varies linearly with opening size, as posited form suggested.

17
Summary

Photoelastic material connect jamming to

arch formation

The probability of continuous flow decays

exponentially with time

Reasonable results for τ(D)

18