Accepted Manuscript

Investigation on characterization of powder flowability using different testing

methods

Xu Guiling, Lu Ping, Li Menghui, Liang Cai, Xu Pan, Liu Daoyin, Chen

Xiaoping

PII: S0894-1777(17)30353-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2017.11.008
Reference: ETF 9271

To appear in: Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science

Received Date: 24 April 2017

Revised Date: 26 October 2017
Accepted Date: 9 November 2017

Please cite this article as: X. Guiling, L. Ping, L. Menghui, L. Cai, X. Pan, L. Daoyin, C. Xiaoping, Investigation
on characterization of powder flowability using different testing methods, Experimental Thermal and Fluid
Science (2017), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2017.11.008

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Investigation on characterization of powder flowability using

different testing methods

Xu Guiling a*, Lu Ping a, Li Menghui a, Liang Cai b, Xu Pan b, Liu Daoyin b, Chen Xiaoping b

a
Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Materials Cycling and Pollution Control, School of Energy

and Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, 210042, China

b
Key Laboratory of Energy Thermal Conversion and Control of Ministry of Education, School of

Energy and Environment, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, China

* Corresponding author: xuguiling@njnu.edu.cn; Tel/Fax: (+86)25 85481253/ (+86)25 85481124

Abstract: The powder flowability of pulverized coal and glass bead powders were characterized

by using different testing methods, including fluidization test, packing properties test, AOR test

and shear test, which correspond to different stress levels of the powders, from the highly

dispersed state in fluidized beds to the highly consolidated state in shear testers. The data obtained

from these testing methods were compared and evaluated to establish internal relationships

between them. The results show that the results of these testing methods are highly dependent on

particle size, as powder particle size increases, the values of HR, CI, AOR, c decrease, while the

value of FF increases gradually, which indicates a decrease of powder cohesiveness, and the

powder flowability becomes better. Meanwhile, there exists a good linear relationship between tan

AOR and 1/ρpdp. The empirical correlation equations describing the quantitative relationship

between tan AOR and 1/ρp dp were proposed for pulverized coal and glass bead powders,

respectively. The results of testing methods which measure flow behavior at relatively similar

degrees of stress state can be transferred between each other; otherwise, the results cannot be

1
correlated well. It was found that there exists a non-linear relationship between AOR and HR

within our experimental range.

Keywords: Powder flowability; Hausner ratio; Compressibility index; Angle of repose; Flow

function; Cohesion

1. Introduction

Powders are widely used in many applications among various industries, such as power

generation, food, pharmaceutical, agricultural, chemical, metallurgical, petrochemical industry

[1-4]. The handling of powders generally involves different operating processes, such as feeding,

aeration, fluidization, pneumatic conveying, blending, grinding, compaction and storage in

hoppers or bins [2, 5, 6]. In order to avoid the appearance of any annoying flow problems (such as

bridging, channeling, segregation, irregular flow, and unstable flow, etc.) in those related

processes, it is of great importance to comprehensively understand powder flowability, which

plays a vital role in the reliable design and consistent operation of powder processing equipment.

Powder flowability is the ability of a powder to flow under a specified set of conditions. It is

a complex characteristic of a given powder, but is not powder’s inherent property because it not

only highly depends on the powder physical properties (particle size, particle shape, moisture

content and surface roughness, etc.), but also the stress state of the powder and the equipment used

for storing, handing or processing it [6, 7]. The accurate and quantitative measurement of powder

flowablity is a complicated task. During the past decades of years, a lot of experimental and

theoretical research have been carried out on the measurement and characterization methods of

powder flowability. Packing properties (Hausner ratio, HR and compressibility index, CI) test [8,

9], angle of repose (AOR) test [10, 11] and shear test [12-15] are most widely used testing methods.

2
Chi-Ying Wong [16] studied the flowability of solid spherical glass beads by packing properties

test with bulk densities ratio, they pointed out that the measurement of HR had good

reproducibility. Wang et al. [17] compared three different measurement methods of AOR, and they

found that the dependence of AOR on particle size could be correlated with the Geldart’s particle

classification. Lu et al. [18] used a Jenike-type shear tester for obtaining frictional characteristics

to investigate the flowability of some typical Chinese coal. Lee et al. [19] measured the flow

properties of black soybean powders with a powder flow tester and applied the flow characteristics

obtained to hopper design. However, those existing investigations mainly focus on adopting one

single testing method to characterize powder flowability. The comparisons between different

testing methods are still lacking or unknown.

Recently, more and more researchers [2, 5, 6] have found that as the powders would undergo

a wide range of stress conditions in their manufacture and application processes, such as from a

highly consolidated state in the bottom of a bin or silo to a highly dispersed state in a fluidized bed,

the flowability of powders may change dramatically in different processing equipment, therefore,

no single available testing method could be used to fully indicate the complex powder flowability.

Meanwhile, the meaningful characterization and understanding of powder flowability at each

stage of processing processes are essential for offering specific recommendations on different

applications, where the use of each testing method is more reliable. In consequence, there has been

an increasing interest in using multiple characterization techniques with the aim of complete

understanding the flow properties of a given powder and establishing some relationship between

different characterization methods. Krantz et al. [5] used a series of characterization techniques to

investigate the flowability of two different coating powders, polyurethane and polyester-epoxy.

3
Vasilenko et al. [7] carried out method comparison study on the flowability of pharmaceutical

blends, investigated the limits and ranges of the applicability for each technique. Freeman [20]

compared different powder flowability measurement methods avilable from a FT4 Powder Rheometer

(Freeman Technology, Malvern, Worcestershire, UK) with six different powders, the data from

different methods were correlated, and they found that the data obtained from dynamic testing

methods could provide better differentiation between different powders compared to those

rheological properties obtained in all packing states. However, the research on using multiple

testing methods to obtain flow properties of powder flow under various stress conditions is still

scarce, the internal correlations between different testing methods is also unclear, and a deeper

understanding of the connections between different testing methods is still required. Furthermore,

researches are now focused on food and pharmaceutical powders [13, 21-23], as well as nanofluid

[24-26]. The investigations on the powder flowability of pulverized coal which is widely used in

coal gasification, coal-fired power generation and some other chemical industries, are rarely

reported.

The main objective of this paper is to investigate the powder flowability of pulverized coal

with glass beads powders as a comparison, by using a range of characterization methods which

correspond to different stress levels of the powders, from the highly dispersed state in fluidized

beds to the highly consolidated state in shear testers. The data obtained from different testing

methods (such as fluidization test, packing properties test, AOR test and shear test) were compared

and evaluated to establish internal relationships between them. This work, which consists of

results from different testing methods, would be helpful to a more accurate understanding of

powder flowability and a better insight into complex powder flow behavior in different handling

4
processes.

2. Materials and Experimental

2.1. Materials

Neimenggu lignite (NL) and glass bead (GB) powders were used as experimental materials.

Both of these two powders were sieved into three samples with different particle size. The particle

size distributions are shown in Fig. 1. The mean particle sizes, moisture contents, bulk densities

and particle densities are listed in Table 1. The particle size distributions and mean particle sizes

(dp) were measured with a laser particle size analyzer (LS, Beckman Coulter Inc., USA), which

displaces the size distribution on a volume basis. It can be seen from Fig. 1 that the Neimenggu

lignite samples have wider particle size distributions than those of glass bead samples. The

moisture contents of pulverized coal (external moisture content, Me, and total moisture content, M)

were measured with a forced draft oven by referring to standard procedures in Reference [27]. The

bulk densities (ρb) of each powder sample were measured following standard procedures in

Reference [16]. The particle densities (ρp) of Neimenggu lignite and glass bead samples were

obtained by mercury intrusion analysis and the so-called cracking end-point method [16],

respectively. The particle shape and surface morphology were analyzed by the scanning electron

microscope (SEM). The typical SEM graphs of Neimenggu lignite and glass bead samples are

shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively. It can be seen that powder particles of Neimenggu lignite

are polyhedral and their surfaces are rough and uneven with fine particles sticking to the larger

ones, while glass bead particles are nearly round and their surfaces are smooth and compact.

5
2.2. Experimental

2.2.1. Fluidization test

The fluidization test system used in this study is shown in Fig. 4. The fluidization column

was made of Plexiglas with an inter diameter of 50 mm and a height of 300 mm. A perforated

Plexiglas plate assistant with several layers of metal screens was used as fluidizing gas distributor.

The wind box for powder fluidization was also made of Plexiglas, which had an inter diameter of

50 mm and a height of 100 mm. The fluidizing gas from a nitrogen cylinder was introduced

through the wind box to fluidize the powders inside the column. Two pressure taps, one at the

wind room and the other at the exit section of the column, were installed for pressure drop

measurement, and pressure drops (∆p) were measured with a 1 m long U-tube manometer using

water as its manometric fluid. A ruler was used to indicate the height of powder bed (H) during the

testing experiments. The upper outlet of the column was covered with a series of filter screens to

avoid fine particles escaping from it.

Fluidization tests were carried out by gradually increasing the fluidizing gas velocity until the

pressure drop of powder bed didn’t change significantly to facilitate fluidization, and then

gradually decreasing the fluidizing gas velocity to facilitate defluidization. The pressure drops

across powder bed were recorded both during fluidization and defluidization processes. The visual

observations of fluidization phenomena, such as bubble formation and the height of powder bed,

were continuously monitored during each experiment. The fluidization behavior of the powders

was determined by measuring the total pressure drop and the bed expansion at decreasing

fluidizing gas velocities. After each experiment, the fluidization column was dismantled for

cleaning and the powder material was cleared out. Each fluidization test was repeated four times

6
following the same procedures. The reported values in this paper correspond to the mean values of

all four runs.

2.2.2. Packing properties test

Bulk density of a powder is defined as the mass it weights divided by the volume it occupies,

which is closely dependent on the consolidation state of powder itself. The volume that a unit

mass of powder occupied can change by high up to 50% from a compressed state to a very loose

state, and the aerated and tapped bulk densities of a powder have quite different values [2]. The

aerated bulk density can be measured by pouring the powder samples into a funnel with its outlet

blocked by a plate, then remove the plate and let the powder samples to pass through a vibrating

screen sieve and fall a fixed height (about 25 cm) into a standard 100 ml cylinder. The sieve

aperture and vibration amplitude selected should be governed to ensure that the standard cylinder

could be filled full within 60 s. The excess powder should be scraped using a ruler with caution,

without causing any compaction of the loosely settled powder bed, then the cylinder filled with

powder is weighted to calculate the aerated bulk density of powder samples. Next, tap the cylinder

on a rubber flat platform for about 1500 taps and observe the volume of the powder from the scale

at the same time, until a steady state is reached when no volume changes of the powder in the

cylinder can be observed, then the tapped bulk density of the powder samples can be obtained.

Two important flowability indicators can be extracted from the results of bulk density

measurement. One is Hausner ratio (HR), the ratio of tapped bulk density to aerated bulk density,

which can be calculated according to the following equation:

ρt
HR = (1)
ρa

where ρt is the tapped bulk density and ρa is the aerated bulk density. The other is Carr’s
7
Compressibility Index (CI), the ratio of the difference between tapped bulk density and aerated

bulk density to tapped bulk density, which can be calculated according to the following equation:

ρt − ρ a
CI = (2)
ρt

2.2.3. AOR test

AOR is the angle of the free surface of a powder heap on a horizontal board to the horizontal

plane. The value of AOR depends on the formation method of powder heaps, such as free-base

filling, fixed-base filling and sliding [17], and the first two methods are more widely used. Thus,

both of the free-base AOR and fixed-base AOR are investigated in this paper, as shown in Fig. 5.

During each AOR test, the powder sample is poured from a funnel onto a large horizontal board in

order to form a conical powder heap freely until the powder heap grows up to a sufficient height

and no further powder can settle on to the top of the heap any more, then the free-base AOR can

be obtained by taken pictures with a digital camera and the angle value can be analyzed by using

MB-Ruler software. When measuring the fixed-base AOR, the large horizontal board is changed

into a round plate with a fixed diameter. Each packing properties test and AOR test was repeated

six times for each powder sample, and the HR, CI and AOR values in this paper represent the

mean values of six runs.

2.2.4. Shear test

Shear tests were originally used for designing hoppers, but have gradually become useful for

general characterization of powders [28, 29]. Compared with packing properties test and AOR test,

shear test will consume a significant amount of testing time to obtain results, and the testing

procedures are relatively complicated and require a high level of operating skills [13, 14]. The

shear test experimental system includes two main parts, a shear tester and a computer. The shear
8
tester used in this study was a ShearTrac II shear tester (Geocomp Corporation, USA), shown in

Fig. 6. It mainly consists of a load frame, horizontal transducers (force and displacement) and

vertical transducers (force and displacement) and a shear box.

The ShearTrac II shear tester has an intelligent loading system, which uses the feedback from

the transducers to provide real-time control of the load frame. The load frame can be loaded or

unloaded by the computer installed with control software until the readings from the transducers

equal the values required to meet the test specifications. The normal loads is raised and lowered by

a micro-stepper motor connected to a worm gear, while the shear loads is moved left and right by

a second combination of micro-stepper motor and worm gear. The control software allows the user

to set the conditions run for a particular test with self-evident information entry windows. Manual

control for both vertical and horizontal motions of the load frame can be achieved with panel

keypads. The standard shear box includes a top cap and bottom stones, which is suitable to test

powder samples with a diameter of 63.5 mm. Direct shear tests involve shearing the samples at

different normal stresses below a particular pre-consolidation stress [22]. Each shear test can be

divided into two stages, the pre-consolidation stage and shearing stage. In the pre-consolidation

stage, different pre-consolidation stresses (10 kPa, 20 kPa and 30 kPa) were loaded in the powder

samples and then removed; in the shearing stage, normal load stresses less than the

pre-consolidation stress were loaded on the powder samples. After each test has been completed,

the computer can also be used for displaying test results in real time, editing test results and

producing a report. Fig. 7 shows typical shear test reports, where internal friction angle (φ) and

cohesion (c) of each powder sample can be given automatically.

With the data of normal and shear stress obtained from shear tests, the yield locus at given

9
pe-consolidation stresses can be determined by using Mohr stress circle analysis. Each yield locus

can give a pair values of major consolidation stress (σ1) and unconfined yield strength (σc), then

flow function (FF) can be calculated as follows [4]:

σ1
FF = (3)
σc

Meanwhile, cohesion (c) is another important flowability indicator which can be obtained

from the yield locus. It can reflect the adhesion ability between different powder material layers

and its value depends on different physical and chemical reaction effects between powder particles,

including the Coulomb force, van der Waals force, electrostatic force, liquid bridge force, etc. [30].

More details related to testing procedures for ShearTrac II shear tester can be found in Reference

[30]. Each shear test was repeated three times following the same procedures. The reported values

in this paper correspond to the mean values of all three runs.

2.2.5. Uncertainty analysis

The uncertainty analysis was carried out based on the medthod of Schultz and Cole [31] by

referring to the research of Sheikholeslami et al. [32, 33], and the uncertainties of powder

flowability characteristic parameters, such as HR, CI and FF, were calculated according to the

following equation:

1/2
 n  ∂R  
2

U R = ∑  UVi   (4)
 i =1  ∂Vi  

where Uvi and UR are error of each parameter and total error, respectively. Unvertainties of the

experimental data and paramters obtained in this paper are listed in Table 2.

10
3. Results and discussion

3.1. Fluidization characteristics

Krantz et al. [5] pointed out that fluidization tests are more dynamic compared to other

powder characterization techniques, which can be used to obtain parameters describing powder

fluidization characteristics and indicating its fluidization performance, such as minimum

fluidization velocity, etc. As the pressure drop – gas velocity curve obtained with increasing gas

velocities has its arbitrariness due to the hysteresis effect of gas-solids system, powder fluidization

curve can commonly be obtained by measuring the pressure drop of the powder bed and the bed

height with decreasing gas velocities [34]. The minimum fluidization velocity (Umf) is one of the

most important fundamental parameters for designing industrial processes related to powder

technology. Umf can be determined either by experimental approach or by theoretical calculation.

The experimental Umf of a powder may be determined graphically by the intersection point

between the horizontal fluidized bed line and the sloping fixed bed line in the pressure drop – gas

velocity curve of the defluidizaiton process, as shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 8 also shows another two

useful velocities: the velocity for beginning fluidization (Ubf) and the minimum velocity of

complete fluidization (Ucf). Ubf is defined as the gas velocity when the finest particles begin to be

fluidized, which corresponds to the departure from the sloping fixed bed line; and Ucf is defined as

the gas velocity when all the particles are completely fluidized, which corresponds to the point

where the pressure drop begins to be constant [35].

There are various correlations for calculating Umf in the literatures [36]. In this study, Umf, cal

is obtained according to the semi-empirical correlation proposed by Grace [34], which is

appropriate for gas-solids two-phase flow systems and can be expressed as follows:

11
 1
d pU mf ρ g  d 3ρ (ρ − ρ )g 2
= C12 + C2 p g p2 g  − C1 (5)
µ  µ 

where C1=27.1 and C2=0.0408.

Except for the above mentioned characteristic velocities, fluidization quality (FQ) can also be

used to characterize the powder fluidization behaviors [2]. FQ is defined as the dimensionless

pressure drop across the powder bed, which can be calculated according to the following equation:

∆p ⋅ A
FQ = (6)
m⋅g

where ∆p is the pressure drop across the powder bed, A is the cross-section area of the powder bed,

m is the mass of the powder sample and g is the gravitational acceleration.

The pressure drop, FQ and bed expansion against gas velocity are plotted in Fig. 9 and Fig.

10 for pulverized coal and glass bead powders, respectively, where two vertical black lines

correspond to Umf and Ucf in sequence. The fluidization tests were carried out with an initial bed

height (H0 ) of about 100 mm for each powder sample. It can be seen that all of the curves can be

divided into three main regions, the fully fixed bed region, the incipient fluidization region and the

complete fluidization region, except for those of NL 3# powder. When the gas velocity is less than

Umf, the powder in the fluidization column is in fixed bed state, which corresponds to fixed bed

region. No solid particle movement and bubble can be observed inside the powder bed. When the

gas velocity is between Umf and Ucf, the pressure drop begins to become constant and the bed

expansion continues to increase, which corresponds to incipient fluidization region. There is a

smooth transition between the fixed bed linear part and the fluidization horizontal part rather than

a sharp transition especially for Neimenggu lignite powders. Leturia et al. [2] also observed

similar transition tendency and found that it may be due to the wide particle size distribution of the
12
powder and the larger particles would settle out on the gas distributor progressively. When the gas

velocity is larger than Ucf, all the particles in the fluidization column are entirely supported and

fluidized, which corresponds to complete fluidization region. This region is characterized by

constant pressure drop and FQ values which indicate homogeneous fluidization behaviors. Fig. 11

shows the typical fluidization state of the powder sample. Furthermore, it can be seen from Fig. 9

(c) that when fluidizing NL 3# powder, the bed pressure drop never reaches a constant value,

although the FQ value and the bed expansion are relatively high. Therefore, it can be inferred that

NL 3# powder cannot be entirely fluidized, and the powder bed cannot reach the complete

fluidization region. Moreover, unstable cracks and channels can be observed during the

fluidization process of such kind of fine powder.

Table 3 shows the main fluidization test results. It can be seen that as the particle size

decreases, the relative error (δ) between Umf and Umf,cal increases. For powders with mean particle

size smaller than 100 µm, the value of δ becomes larger than 15%. Therefore, the semi-empirical

correlation for Umf should be used with caution especially for the powders with mean particle size

smaller than 100 µm.

3.2. Packing properties

HR and CI are two important qualitative parameters commonly used to reflect powder

flowability for that they are relatively easy to measure. It should be noticed that different from the

shear tests in which the powders undergo high stresses, the packing properties tests were carried

out under free surface conditions. Therefore, these two parameters indicate the particle-particle

friction in a moving and non-consolidated state rather than in a static state [2, 8]. Fig. 12 shows

the relationship between particle size and HR, CI. A decrease of HR and CI indicates a decrease of

13
powder cohesiveness [8, 9]. It can be seen that as powder particle size decreases, both HR and CI

increase gradually, which means the flowability becomes worse. Lu et al. [18] and Chi-Ying Wong

[16] also obtained similar results.

It is because that powders with smaller particle size would be more likely to have higher

voidage at random loose packing state and have a lower aerated bulk density compared to the

powders with larger particle size [37]. Tapping the powders would lead to disruption on the

interparticle forces and the powder particles would rearrange their spatial positions. During the

tapping process, the structure of powders with smaller particle size may collapse significantly and

this kind of powders have more chance to compact, leading to a larger tapped bulk density; while

powders with larger particle size have lower tendency for further consolidation, resulting in lower

tapped bulk density [16]. Chi-Ying Wong [16] and Abdullah et al. [8] both found that the results of

packing properties tests were greatly affected by particle size, and there appeared to be a critical

particle size range above which powder flowability did not show significant improvement.

Furthermore, it can also be seen from Fig. 12 that the values of HR and CI for pulverized coal

powders are larger than those of glass bead powders, which means that the flowability of NL is

worse than that of GB. Compare Fig. 2 with Fig. 3, it can be found that the shape of NL particles

is polyhedral and far from spherical compared to that of GB particles. Hausner [38] also found

that the greater the particle shape deviation from the spherical was, the larger the HR for the bulk

powders was. Meanwhile, the moisture content of NL is larger than that of GB which has nearly

zero moisture content. High moisture content, especially the external moisture content may also

lead to the higher value of HR and CI for NL. According to the research of Abou-Chakra et al.

[39], external moisture content would cause surface tension by physical-chemical bonding and

14
lead to larger cohesion between particles, and powders with higher surface moisture are more

likely to bond together and form agglomerates.

3.3. Angle of repose

AOR test can be used to describe how a powder flow behaves both in dynamic and static

states. When the powder sample is discharged from the funnel and then falling onto the surface of

the powder heap, it is in a dynamic state. After landing on the powder heap and becoming

stationary, it behaves as parts of the powder heap and is then in a static state. Therefore, AOR is a

parameter that indicates the equilibrium between the kinetic energy of falling powder particles and

the interparticle forces among powder particles of the powder heap [5]. Teunou et al. [40]

suggested that AOR is intended to characterize the flowability of uncompacted powders, and is not

reliable for compacted powders in the bottom of a bin or silo. The relationship between particle

size and AOR for each powder are shown in Fig. 13. It can be seen that the values of free-base and

fixed-base AOR are very close and all the AOR data show a variation tendency of decreasing with

the increase of particle size. Larger values of the AOR indicate larger interparticle forces which

will cause the decrease of powder flowability. Geldart et al. [9], Lu et al. [18] and Krantz et al. [5]

also obtained similar results. Generally, powder particles with smaller particle size have larger

specific surface area and higher degree of particle contact, which will cause larger interparticle

adhesion forces, and the particles may stick to each other and prevent themselves from flowing

easily, leading to the formation of powder heaps with steeper slope and resulting in larger AOR [17,

41, 42]. However, Wang et al. [17] carried out experimental study on the AOR of pulverized coal,

and found that the effect of particle size on powder flowability was bifurcated, there existed a

critical particle size corresponding to the minimum value of AOR.

15
 As shown in Fig. 5, the AOR can also be obtained according to the following equation [17]:

h
tan AOR = (7)
r
where h and r are the height and bottom radius of the powder heap, respectively. For a cohesive

powder, the maximum height of the vertical slop can be expressed as [43]:

4c cos φ
h= (8)
ρ b g (1 − sin φ )

where c is the powder cohesion, φ is the angle of internal friction, ρb is powder bulk density and g

is the gravity acceleration. For most particles, φ is commonly about 30 ° [43]. Then Eq. (6) can

be transformed into a simple form as:

4 3c
h= (9)
ρb g

Meanwhile, the following relationship would also exist [44]:

ρb
c∝ (10)
ρ pd p

Combining Eq. (7), (8), (9) and (10), it can be obtained that:

1
tan AOR ∝ (11)
ρ pd p

When further considering the influence of factors like particle shape [44, 45], Eq. (11) can be

modified as:

1
tan AOR ∝ +C (12)
ρ pd p

where C is a constant. As shown in Fig. 14, there indeed exists a good linear relationship between

tan AOR and 1/ρpdp. Here, the average values of free-base and fixed-base AOR are used because

the values of these two kind AOR are very close. Fitting the experimental data, the following two

equations can be obtained for NL and GB, respectively. The corresponding correlation coefficients
16
for linear fitting are both larger than 0.9.

0.02
tan AORNL = + 0.666 (13)
ρ pd p

0.07
tan AORGB = + 0.326 (14)
ρ pd p

From Eq. (13) and (14), it can be seen that apart from particle size, particle density is also an

important power property and its influence on AOR cannot be ignored. For powders with similar

particle size, AOR has a tendency to decrease with the increase of powder density. It may due to

that as powder density increases, the gravity force becomes larger. Compared with interparticle

forces, the gravity force will have a more dominant effect on powder flowability. The powder

particles can flow downward more freely and tend to form powder heaps with gradual slopes,

resulting in lower AOR values.

3.4. Shear test results

FF and c obtained for all the powder samples with pre-consolidation stress of 10 kPa are

shown in Fig. 15. It can be seen that as particle size increases, the FF increases while the c

decreases, indicating that the cohesiveness of the powder decreases and the powder flowability

becomes better. Lu et al. [18] and Liu et al. [4] also found similar results, and the larger values of

FF correspond to better powder flowability.

FF and c are also greatly affected by the pre-consolidation stress which make the powder

particles rearrange to form a closely packed mass [3]. Fig. 16 shows the variation of FF and c with

different pre-consolidation stresses. It can be seen that the FF and c of a given powder are not

constant values, and they both show a variation tendency of increase with increasing

pre-consolidation stress. Similar results were also obtained by Liu et al. [46], Liang et al. [30] and

17
Xie et al. [47]. Liu et al. [4] compared graphically the yield locus and Mohr circles for pulverized

coal samples under different pre-consolidation stress and found that as the pre-consolidation stress

increases, the yield locus move upwards and the values of c increase correspondingly. With higher

pre-consolidation stress, the powder bed compression increases, leading to the increase of

adhesive forces between powder particles, mainly the van der Waals forces for dry powders and

liquid bridges for wet powders [3]. Meanwhile, as the pre-consolidation stress increases, σ1 and σc

would both have a tendency to increase, and the increase amplitude of σc is less than that of σ1 [47].

In theory, σ1 can increase with increasing pre-consolidation stress unlimitedly. However, the

increase of σc would have a certain limit, which means that when the pre-consolidation stress

increases to a value so high that there is no voidage between powder particles, σc would not

increase any more. Consequently, the FF will also increase with the increasing pre-consolidation

stress.

3.5. Comparison of powder characterization methods

In order to investigate the relationship between different characterization techniques, the

results of different testing methods were plotted against each other and compared. Fig. 17 shows

the relationship between AOR and HR for the powder samples. Here, the average values of

free-base and fixed-base AOR are used. The results indicate that there exists a non-linear

relationship between AOR and HR within our experimental range, which can be expressed as

follows:

HR = 0.624 + 0.309e AOR/77.593 + 8.497 × 10−11 e AOR /1.955 (15)

The correlation coefficients for this fitting curve is larger than 0.99. Chi-Ying Wong [16] found

that AOR of a given powder can be conveniently correlated with its HR, also found a good

18
nonlinear correlation for AOR and HR, although the correlation equation they proposed is

somewhat different form Eq. (15). As these two characterization techniques can measure flow

behavior at relatively similar degrees of stress state, the results from these two techniques can be

transferred between each other [5]. That is to say, AOR can be used as a predictor of HR, or

vice-versa. However, the detailed correlations between AOR and HR still need more research to

confirm by performing further comparisons between them.

Fig. 18 shows the relationship between AOR and FF, c. As expected, the FF demonstrates a

trend of decreasing with the increase of AOR, while c has an opposite variation trend. Here, the

linear lines were used to describe the observed variation trends, however, it is not intended to

indicate that a linear relationship shows the best fit. Fig. 19 demonstrates the relationship between

HR and FF, c. It can be seen that as HR increases, FF shows a tendency to decrease nonlinearly,

while c has a tendency to increase nonlinearly. Meanwhile, there are an amount of deviations

between the experimental data and the fitting lines, which may due to that packing properties test

and AOR test do not characterize the testing powders under the similar degrees of stress state as

that of shear test. The packing properties test and AOR test characterize powder samples in a more

dynamic state, while shear test characterize powder samples in a more static or consolidated state

[5]. As discussed above, the values of FF and c obtained from shear test are dependent on the

initial consolidation stress, thus, the relationship between packing properties test and shear test as

well as that between AOR test and shear test may be very complicated and also needs further

investigations. Vasilenko et al. [7] found that the discrepancies and similarities between different

characterization techniques can indicate that there sometimes indeed exists some correlations

between the various testing methods, and a deeper understanding of how these testing methods

19
relate to each other is still required.

Conclusions

The powder flowability of pulverized coal and glass bead powders were characterized by

using different testing methods, including fluidization test, packing properties test, AOR test and

shear test. The data obtained from different testing methods were compared and evaluated to

establish relationships between them. The main results can be summarized from the experiments,

as follows:

(1) The fluidization curves of these powders can be mainly divided into three main regions

including the fully fixed bed region, the incipient fluidization region and the complete fluidization

region, except for those of NL 3# powder. The relative error between experimental Umf and Umf,cal

increases with decreasing particle size, and the semi-empirical correlation for Umf should be used

with caution especially for powders with mean particle size smaller than 100 µm.

(2) As powder particle size increases, the values of HR, CI, AOR, c decrease, while the value

of FF increases gradually, which indicates a decrease of powder cohesiveness and the powder

flowability becomes better.

(3) There exists a good linear relationship between tan AOR and 1/ρp dp. The empirical

correlation equations describing the quantitative relationship between tan AOR and 1/ρp dp were

proposed for pulverized coal and glass bead powders, respectively.

(4) As packing properties test and AOR test can measure flow behavior at relatively similar

degrees of stress state, the results from these two techniques can be transferred between each other.

It was found that there exists a non-linear relationship between AOR and HR within our

experimental range.

20
 (5) As packing properties test and AOR test do not characterize the tested powders under the

similar degrees of stress state as that of shear test, plotting the results of these testing methods

against each other, there are an amount of deviations between the experimental data and the fitting

lines. The relationship between packing properties test and shear test as well as that between AOR

test and shear test are still requiring further investigations.

Nomenclature

A = cross-section area of powder bed [m2]

AOR = angle of repose [°]

CI = compressibility [%]

FF = flow function [-]

FQ = fluidization quality [-]

H = powder bed height [mm]

H0 = initial powder bed height [mm]

HR = Hausner ratio [-]

M = total moisture content [%]

Me = external moisture content [%]

Ubf = beginning fluidization velocity [m/s]

Ucf = complete fluidization velocity [m/s]

Umf = minimum fluidization velocity [m/s]

c = powder cohesion [kPa]

dp = powder particle size [µm]

g = gravity acceleration [m/s2]

21
m = powder mass [kg]

∆p = Pressure drop [Pa]

ρa = aerated bulk density [kg/m3 ]

ρb = bulk density [kg/m3 ]

ρg = gas density [kg/m3 ]

ρp = particle density [kg/m3 ]

ρt = tapped bulk density [kg/m3 ]

φ = internal friction angle [°]

µ = gas viscosity [(N﹒s)/ m2]

σ1 = major consolidation stress [kPa]

σc = unconfined yield strength [kPa]

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51506100),

the Natural Science Fundamental Research Project of Jiangsu Colleges and Universities

(15KJB470008), and the National Basic Research Program of China (2010CB227002).

Literature cited

[1] M.A. Polizzi, J. Franchville, J.L. Hilden, Assessment and predictive modeling of pharmaceutical

powder flow behavior in small-scale hoppers, Powder Technol., 294 (2016) 30-42.

[2] M. Leturia, M. Benali, S. Lagarde, I. Ronga, K. Saleh, Characterization of flow properties of

cohesive powders: A comparative study of traditional and new testing methods, Powder Technol.,

253 (2014) 406-423.

[3] M. Gil, D. Schott, I. Arauzo, E. Teruel, Handling behavior of two milled biomass: SRF poplar and

22
 corn stover, Fuel Process. Technol., 112 (2013) 76-85.

[4] Y. Liu, H. Lu, X. Guo, X. Gong, X. Sun, W. Zhao, An investigation of the effect of particle size on

discharge behavior of pulverized coal, Powder Technol., 284 (2015) 47-56.

[5] M. Krantz, H. Zhang, J. Zhu, Characterization of powder flow: Static and dynamic testing, Powder

Technol., 194 (2009) 239-245.

[6] J.K. Prescott, R.A. Barnum, On powder flowability:, Pharm. Technol., 24 (2000) 60-84.

[7] A. Vasilenko, B.J. Glasser, F.J. Muzzio, Shear and flow behavior of pharmaceutical blends —

Method comparison study, Powder Technol., 208 (2011) 628-636.

[8] E.C. Abdullah, D. Geldart, The use of bulk density measurements as flowability indicators, Powder

Technol., 102 (1999) 151-165.

[9] D. Geldart, E.C. Abdullah, A. Hassanpour, L.C. Nwoke, I. Wouters, Characterization of powder

flowability using measurement of angle of repose, China Particuology, 4 (2006) 104-107.

[10] R.L. Carr, Evaluating flow propertied of solids, Chemical Engineering, 72 (1965) 163-167.

[11] K.E. Ileleji, B. Zhou, The angle of repose of bulk corn stover particles, Powder Technol., 187

(2008) 110-118.

[12] V. Ganesan, K. Muthukumarappan, K.A. Rosentrater, Flow properties of DDGS with varying

soluble and moisture contents using jenike shear testing, Powder Technol., 187 (2008) 130-137.

[13] D.D. Ladipo, V.M. Puri, Computer controlled shear cell for measurement of flow properties of

particulate materials, Powder Technol., 92 (1997) 135-146.

[14] R.J. Berry, M.S.A. Bradley, Investigation of the effect of test procedure factors on the failure loci

and derived failure functions obtained from annular shear cells, Powder Technol., 174 (2007)

60-63.

23
[15] H.Y. Saw, C.E. Davies, J.R. Jones, A.H.J. Paterson, Shear testing of lactose powders: The

influence of consolidation stress and particle size on bulk density and estimated cohesion, Adv.

Powder Technol., 25 (2014) 1164-1170.

[16] A. Chi-Ying Wong, Characterisation of the flowability of glass beads by bulk densities ratio,

Chem. Eng. Sci., 55 (2000) 3855-3859.

[17] W. Wang, J. Zhang, S. Yang, H. Zhang, H. Yang, G. Yue, Experimental study on the angle of

repose of pulverized coal, Particuology, 8 (2010) 482-485.

[18] H. Lu, X. Guo, X. Gong, W. Huang, S. Ma, C. Wang, Study of the flowability of pulverized coals,

Energy Fuels, 23 (2009) 5529-5535.

[19] Y.J. Lee, W.B. Yoon, Flow behavior and hopper design for black soybean powders by particle size,

J. Food Eng., 144 (2015) 10-19.

[20] R. Freeman, Measuring the flow properties of consolidated, conditioned and aerated powders — A

comparative study using a powder rheometer and a rotational shear cell, Powder Technol., 174

(2007) 25-33.

[21] E. Emery, J. Oliver, T. Pugsley, J. Sharma, J. Zhou, Flowability of moist pharmaceutical powders,

Powder Technol., 189 (2009) 409-415.

[22] N. Chevanan, A.R. Womac, V.S.P. Bitra, D.C. Yoder, S. Sokhansanj, Flowability parameters for

chopped switchgrass, wheat straw and corn stover, Powder Technol., 193 (2009) 79-86.

[23] F. Miccio, D. Barletta, M. Poletto, Flow properties and arching behavior of biomass particulate

solids, Powder Technol., 235 (2013) 312-321.

[24] M. Sheikholeslami, Z. Ziabakhsh, D.D. Ganji, Transport of Magnetohydrodynamic nanofluid in a

porous media, Colloids and Surfaces a-Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 520 (2017)

24
 201-212.

[25] M. Sheikholeslami, M.M. Rashidi, T. Hayat, D.D. Ganji, Free convection of magnetic nanofluid

considering MFD viscosity effect, J. Mol. Liq., 218 (2016) 393-399.

[26] M. Sheikholeslami, D.D. Ganji, Transportation of MHD nanofluid free convection in a porous

semi annulus using numerical approach, Chem. Phys. Lett., 669 (2017) 202-210.

[27] H. Li, G. Sun, Determination of total moisture in coal, Chinese Standard Press, 2008.

[28] J.F. Klausner, D. Chen, R. Mei, Experimental investigation of cohesive powder rheology, Powder

Technol., 112 (2000) 94-101.

[29] G. Bruni, P. Lettieri, D. Newton, D. Barletta, An investigation of the effect of the interparticle

forces on the fluidization behaviour of fine powders linked with rheological studies, Chem. Eng.

Sci., 62 (2007) 387-396.

[30] L. Cai, S. Liu, X. Pan, X. Guiling, C. Xiaoping, Z. Changsui, Influence of carbonaceous powders

on flow characteristics of dense-phase pneumatic conveying at high pressure, Exp. Therm Fluid

Sci., 58 (2014) 121-130.

[31] R.R. Schultz, R. Cole, Uncertainty analysis ofboiling nucleation, AlChE Symp. Ser., 75 (1979)

32-38.

[32] M. Sheikholeslami, D.D. Ganji, Heat transfer improvement in a double pipe heat exchanger by

means of perforated turbulators, Energy Convers. Manage., 127 (2016) 112-123.

[33] M. Sheikholeslami, D.D. Ganji, Heat transfer enhancement in an air to water heat exchanger with

discontinuous helical turbulators; experimental and numerical studies, Energy, 116 (2016)

341-352.

[34] W. Yang, Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid-particle Systems, Siemens Westinghouse Power

25
 Corporation, Pittsburgh, 2003.

[35] J.F. Davidson, D. Harrison, Fluidization, Academic Press, London, New York, 1971.

[36] A.M. Sharma, A. Kumar, K.N. Patil, R.L. Huhnke, Fluidization characteristics of a mixture of

gasifier solid residues, switchgrass and inert material, Powder Technol., 235 (2013) 661-668.

[37] S.A. Mohammed, E.C. Abdullah, D. Geldart, A.A.A. Raman, Measuring powder flowability with a

modified Warren Spring cohesion tester, Particuology, 9 (2011) 148-154.

[38] H.H. Hausner, Friction conditions in a mas of metal powder, Int. J. Powder Met., 3: No. 4,

7-13(Oct. 1967). (1967) Medium: X.

[39] H. Abou-Chakra, U. Tüzün, Microstructural blending of coal to enhance flowability, Powder

Technol., 111 (2000) 200-209.

[40] E. Teunou, J. Vasseur, M. Krawczyk, Measurement and interpretation of bulk solids angle of

repose for industrial process design, Powder Handling & Processing, 7 (1995) 219-227.

[41] Q. Li, V. Rudolph, B. Weigl, A. Earl, Interparticle van der Waals force in powder flowability and

compactibility, Int. J. Pharm., 280 (2004) 77-93.

[42] L.J. Jallo, C. Ghoroi, L. Gurumurthy, U. Patel, R.N. Dave, Improvement of flow and bulk density

of pharmaceutical powders using surface modification, Int. J. Pharm., 423 (2012) 213-225.

[43] R.M. Nedderman, Statics and kinematics of granular materials, Cambridge University Press, 2005.

[44] Z. Guo, X. Chen, H. Liu, Q. Guo, X. Guo, H. Lu, Theoretical and experimental investigation on

angle of repose of biomass–coal blends, Fuel, 116 (2014) 131-139.

[45] T.C. Halsey, A.J. Levine, How sandcastles fall, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80 (1998) 3141-3144.

[46] Y. Liu, X.L. Guo, H.F. Lu, X. Gong, An investigation of the effect of particle size on the flow

behavior of pulverized coal, in: W. Ge, Y. Han, J. Wang, L. Wang, X. Liu, J. Zhou, J. Li (Eds.)

26
 New Paradigm of Particle Science and Technology, Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on

Particle Technology, 2015, pp. 698-713.

[47] X. Xie, X. Shen, X. Tang, X. Chen, Study on some factors impacting flowability of pulverized

coal, Journal of China Coal Society, 31 (2008) 85-88.

27
Table Captions

Table 1 Powder properties

Table 2 Uncertainties of the experimental parameters

Table 3 Fluidization test results

Table 1 Powder properties

Me M ρb ρs
Powder ds (µm) 3
（%） （%） (kg/m ) (kg/m3)
NL 1# 702.70 3.30 9.68 710 1220
NL 2# 249.00 3.00 9.25 670 1220
NL 3# 55.00 3.20 9.60 620 1220
GB 1# 166.80 - - 1430 2650
GB 2# 104.30 - - 1400 2650
GB 3# 60.29 - - 1390 2650

Table 2 Uncertainties of the experimental parameters

Parameter Average relative uncertainty

Free-base AOR ± 1.35 %

Fixed-based AOR ± 1.50 %
HR ± 0.80 %
CI ± 0.55 %
FF ± 2.50 %

Table 3 Fluidization test results

Umf Ucf Umf,cal δ

Powder
(cm/s) （cm/s） （cm/s） （%）
NL 1# 20.2 25.5 20.7 2.48
NL 2# 3.03 3.7 3.0 0.99
NL 3# 0.13 - 0.15 15.38
GB 1# 3 3.4 2.97 1
GB 2# 1.25 1.85 1.17 6.4
GB 3# 0.55 0.76 0.39 29.09

28
Figure captions

Fig. 1 Particle size distributions: (a) Neimenggu lignite; (b) Glass bead

Fig. 2 SEM graphs of NL 3#

Fig. 3 SEM graphs of GB 3#

Fig. 4 Fluidization experimental system: 1-Nitrogen gas cylinder; 2-Dehumidifier; 3-Glass

rotameter; 4-Fluidization column; 5-Ruler; 6-Wind box; 7- U-tube manometer

Fig. 5 Two different AORs: (a) free-base AOR; (b) fixed-base AOR

Fig. 6 ShearTrac II shear tester: 1-panel; 2-shear box; 3-load frame; 4-vertical transducers;

5-water bath box; 6-horizontal transducers

Fig. 7 Shear test reports

Fig. 8 Typical pressure drop – gas velocity curve

Fig. 9 Pressure drop, FQ and bed expansion as a function of gas velocity for pulverized coal: (a)

NL 1#; (b) NL 2#; (c) NL 3#

Fig. 10 Pressure drop, FQ and bed expansion as a function of gas velocity for glass bead: (a) GB

1#; (b) GB 2#; (c) GB 3#

Fig. 11 Typical fluidization state of the powder sample

Fig. 12 The relationship between particle size and HR, CI: (a) NL; (b) GB

Fig. 13 The relationship between particle size and AOR: (a) NL; (b) GB

Fig. 14 The relationship between tan AOR and 1/ρsd s

Fig. 15 The relationship between particle size and FF, c: (a) NL; (b) GB

Fig. 16 The relationship between pre-consolidation stress and FF, c: (a) NL 2#; (b) GB 2#

Fig. 17 The relationship between AOR and HR

29
Fig. 18 The relationship between AOR and FF, c

Fig. 19 The relationship between HR and FF, c

30
 Figure 1

12 35
(a) (b)
10 NL 1# 30 GB 1#

Volume fraction (%)

Volume fraction (%)

NL 2# GB 2#
25
8 NL 3# GB 3#
20
6
15
4
10
2 5
0 0
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Particle size (µm) Particle size (µm)

Fig. 1 Particle size distributions: (a) Neimenggu lignite; (b) Glass bead

31
Figure 2

(a) 100x (b) 4000x

Fig. 2 SEM graphs of NL 3#

32
Figure 3

(a) 100x (b) 3000x

Fig. 3 SEM graphs of GB 3#

33
Figure 4

4
5

1 2

Fig. 4 Fluidization experimental system:

1-Nitrogen gas cylinder; 2-Dehumidifier; 3-Glass rotameter; 4-Fluidization column;

5-Ruler; 6-Wind box; 7- U-tube manometer

34
Figure 5

Fig. 5 Two different AORs: (a) free-base AOR; (b) fixed-base AOR

35
Figure 6

Fig. 6 ShearTrac II shear tester:

1-panel; 2-shear box; 3-load frame; 4-vertical transducers; 5-water bath box; 6-horizontal

transducers

36
Figure 7

(a) NL

(b) GB

Fig. 7 Shear test reports

37
Figure 8

Incinipient fluidization
Fixed bed region
Complete fluidization
region region

Pressure drop (Pa)

Ubf Umf Ucf U (cm/s)

Fig. 8 Typical pressure drop – gas velocity curve [35]

38
 Figure 9

1.5 1.30
1.4
(a) (b) (c)
1.4 1.25
1.3
1.3
1.20 1.2
1.2
1.15 H/H0 1.1 H/H0
H/ H0
1.1
1.10 1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

FQ FQ FQ
0.2 0.2 0.2
600 500
600 400
450
450 300
300 300
200
150 ∆p 150 100
∆p ∆p
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
u (cm/s) U (cm/s) U (cm/s)

Fig. 9 Pressure drop, FQ and bed expansion as a function of gas velocity for pulverized coal:

(a) NL 1#; (b) NL 2#; (c) NL 3#

39
 Figure 10

1.12 1.16
1.12
(a) (b) (c)
1.10
1.12
1.08 1.08

1.06 1.08
1.04
1.04 H/H0 H/H0 H/H0
1.04
1.02 1.00
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.8
0.8 0.8
0.6
0.6 0.6
0.4
FQ FQ FQ
0.2 0.4 0.4
1250 1200
1000 1200
900
750
900
500
600
600
250 ∆p ∆p
∆p
0 300 300
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
U (cm/s) U (cm/s) U (cm/s)

Fig. 10 Pressure drop, FQ and bed expansion as a function of gas velocity for glass bead:

(a) GB 1#; (b) GB 2#; (c) GB 3#

40
Figure 11

Fig. 11 Typical fluidization state of the powder sample

41
 Figure 12

1.8 80 1.20 15

1.6 HR 1.16 HR
60 12
CI CI
1.4 1.12

CI (%)

CI (%)
HR
HR

40 9
1.2 1.08
20 6
1.0 1.04
(a) (b)
0.8 0 1.00 3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Particle size (µm) Particle size (µm)

Fig. 12 The relationship between particle size and HR, CI: (a) NL; (b) GB

42
 Figure 13

48 40

free-base free-base
44
fixed-base 35 fixed-base

40

AOR (°)
AOR (°)

30
36

25
32
(a) (b)
28 20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Particle size (µm) Particle size (µm)

Fig. 13 The relationship between particle size and AOR: (a) NL; (b) GB

43
Figure 14

1.0

0.9

0.8

tan AOR
0.7

0.6 NL
GB
0.5 Fitting linear relationship
Fitting linear relationship
0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
1/ρsds

Fig. 14 The relationship between tan AOR and 1/ρsd s

44
Figure 15

4.0 5 5.0 3.0

FF FF
3.5 4.5
c c
4 2.5
3.0 4.0

c (kPa)

c (kPa)
2.5 3 3.5 2.0

FF
FF

2.0 3.0
2 1.5
1.5 2.5
(a) (b)
1.0 1 2.0 1.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Particle size (µm) Particle size (µm)

Fig. 15 The relationship between particle size and FF, c: (a) NL; (b) GB

45
Figure 16

6 6.0 7 3.00
(a) (b)
5.5 6
5 2.75
5.0
5

c (kPa)

c (kPa)
FF

FF
4 4.5 2.50
4
4.0 FF
3 FF c 2.25
c 3.5 3

2 3.0 2 2.00
10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30
Preconsolidation stress (kPa) Preconsolidation stress (kPa)

Fig. 16 The relationship between pre-consolidation stress and FF, c: (a) NL 2#; (b) GB 2#

46
Figure 17

1.8

1.6 Experimental data

Fitting curve

HR
1.4

1.2

1.0
25 30 35 40 45
AOR (°)

Fig. 17 The relationship between AOR and HR

47
Figure 18

5 15

4 12

3 9

c (kPa)
FF
2 6

1 3

0 0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
AOR (°)

Fig. 18 The relationship between AOR and FF, c

48
Figure 19

5 15

4 12

3 9

c (kPa)
FF
2 6

1 3

0 0
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
HR

Fig. 19 The relationship between HR and FF, c

49