On Powder
Flowability
James K. Prescott* and Roger A. Barnum
S
everal pharmaceutical processes,
including blending, transfer, stor-
age, feeding, compaction, and flu-
idization, involve powder handling.
JENIKE & JOHANSON, INC.
(The term powder is used predominantly
throughout this article, but these concepts
also apply to other bulk solids — fine and
coarse — such as dust, granulations, and
granules either as single substances or as
multicomponent blends.) The flow of
powder during manufacturing dictates
The term powder flowability is the quality of the product in terms of its
used loosely and has generally weight and content uniformity. Flow also
been more closely associated to affects manufacturing efficiency, because
the test method used to measure it can determine whether bins can be used
it than the significance to the or hand scooping will be required, to what
extent product (if any) is scrapped at the
process. To the formulator, beginning or end of the run, and the al-
flowability is linked to the lowable production rate of product (e.g.,
product. To the engineer, blend times and compression speeds).
flowability relates to the process. During formulation development, the
Relating powder flowability flow of a blend may affect excipient se-
results to actual behavior in the lection and may dictate whether direct
compression is used or some form of
production process is the true granulation is required. A full under-
reason flowability is measured. standing of powder-flow behavior is es-
This article connects typical sential when addressing segregation prob-
powder handling processes to lems. In extreme cases, the success or
flow property measurements of failure of a product has hinged on its flow
value to the formulator and the behavior during manufacturing.
Given the importance of powder flow,
process engineer. the pharmaceutical industry still relies
suprisingly heavily on flow properties that
James K. Prescott is are poorly understood and applied. To be
senior project engineer and sure, science currently has little to offer
Roger A. Barnum is about several aspects of powder flow, and
project engineer at Jenike &
therefore prior experience is required.
Johanson, Inc., One
Technology Drive, Westford, However, much proven scientific under-
MA 01886, tel. 978.392.0300, standing of bulk powder flow has not been
fax 978.392.9980, e-mail used fully by the pharmaceutical industry.
jkprescott@jenike.com This article discusses powder flowability
*To whom all correspondence in the context of various pharmaceutical
should be addressed. production processes. By connecting ap-
60 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
propriate test methods to the typical
pharmaceutical applications in which
interparticle motion occurs and powder
flowability is of concern, manufacturers
can decide which test methods best pre-
dict the flow behavior that will occur in a
given application. (References 1–10, 34,
and 36 describe some test methods, in-
cluding the strengths and weaknesses of
particular testers.)
Flowability defined
A simple definition of powder flowability
is the ability of a powder to flow. By this
definition, flowability is sometimes
thought of as a one-dimensional charac-
teristic of a powder, whereby powders can
be ranked on a sliding scale from free-
flowing to nonflowing. Unfortunately, this
simplistic view lacks the science and un-
derstanding sufficient to address common
problems encountered by the formulator
and equipment designer.
Those who work with powder, whether
in the lab or in production, quickly rec-
ognize that powder flow is complex. Flow
behavior is multidimensional and does in
fact depend on many powder character-
istics. For this reason, no one test could
ever quantify flowability. To address this
multivariable problem, some suggest that
all possible test values be considered; oth-
ers propose that these values be factored
into a single flowability index.
Flowability can never be expressed as a
single value or index. In fact, flowability is
not an inherent material property at all.
Flowability is the result of the combina-
tion of material physical properties that
affect material flow and the equipment
used for handling, storing, or processing
the material. Equal consideration must be
given to both the material characteristics
www.phar maportal.com

Figure 1: An example of a rathole.
and the equipment. The same powder may
flow well in one hopper but poorly in
another. Likewise, a given hopper may
handle one powder well but cause another
powder to hang up. Therefore, a more ac-
curate definition of powder flowability is
the ability of powder to flow in a desired
manner in a specific piece of equipment.
With this definition, the term free flowing,
so commonly used, becomes meaningless
unless the specific equipment handling the
material is specified.
The specific bulk characteristics and
properties of a powder that affect flow and
that can in principle be measured are
known as flow properties. Examples of flow
properties include density (compressibil-
ity), cohesive strength, and wall friction.
These flow properties refer to the behav-
ior of the bulk material and arise from the
collective forces acting on individual par-
ticles (e.g., van der Waals, electrostatic,
surface tension, interlocking, friction).
Rumpf and Podczeck provide more in-
formation about underlying particle prop-
erties that contribute to flow behavior
(11,12).
Flow property data themselves do not
refer to specific equipment that may
handle the powder and, therefore, should
not be confused with flowability. Flow
property data refer to the powder alone. To
be clear, the terms powder flow and powder
flow properties should not be used synony-
mously. Powder flow is an observation and
should refer to a description of how mate-
rial will flow (or did flow) in a given piece
of equipment (e.g., “the powder flow
through the press hopper was steady, with-
out surging”). Powder flow properties
should refer to test results of the powder
(e.g.,“at a consolidating pressure of 10 psf,
the unconfined yield strength is 2 psf ”).
When discussing or reporting flowability,
62 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
one must include both the powder flow
properties and the handling equipment.
Flowability is a factor for several
processes in the pharmaceutical industry.
These include
● powder transfer through comparatively
large equipment such as providing con-
sistent flow out of a blender, bin, drum
hopper, Y-branch/chute, press hopper,
or dust collector
● powder storage, which could for example
result in caking tendencies within a vial,
drum, bin, or bag after shipping or stor-
age time
● separation of a small quantity of pow-
der from the bulk — specifically just be-
fore the creation of individual doses such
as during tableting, encapsulation, and
vial filling, where feed consistency to and
through the equipment governs the uni-
formity of weight of the dose
● blending, in which the quality of the re-
sulting blend depends on the type of
blender used and on the flow behavior
of powder during the blend cycle
● compaction processes (e.g., roller com-
paction and tablet compression)
● fluidization, whether for assisting flow
or for fluidized-bed processing such as
granulation and drying
● purely comparative, physical test meth-
ods to compare two powders (or two
lots or two suppliers). This test method
may be used as a quality control (QC)
check. In this case only, the flow prop-
erty measurement may be intended
solely to distinguish between powders,
not necessarily providing any specific
insight into the behavior of a particular
powder within the equipment.
For each of these applications, various
types of handling equipment can be used.
The flow behavior of the same powder
between applications may be quite dif-
ferent. For example, a powder that flows
well through a bin may flow poorly at the
tablet press. Currently, no universal
mathematical model exists to predict
powder flow behavior in every situation,
nor is such a universal model for powder
flow anywhere in sight. A promising ap-
proach, but still currently far into the fu-
ture for those in industry, is discrete ele-
ment modeling. However, this approach
still relies on physical measurements of
individual particles and those surfaces
with which they interact, and it requires
precise numerical models and massive
computational power by current stan-
dards. Therefore, in working with the
technology available to industry today,
each of the previously listed processes re-
quires appropriate flow property tests to
characterize and predict the actual flow
behavior within the equipment.
Powder transfer
When a raw or in-process material or
product is in bulk form, it must be trans-
ferred between pieces of equipment for
storage, transportation, or processing.
These transfers are usually driven by grav-
ity and typically involve dropping prod-
uct from a blender or portable container,
bin, silo, or drum (collectively referred to
as a bin in this article) by opening a valve.
Typically, these steps involve large quan-
tities of powder with particles in contact
with one another, and these contacts may
be changing continuously. The size of the
equipment involved, particularly the out-
lets and transfer chutes (if used), also is
usually large (e.g., greater than several
inches in diameter).
Several problems can develop as mate-
rial flows through the equipment. If the
powder has cohesive strength, an arch or
rathole may form. An arch is a stable ob-
struction that forms within the hopper
section (i.e., the converging portion of the
bin) usually near the bin outlet. Such an
arch supports the rest of the bin’s contents,
preventing discharge of the remaining
powder. A rathole is a stable pipe or verti-
cal cavity that empties above the bin out-
let (see Figure 1). Material is left stranded
in stagnant zones that usually remain in
place until an external force is applied to
dislodge it. Erratic flow is the result of an
obstruction alternating between an arch
and a rathole.
Other flow problems related to the state
of aeration or density of the powder can
occur during powder discharge. The dis-
charge of sufficiently fine powders can cre-
ate flooding: When a rathole collapses, the
falling particles entrain air and become
fluidized. If the solids-handling equip-
ment cannot handle fluids, powder will
flood through the system uncontrollably.
Even if the powder is contained, its bulk
density can undergo dramatic variations
once fluidized, negatively affecting down-
stream equipment. On the other hand,
www.phar maportal.com

Moving
Stagnant
Funnel flow Mass flow
Figure 2: Examples of funnel flow and mass flow patterns.
the flowing channel, often resulting in the
formation of a stable rathole. In addition,
funnel flow can increase the extent to which
segregation affects the discharging powder.
In mass flow, all of the powder is in mo-
tion whenever any is withdrawn. Powder
from the center as well as from the pe-
riphery moves toward the outlet. Mass
flow provides a first in–first out flow se-
quence, eliminates stagnant powder, pro-
vides a steady discharge with a consistent
bulk density, and yields a flow that is uni-
form and well controlled. Mass flow also
reduces the extent to which some types of
segregation affect the powder. Although
all of the material is moving, velocity pro-
files may still exist within the hopper (see
Figure 3).
Requirements for achieving mass flow
Figure 3: Model test showing flow profiles in include sizing the outlet large enough to
a hopper. prevent an arch from forming and ensur-
ing that the hopper walls are steep and
flow-rate limitations also may occur when smooth enough to promote flow along
fine powders are handled. The expansion them. Several flow properties are relevant
of voids during flow can create upward air to making such predictions. These prop-
pressure gradients at the outlet of dis- erties are based on a continuum theory of
charge equipment. During discharge, this powder behavior — namely, that powder
gradient acting against gravity reduces or behavior can be described as a gross phe-
limits the discharge rate. nomenon, neglecting the interaction of
The occurrence of these flow problems individual particles. The application of
is strongly affected by the flow pattern of a this theory using these properties has been
powder during discharge from a bin. Two proven over the past 40 years in thousands
flow patterns can develop: funnel flow and of installations handling the full spectrum
mass flow (see Figure 2). In funnel flow, an of powders used in industry (13).
active flow channel forms above the outlet Armed with information about the flow
with nonflowing powder at the periphery. properties of a powder, engineers can op-
This is a first in–last out flow sequence. As timize the selection of transfer equipment.
the level of powder decreases, layers of non- These same properties can be used as a
flowing powder may or may not slide into basis for retrofitting existing equipment
64 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
to correct flow problems. Formulators can
use these properties during product de-
velopment to predict flow behavior in ex-
isting equipment. Flow properties that are
generally of most interest are described in
the following paragraphs.
Cohesive strength. Consolidation of pow-
der may create arching and ratholing
within transfer equipment. These behav-
iors are related to the cohesive strength of
the powder, which is a function of the ap-
plied consolidation pressure. To show the
significance of this property, one could
imagine squeezing a material such as wet
sand or snow in one’s hand. The material
may gain sufficient strength to retain its
shape once the hand is opened. In a lab,
cohesive strength can be measured accu-
rately by a direct shear method. ASTM
standard D6128-97 describes the most
universally accepted method (2).
By measuring the required shear force
for various vertical loads, one can develop
a relationship describing the cohesive
strength of the powder as a function of
the consolidating pressure (14). This re-
lationship, known as a flow function, can
be analyzed to determine the minimum
outlet diameters for bins, press hoppers,
blender outlets, etc. to prevent arching and
ratholing (see Figure 4).
Other testing methods use the same
principles of consolidation and shearing
to determine the cohesive strength of a
bulk powder. Annular (ring) shear testers
produce a rotational, rather than a lateral,
displacement between cell halves con-
taining material. Because of the unlimited
travel that can be achieved with this type
of test cell, the loading and shearing op-
erations are more readily adapted to auto-
mation. Successful use of this test method
to demonstrate differences in cohesive
strength relating to handling characteris-
tics has been discussed in the industry
(15–18).
Internal friction. Internal friction values
are important when characterizing the
flow properties of a powder. Such friction
is caused by solid particles flowing against
each other and is expressed as an angle of
internal friction. This angle can be mea-
sured using the cohesive strength tests de-
scribed previously.
Wall friction. Used in a continuum
model, wall friction (particles sliding along
a surface) is expressed as the wall friction
www.phar maportal.com
 sliding to the normal force
applied to the wall material
Unconfined yield strength
coupon. A plot of the mea-
Cohesive
material sured shear force as a func-
tion of the applied normal
Easy-flowing load generates a relationship
material
known as the wall yield locus.
This flow property is a func-
tion of the powder handled
and the wall surface in con-
tact with it. Variations in the
Major consolidating pressure
material or the wall surface
Figure 4: Example of flow functions.
finish can have a dramatic
effect on the resulting fric-
tion coefficient (19). Wall
Normal force friction can be used to de-
Cover termine the hopper angles
Bracket
Ring required to achieve mass
flow (see Figure 6). Any
combination of w9 and uc
Bulk solid
that lie in the mass flow re-
Shear gion provides mass flow. The
force grey bounding zone is an
Sample of wall material uncertain region.
Bulk density. The bulk
Figure 5: Set up for wall-friction test. density of a given powder is
not a single or dual value;
rather it varies as a function
uc
of the applied consolidating
408 pressure. Various methods
Funnel
Wall friction angle, f9
flow can be used in industry to
308
measure bulk density. These
methods incorporate vari-
208
Mass ous-sized containers that are
flow measured for volume after
108
being loosely filled with a
08 known mass of material and
08 108 208 308 408 508 then are measured again
Hopper angle from vertical (uc) after vibration or tapping.
USP 24/NF 19 describes one
Figure 6: Example of a mass flow angle design for a conical frequently used approach
hopper. for measuring the bulk
(loose) and tapped density
angle or the coefficient of sliding friction. (20). Although such methods can offer
As the coefficient of sliding friction in- some repeatability with respect to the con-
creases, the hopper or chute walls must be ditions under which measurements are
steeper for a powder to flow along them. taken, they don’t represent the actual com-
The friction coefficient can be measured paction behavior a powder may undergo
by sliding a sample of powder in a test cell during bulk transfer operations.
across a stationary wall surface using a In a more complete approach, one can
shear tester (2,14). Figure 5 shows one assess the degree to which a powder com-
arrangement of a test cell. In this case, a pacts as a function of the applied pressure
coupon of the wall material being evalu- (13,14). Results often are expressed as a
ated is held in place on the frame of the straight line on a log-log plot (see Figure
machine, with a cell of powder placed 7). In the literature discussing bulk solids,
above. The coefficient of sliding friction is the slope of this line typically is called com-
the ratio of the shear force required for pressibility. The resulting data can be used
66 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
to accurately determine capacities for pro-
cessing, storage, and transfer equipment
as well as to provide information for evalu-
ating wall friction and feeder operation
requirements.
Permeability. The expansion of voids
during flow can create air pressure gradi-
ents within the powder bed, resulting in
flow-rate limitations when fine powders
are handled. The permeability of a pow-
der (i.e., its ability to allow air to pass
through it) controls the discharge rate that
can be achieved. Sizing the outlet of a bin
or choosing the diameter of a transfer
chute should take into consideration the
desired powder flow rate.
Permeability is measured as a function
of bulk density (13). The method typically
used involves measuring the flow rate of
air at a specific pressure drop through a
sample of known density and height. Once
this relationship is determined (see Figure
8), it can be used to calculate critical pow-
der discharge rates that will be achieved
for steady-flow conditions though various
orifice sizes. Higher rates may occur, but
they will do so in a nonsteady or erratic
manner, which can have undesirable side
effects such as poor weight control or
flooding. Permeability values can be used
to calculate the time required for fine pow-
ders to settle or deaerate in the equipment
and to design efficient drying or purging
systems (discussed later in this article).
Once these properties have been deter-
mined for a powder, they can be used to
analyze existing equipment to prevent or
solve handling problems (14,21). For in-
stance, ratholing within a portable con-
tainer or feed hopper could possibly be
prevented by selecting a wall surface fin-
ish that provides mass flow at the existing
hopper angle or by changing the hopper
design. An insert can be properly designed
to activate flow in a hopper that would
otherwise be too shallow to provide mass
flow. Arching can be eliminated by in-
creasing the outlet size of a hopper to
greater than the minimum requirement
determined from the cohesive-strength
test. Problems achieving weight control
also can be eliminated by the use of mass
flow, which provides a uniform bulk den-
sity at the outlet that is nearly indepen-
dent of the material level. If limiting dis-
charge rates occur, an analysis of the
handling system can provide guidelines
www.phar maportal.com

1
Bulk density, g/cm3
0.1
10
Figure 7: Example of a bulk density versus consolidating pressure plot.
for changing capacity, discharge method,
or outlet size.
Analysis of the discharge flow pattern
can provide insight into other types of
problems. Of particular interest is segre-
gation, which can be very complex in
terms of its cause and compounding fac-
tors. Segregation that has led to side-to-
side variations in material concentration
often can be minimized using mass flow,
which recombines these different regions
at the outlet (22).
Finally, if new equipment is being con-
sidered, potential problems can be pre-
vented. Using flow property data, engi-
neers can accordingly select handling
equipment.
Powder storage
During processing, immediate transfer and
consumption of a powder are not always
possible or desired because of the need for
analysis, equipment availability, or trans-
porting between facilities and companies.
In such cases, bulk material is stored in a
container (e.g., a package, drum, or vessel).
As in the case of flowing material, particles
are in contact with each other. However,
these contacts do not change continuously.
Prolonged contact, in conjunction with
moisture and pressure from the weight of
material above, may alter the bonds be-
tween particles as well as the particles
themselves. Moisture migration, aging, re-
68 Pharmaceutical Technology
100 1000
Consolidating pressure (lb/ft2)
crystallization, or reactions that absorb or
give off heat may lead to dramatic gains
in cohesive strength, agglomeration of
smaller particles into larger ones, or cak-
ing. External forces such as vibration in-
duced during transportation or storage
methods (stacking of containers that de-
form) exacerbate these effects. Expansion
and contraction resulting from tempera-
ture changes also can significantly con-
tribute to increased consolidation. Each
of these factors can create a problem by
itself, but combining the factors com-
pounds problems further. As a result of
these conditions, an increase of cohesive
strength can make discharge from the con-
tainer extremely difficult or impossible
because of the problems caused by arch-
ing or ratholing. If stronger bonds lead to
significant caking, the material may not
be usable at all.
The potential for these time-depen-
dent effects to occur can be investigated
by measuring the gain in cohesive
strength of the powder after time at rest.
The direct-shear tester is a method in
which a vertical load can be applied and
held for a specified time (2). External in-
fluences such as variable humidity or
temperature can be applied during these
tests. After the appropriate time has
passed, a horizontal shearing force is ap-
plied and measured. The correlation be-
tween the cohesive strength of the pow-
OCTOBER 2000
der as a function of the consolidating
pressure after storage at rest then is
developed (14).
This new time-dependent flow function
can be analyzed to determine the mini-
mum outlet diameters for converging
geometries to prevent arching and rathol-
ing. A comparison with the continuous-
flow test results will show what strength
the powder has gained and what changes
in equipment geometry are needed to over-
come these gains. Conversely, the tests may
show that, after a given time period and
set of external influences, the material can
no longer be expected to flow under grav-
ity alone. Such important distinctions pro-
vide valuable insight into the storage
requirements for a powder and whether
environmental controls or special handling
are needed to avoid potential problems.
Separating a small quantity of
powder from the bulk
In pharmaceutical processes involving
powder handling, at some point a small
quantity of powder must be separated
from a larger blend or mass of powder,
e.g., when producing tablets or filling
vials. Solid dosage forms weighing less
than a gram often are created from a batch
perhaps larger than 1000 kg. Ideally, each
of these dosage forms is identical in
weight and composition. For most sys-
tems — in particular for automated, high-
speed systems — consistent powder flow
at this point in the process is essential to
provide consistent weight of individual
doses. Because of poor powder flow, a
slow-speed process that works well may
not work at all when rates are increased.
Therefore, at higher speeds, a steady feed
rate and a consistent bulk density of the
powder are required.
In many of these operations, particles
are forced into a die cavity or vial (open-
ing). If the powder has sufficient fluidity,
gravity alone can quickly fill the opening.
A combination of these two methods also
can be used. With equipment that creates
an individual dose, the openings are usu-
ally small, typically less than 0.25 in.
Manufacturers often use mechanical as-
sistance in the form of paddle feeders,
wipers, doctor blades, or agitator arms.
These devices force the powder into the
cavity and/or aerate the powder so it be-
haves more like a liquid and less like a
www.phar maportal.com

0.01
Permeability K0, ft/s
0.001
0.0001
0.1
Figure 8: Example of a permeability versus bulk density plot.
powder. Complicating the flow behavior
— and incidentally, complicating the
analysis — is the typical presence of sig-
nificant ambient vibration that is trans-
mitted to the powder and, depending on
how and where it is applied, could assist
or hinder flow.
Another variable that must be consid-
ered is the effect of triboelectrification, or
building of a static charge, created by the
fast flow of powder. This phenomenon is
transient and can be difficult to reproduce,
identify, and quantify. Yet triboelectrifi-
cation can have a pronounced effect on
the interparticle forces that affect flow.
In these processes, particle velocities are
quite high, and there is significant inter-
particle motion; that is, contacts between
particles are short lived. In fact, as the pow-
der becomes aerated, particle-to-particle
contacts may not be sufficient to transmit
solids pressure, and the assumption that
the powder can be treated as a contact bed
fails. Because of this behavior, and because
of the small openings and low solids pres-
sures involved, techniques used for hop-
per design cannot be used to predict flow.
Although many operations could be
considered, tableting is quite common
and illustrates the principles involved. In
tableting, the ability of the powder to flow
into the small die is key to producing con-
sistent tablet weights. This tendency is
70 Pharmaceutical Technology
1 improve die filling.
3
Bulk density, g/cm
governed by the ability of particles to sep-
arate from one another (low particle-to-
particle cohesion) and the state of aera-
tion of the powder. In turn, the state of
aeration is governed by other flow prop-
erties of the powder such as permeability
and compressibility, as well as the equip-
ment that handles the powder (e.g., press-
hopper shape) and handling history (e.g.,
storage time before compression and flow
rate through the equipment). However,
even if one knows these parameters one
cannot predict flow behavior during sepa-
ration of the dose.
Within the realm of tablet presses, the
design and operation of the feed frames
used to meter powder onto the die table
can vary. Between press manufacturers,
and even within a line of presses, there are
various paddle diameters, heights, speeds,
shapes, as well as various numbers of pad-
dles and blades. This means that a powder
can have differences in flow between equip-
ment, simply because of the variations with
the feed frame itself. For a given design,
control of the feed rate onto the die table
is critical. If the rate is too slow, the dies
are starved. If it’s too fast, then the pow-
der can deaerate and/or densify in an in-
consistent manner before fill. Both of these
situations lead to erratic tablet weights.
Again, flowability is a function of the
material being handled and the equipment
OCTOBER 2000
used to handle the material. As Shangraw
states, “There are two basic approaches to
increasing die feeding efficiency: a) to force
material into the die cavity; b) to improve
the flow properties of material directly
above the die cavity so that the material
will naturally flow downward. The latter
approach appears to be more realistic and
serves as the basis for most tablet machine
modifications for improvement of die fill”
(23). Note that as is often the case, there
is confusion with terminology in these
statements. Flow properties cannot be
modified without some chemical or physi-
cal change to the material (e.g., moisture
or particle size). Flowability, on the other
hand, can be improved by machine modi-
fications, which may serve to aerate the
material to allow it to “naturally flow” and
Because of the complexity of powder
flow through a feed frame, onto a table,
and into dies, no first principles have been
developed to describe or model the flow
behavior. The continuum model, which
works well for powder flowing in a bin, is
less descriptive of this process and fails to
always predict the true flow behavior.
Without a model or theory of how pow-
der flows within a feed frame, it is im-
possible to apply any bench-scale test
results to predict true performance. Em-
pirical modeling is therefore required. Be-
cause of the complexity of the problem,
nothing less than an actual full-scale test
can describe the true flow behavior. Such
tests can be inconvenient, expensive, or
impossible.
Unfortunately in most cases,“The most
efficient means of measuring the effective-
ness of a glidant in a powder blend” (or
other behavior) “is to compress the blend
and determine weight variation” (21). Full-
scale tests have their drawbacks, especially
when the next new material or press is pre-
sented. To paraphrase Lippens, another
problem with empirical approaches is the
possibility of a never-ending series of arti-
cles in which authors prove that their (new)
empirical equation based on their own data
predicts behavior better than an already
published empirical relation (24). This situ-
ation is a result of the nature of the multi-
variable problem of combining different
powders, test methods, and applications.
Instead of theoretical models or de-
tailed, complete, proven, empirical mod-
www.phar maportal.com

Figure 9: Examples of (a) free-flowing and (b) weakly cohesive powder blends (courtesy of F.J.
Muzzio and T. Shinbrut, Rutgers University).
els to predict flow through a press feed
frame, the industry relies on surrogate tests
as indicators. Traditional tests are angle of
repose, Carr indices (3), Hausner ratio (the
ratio of tapped to loose bulk density)
minimum orifice diameter, and flow rate
through a funnel. Shear cell and avalanche
tests also are used, though less often. None
of these small-scale tests simulate the state
of aeration of the powder before the feed
frame nor the effects of the feed frame it-
self, both of which have a significant ef-
fect on the arching tendency and the maxi-
mum flow rate of the powder. Most
important, none of these tests give a physi-
cal parameter directly linked to the flow
at the press. Instead, it is hoped that flow-
test result trends will correlate to tablet
weight relative standard deviation (RSD),
as may have been the case with a prior
product or application.
Arguably, tests for minimum orifice di-
ameter and flow rate through a funnel seem
more applicable for predicting the maxi-
mum rate of compression because these
measurements most closely simulate the
need to fill a small die as fast as possible.
However, rarely have published papers cited
a strong correlation between any of these
flow properties and weight variations dur-
ing the creation of a dose. Nyquist discov-
ered a correlation by relating shear cell data
to tablet weight RSD and frequency of
tablet machine adjustments (17).
Because none of these flow property test
results can reliably predict flow behavior,
the easiest test method often is used with-
out regard to the significance of the re-
sults. This is analogous to the anecdote of
the person searching for a lost wallet under
the streetlight because the light is better,
although the wallet was lost well away
72 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
from the streetlight in the dark. Unfortu-
nately, no one yet has shed light on how
to properly address powder flow on the
press using first principles that can be
quantified with a bench-scale tester.
Capsule filling is another example of
how flow properties can be used as a pre-
dictor. Unlike a tableting operation, a
capsule-filling operation requires the
powder to have sufficient strength to
form a plug and remain in the dosage
tube until the plug is ejected into the cap-
sule shell. (These criteria can be deter-
mined based on wall friction and cohe-
sive strength tests.) At the same time, the
remaining bed of powder must be suffi-
ciently free flowing to collapse to fill in
the void that was created. Again, empiri-
cal approaches are usually taken in which
a correlation of flow behavior to some
standard flow property test is desired.
Other applications in which a unit dose
is created and powder flow is a concern
— outside of traditional tablets and cap-
sules — include inhalers and electrostatic
deposition of active drug onto tablets.
These and other novel processes require
new tools to investigate the effect of flow-
ability during the creation of the unit dose.
Flow of powder during blending
Blending is accomplished by a combina-
tion of three primary mechanisms: shear,
convection, and diffusion (or dispersion).
The extent to which each of these mech-
anisms occurs is a function of many vari-
ables. One set of variables relates to the
equipment itself such as blender type and
speed of operation. Another set of critical
variables involves the flow properties of
the powders being blended. For instance,
with the diffusion mechanism, particles
migrate (or diffuse) through a dilated or
expanded bed of powder. The ability of
the bed to dilate and the ability of particles
to migrate depend highly upon the cohe-
sive strength of the powder. Powders with
little cohesive strength dilate more read-
ily. Therefore, shorter blend times can be
achieved if the major component of the
blend is more free flowing. On the other
hand, if convection is considered, a mod-
erately cohesive powder may blend faster
because chaotic patterns are introduced
(see Figure 9). Ultimately, though, free-
flowing blends may segregate easily upon
subsequent handling, particularly if the
different components of the blend do not
adhere to one another. A better blend may
be achieved if the minor component is
somewhat cohesive or has a tendency to
adhere to the major component of the
blend. (This latter instance is referred to
as an ordered or adhesive blend). In addi-
tion, a better blend may be obtained and
maintained if the blend as a whole is
slightly cohesive compared with a blend
that is free flowing (25).
As with other applications, powder flow
behavior in a blender is a function of the
equipment used and the material proper-
ties — they cannot be separated. As with
flow through a press feed frame, flow dur-
ing blending is complex, and currently no
first principles exist that adequately describe
blending behavior or blendability. Ideally,
one would conduct a bench scale test on
each component to be blended. These re-
sults would then describe the appropriate
blender to use, the proper order of addition
of each component, and the appropriate
speed of operation to provide a homoge-
nous blend in the shortest time. The scien-
tific community appears to be a long way
from developing such first principles or
even complete numerical descriptors of
blending behavior. Therefore, although a
cohesive-strength test may be a useful in-
dicator of how a blender may perform, ul-
timately, blender selection is an empirical,
try-it-and-see, experienced-based approach.
Clearly, given the importance of a uniform
blend, further work is needed in this area.
Unfortunately for the formulator, the
flow properties of a blend of materials can-
not be determined based on the flow prop-
erties of the individual components that
make up a blend. A blend consisting of an
excipient with 1% active ingredient does
www.phar maportal.com
not have 99% of the flow behavior of the
excipient summed with 1% of the flow be-
havior of the active. As an example of the
complexity of the problem, consider col-
loidal silicon dioxide: By itself, the mate-
rial is very difficult to handle in bulk form
because of its poor flow properties. How-
ever, when added in small amounts to
other powders, it is a glidant that improves
flow behavior.
Compaction processes
Dry granulation processes such as roller
compaction, pelletization, and slugging
are commonly used to improve flow prop-
erties or to produce a more uniform blend.
Flow properties used in the analysis of
bulk powder flow also are used to analyze
compaction processes.
A compaction process involves three
basic steps: the application of consolidat-
ing stress to the powder, the removal of
the stress, then ejection of the compact
(26). When stress is applied to the pow-
der, particles initially rearrange themselves
to produce a higher density. Ultimately,
however, the particles deform and transi-
tion from elastic deformation to plastic
deformation or brittle fracture. As this
happens, bonding takes place between par-
ticles. The removal of air from the pow-
der also occurs during the consolidation
step. As stress is applied and the bulk den-
sity is increased, the powder flows within
the compact.
The strength of the resulting compact
will depend on the maximum solids pres-
sure (particle-to-particle) generated during
the consolidation step. This maximum
solids pressure is equal to the total pressure
applied (e.g., by the rolls or punch) minus
the interstitial air pressure that develops
within the compact. It is important to note
that the total applied pressure is easily and
commonly measured; however, the solids
pressure alone — which is virtually impos-
sible to measure — provides bonding
strength. The distribution between the solids
pressure and the interstitial air pressure is
a function of the powder flow properties.
The last two steps of compaction — re-
moval of stress and ejection of the com-
pact — involve elastic recovery, air expan-
sion and escape, flaw development, and
possibly fracture initiation such as capping
and lamination. Ideally, little, if any, inter-
particle motion takes place within the com-
74 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
pact at this point, though flow properties
can once again be used to ensure that flow
(compact failure) does not occur.
Powder flow behavior in a roll press is
a good example of how powder flow prop-
erties can be used to predict compaction
behavior. (Miller provides a review of roll
compaction processes [27].) As stated pre-
viously, the resulting strength of the com-
pact will depend on the generated solids
pressure (i.e., the total applied pressure less
the interstitial air pressure that develops).
The total pressure developed within the
rolls is a function of the feed (initial) pres-
sure, the compressibility of the powder, the
geometry of the rolls (e.g., the diameter
and gap), and the nip angle. The nip angle
demarcates the region where powder is
slipping against the rotating rolls from the
region where powder is grabbed by the
rolls and compacted. The nip angle pri-
marily is a function of the internal friction
of the powder (determined by shear-cell
measurements), the compressibility of the
powder (determined by a uniaxial com-
pression test), and the friction between the
powder and the roll surface (determined
by wall-friction tests). These are the same
test methods used for determining flow in
a bin, except that they are conducted at
much higher pressures, representative of
the pressure in the rolls. In addition, these
known flow properties and the geometry
of the rolls can be used to calculate the
peak pressure applied to the powder (28).
Because the total applied pressure is a
strong function of the initial solids pres-
sure at the top of the rolls, consistent feed
of partially deaerated powder into the rolls
is crucial to produce a uniform compact.
If the powder is sufficiently free flowing
and dense, gravity-driven flow into the
rolls may be possible, in which case the
design approach for the feed hopper is as
described by Jenike (14). If the powder is
poor flowing so that compaction is re-
quired to improve flow (as is often the
case), then gravity-driven feed into the
rolls may be impossible, necessitating the
use of a screw as a force feeder. This screw
forces powder into the rolls, thereby pro-
viding precompression.
The total applied pressure is the sum of
the solids pressure (particle-to-particle)
and the interstitial air pressure. Thus, if
the rolls were operated infinitely slowly,
then the interstitial air pressure that de-
veloped would dissipate, leaving the solids
pressure equal to the total applied pres-
sure. However, at typical compression
rates, not all air is dissipated, and inter-
stitial air pressure develops. The ability for
this air to escape is governed by the per-
meability of the powder. As the compres-
sion rate increases or as the permeability
decreases, the interstitial air pressure in-
creases. Because this interstitial air pres-
sure is subtracted from the total applied
pressure, a higher total applied force is
needed at high roll speeds or with the use
of fine powders to achieve the same solids
pressure present at slow speeds.
However, applying a higher total pres-
sure does not mean that the effect of en-
trained air can be neglected. The applied
pressure must be removed. If the intersti-
tial air pressure is higher than the strength
of the compact, then the compact could
rupture upon removal of the load (29). The
permeability of the compact can be used
to determine the ability of the entrained
air to escape after the load is removed.
Air pressures are not the sole mecha-
nisms that result in the spontaneous fail-
ure of a compact. The elastic recovery of
a compact also will induce stresses that
can contribute to the potential failure of
the compact. This elasticity can be mea-
sured using uniaxial compression tests.
Unlike air depressurization, true elastic
recovery does not highly depend on com-
pression rate.
Air entrainment in the powder also can
create compaction problems. As powder
is compressed, air will flow up — counter
to the downward flow of powder into the
rolls. This upward airflow acts to retard
flow of powder, limiting the feed rate. The
air also has the potential to create erratic
flow by fluidizing a portion of the pow-
der in the rolls. This results in striped
sheets as these pockets enter the rolls.
Ultimately, the acceptable rate of com-
paction depends highly on the permeabil-
ity of the powder. Methods that accelerate
the rate of deaeration (e.g., inducing a vac-
uum within the feed screw) can therefore
improve the compaction process (27).
Tablet compaction is not much differ-
ent from roll compaction. In tablet com-
paction, as with roll compaction, the solids
pressure is equal to the applied pressure less
the interstitial air pressure that develops.
The density, and hence strength, distribu-
www.phar maportal.com
tion within a tablet is a function of the
shape of the tablet, the wall friction, and
internal friction of the powder. Capping or
lamination occurs when elastic recovery
and interstitial air pressures combine to
produce stresses that cause the failure (flow)
of the tablet. A yield locus (determined by
shear tests) can be used in the analysis (in
addition to other tools such as Heckel plots
and Hiestand’s tableting indices (26,32).
76 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
Ramachandruni and Hoag demonstrated
a correlation between wall-friction tests (as
measured in an annular shear cell) and the
loading of lubricant relative to the tablet-
ejection force (18). Other researchers have
found similar relationships (35).
Fluidization
Fluidization involves airflow counter to the
force of gravity through a bed of powder.
Circle 53 or eINFO 53
In a fluidized state, particles are readily sep-
arated from each other. Fluidized handling
is of interest for several reasons: Some gran-
ulation processes rely on a fluidized bed for
agitation and mixing to generate uniform
particles. Fluidized feed systems can be used
in applications in which high material feed
rates or very fine powders are involved. The
discharging features of such systems may
include a permeable membrane or air in-
jection points on a hopper surface. Purg-
ing or bed-drying processes also may use
such features, although the airflow rates are
typically lower because complete fluidiza-
tion may not be required and, in fact, may
need to be avoided depending on the
process requirements. Pneumatic convey-
ing, in which an expanded bed of powder
is transported via injected air between
points, can be considered an extreme case
of fluidized handling.
The ability of air to separate particles
depends on the flow properties of the
powder. If a bed is allowed to expand, its
bulk density decreases as the airflow
through the powder increases. Perme-
ability of the powder is described as the
ability of the air to move through a sta-
tionary bed, which in turn is a function of
the bulk density. As the bed dilates and
reaches a minimum density, particles sep-
arate and move relative to one another. At
this point, defined as the minimum flu-
idization velocity, pressure drop across the
bed remains relatively constant as air ve-
locity increases. From this information,
the airflow requirements for a fluidizing
process can be determined, and the sup-
ply system can be sized accordingly. This
information also can be used when com-
plete fluidization must be avoided.
The ability of the particles to separate
from one another is based on particle-to-
particle bonding or cohesion. Cohesive
powders may not fluidize easily and in-
stead may simply form large flow chan-
nels allowing air to channel past stagnant
zones. Geldart developed correlations de-
scribing the ease with which materials can
be fluidized (30). These relationships de-
scribe the dependency of mean particle
diameter and particle density on general
fluidization trends. However, these are
purely empirical correlations for relating
material behavior trends to two particle
properties. Cohesiveness is neglected. For
example, addition of moisture to a dry
www.phar maportal.com
powder increases its cohesiveness and re-
duces its ability to fluidize. However, be-
cause its particle size and density remain
the same, Geldart’s chart cannot distin-
guish this behavior. In general, relying on
past correlations may provide some guid-
ance, but each new product will have a
new correlation (24). Once fluidized, pow-
der flow could in principle be modeled as
a non-Newtonian fluid (31).
78 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
The settling or deaeration of powder
may be of as much a concern as the re-
quirements for fluidizing it. Settling times
are influenced by the same properties that
affect fluidizing potential. These proper-
ties include the permeability of the bulk
powder as well as the mean size and den-
sity of the particles. Quicker settling times
often are desired to avoid flooding and
segregation. Flooding can result when the
Circle 57 or eINFO 57
retained air pressure within a bed acts as
a driving force if it is discharged from
below, as in a bin or hopper. Segregation
by air entrainment can result when the air
trapped within a material (e.g., during the
filling of a bin from above) escapes up-
ward and carries with it finer particles that
are then deposited on the top surface.
Deaeration behavior within a bin (e.g.,
peak air pressure) can be calculated given
the permeability and compressibility of
the powder as well as the in-feed rate and
bin geometry. These parameters also can
be used to determine the potential for
flooding and segregation.
Flow properties as comparative,
physical test methods
In many instances, QC checks must be
performed on powders to determine if cer-
tain attributes of the powder fall within a
predefined range. These attributes include
chemical composition, particle size, color,
moisture, and, often, flow properties. QC
checks can be made by a supplier before
shipping raw materials, by a user of in-
coming raw materials, or by technicians
for process control.
The applicability of the flow property
test highly depends on what the user is
trying to capture. For example, if one is
concerned that a certain batch of mater-
ial may arch when transferred into a bin,
a shear test may be the most comprehen-
sive QC test to conduct. Recognizing, how-
ever, that these QC checks may hold up
shipment or pace further processing of the
powder, faster test methods often are de-
sired. One option is abbreviated shear-cell
testing.
Other QC checks include angle of re-
pose, compressibility, Carr indices, the Jo-
hanson indicizer, flow funnels, minimum
orifice diameter, dynamic angle of repose,
or the Jenike & Johanson QC tester (10).
Any flow property test could in principle
be used as a QC test, and often the fastest,
most convenient test is selected. This
choice is acceptable, provided the user is
aware of the test’s limitations. Because test
methods such as angle of repose and flow
funnels do not isolate attributes of the
powder, the suitability of a test and the ac-
ceptance limits must be empirical. Ap-
plying the results of such tests relies on ei-
ther extensive testing or experience and
judgment. In principle, several batches of
www.phar maportal.com
acceptable product must be made (defin-
ing the acceptable limits on quality) along
with several unacceptable batches. Deter-
mining good and bad without flow prop-
erties tests is the hard part. The QC flow
property test method must properly iden-
tify each case.
Often, different test methods will pro-
duce different results, which is no surprise
given the different physical mechanisms
involved with each test. Numerous stud-
ies have shown that for a group of mate-
rials, different test methods rank these ma-
terials differently with respect to flow (7,
33,36,37, and unpublished data from
Jenike & Johanson, Inc.). With different
rankings by each QC test, how does one
apply the results? Again, the application
and equipment must be considered, and
the test method most closely simulating
the flow behavior in the actual process
should be selected.
Example
One pharmaceutical company had been
producing tablets from a granulation. The
80 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
product and process had been validated and
were in production. Increased demand for
this product then required increased pro-
duction, which meant that either the press
speed would have to be increased or another
press would have to be purchased. The for-
mulation required a specific particle size for
proper compaction (tablet formation) and
dissolution. Unfortunately, its particle-size
distribution resulted in a material which
was described by the company as poorly
flowing.
The press was operating at less than half
its capacity. Increased speed resulted in er-
ratic tablet weights, sometimes forcing the
press to shut down. Compounding these
inefficiencies was the need to have an op-
erator poke the material within the bin to
maintain flow to the press. Occasionally,
material within the press hopper would
arch, again forcing a press shutdown.
The system consisted of a single bin,
which held one batch. The bin comprised
a square straight-sided section, followed
by a pyramidal hopper with 458 side walls
converging to a 9-in. outlet. This bin was
Circle 59 or eINFO 59
placed above a single-sided press. Mater-
ial discharged directly from the bin into
the press hopper, through a paddle feeder,
then into the dies.
The granulation within the bin dis-
charged in a funnel flow pattern and as a
result, formed a stable flow channel or
rathole. If the operator were too aggres-
sive in clearing the rathole, the collapsing
flow channel caused a surge of aerated ma-
terial to enter the press hopper, affecting
the uniformity of flow into the press. In
this case, the flow problem resulted from
the bulk material flowing to the press as
opposed to flow within the paddle feeder.
Wall-friction tests were conducted on
the granulation against the bin wall sur-
face. Test results confirmed that funnel
flow would be expected to occur. These
results also were used as the basis for a re-
design of the bin to provide mass flow.
For this material, the maximum hopper
angle for mass flow was determined to be
288 (from vertical) for this surface. A new
bin with a 258 cone angle (from vertical),
and an identical outlet size and total
www.phar maportal.com
height was designed and installed. The
existing press hopper, incidentally, was
sufficiently steep and smooth to provide
mass flow. With the new bin, mass flow
eliminated ratholing and hence the need
for the operator to poke the material. Fur-
ther, the steady flow to the press hopper
allowed uniform feed onto the dies. With-
out modifications to the press or the for-
mulation, the press speed was nearly dou-
82 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000
bled and consistent tablet weights were
achieved. Powder flow was improved
without changing the powder flow prop-
erties. In this case, all other comparative
measures of flowability such as angle of
repose, compressibility, or flow funnel
times would not have provided any in-
sight into the true cause of the problem
nor how to solve it.
Circle 61 or eINFO 61
Conclusion
Too often, the measurement of powder
flowability does not take into considera-
tion the specific equipment used to handle
the powder. Only with an understanding
of the root causes of the problems that can
occur or are occurring can test methods be
selected to diagnose and then avoid these
situations.
References
1. J.W. Carson and B.H. Pittenger, “Bulk Prop-
erties of Powders,” in ASM Handbook Vol. 7
— Powder Metal Technologies and Applica-
tions, W.B. Eisen et al., Eds. (ASM Interna-
tional, Materials Park, OH, 1998), pp.
287–301.
2. American Society for Testing and Materials,
“Standard Shear Testing Method for Bulk
Solids Using the Jenike Shear Cell,” ASTM
Standard D6128-97 (1998).
3. American Society for Testing and Materials,
“Standard Test Method for Bulk Solids Char-
acterization by Carr Indices,” ASTM Stan-
dard D6393-99 (1999).
4. G.E. Amidon,“Physical Test Methods for Pow-
der Flow Characterization of Pharmaceutical
Materials: A Review of Methods,” Pharma.
Forum 25 (3), 8298–8305 (May–June 1999).
5. R.L. Carr, “Evaluating Flow Properties of
Solids,” Chem. Eng. 18 (1), 163–168 (1965).
6. J.R. Johanson, “The Johanson Indicizer Sys-
tem Versus the Jenike Shear Tester,” Bulk
Solids Handling 12 (2), 237–240 (April–June
1992).
7. D.A. Ploof and J.W. Carson, “Quality Con-
trol Tester to Measure Relative Flowability of
Powders,” Bulk Solids Handling 14 (1),
127–132 (Jan.–March 1994).
8. B.H. Kaye, N. Faddis, and J. Gratton-
Liimatainen, “Characterizing the Flowability
of a Powders Using Avalanching Studies,” Pro-
ceedings of the Powder & Bulk Solids Exhibi-
tion (Chicago, IL, May 1997), 123–133.
9. D. Schulze, “Measuring Powder Flowability:
A Comparison of Test Methods, Part I,” Pow-
der Bulk Eng. 10 (4), 45–61 (1996).
10. D. Schulze, “Measuring Powder Flowability:
A Comparison of Test Methods, Part II,” Pow-
der Bulk Eng. 10 (6), 17–28 (1996).
11. H. Rumpf and W. Herrmann, “Properties,
Bonding Mechanisms and Strength of Ag-
glomerates,” Processing Preparation 11 (3),
117–127, (1970).
12. F. Podczeck, Particle–Particle Adhesion in
Pharmaceutical Powder Handling (Imperial
College Press, London, UK, 1998).
13. J.W. Carson and J. Marinelli, “Characterize
Bulk Solids to Ensure Smooth Flow,” Chem.
Eng. 101 (4), 78–90 (April 1994).
14. A.W. Jenike, “Storage and Flow of Solids,”
The Utah Engineering Experimental Station
(Bulletin 123, vol. 53, No. 26, 1964, Revised
1980).
15. A. Bausch et al., “Measurement of Flowabil-
ity with a Ring Shear-Cell Evaluation and
www.phar maportal.com
 Adaptation of the Method for Use in Phar-
maceutical Technology,” Proceedings of the
Second World Meeting APGI/APV (Paris, May
1998), pp. 135–136.
16. R. Hausmann et al., “Pharmaceutical Appli-
cations of a New Ring Shear Tester for Flowa-
bility Measurement of Granules and Pow-
ders,” Proceedings of the Second World Meeting
APGI/APV (Paris, May 1998) pp. 137–138.
17. H. Nyquist, “Measurement of Flow Proper-
ties in Large-Scale Tablet Production,” Int. J.
Pharm. Technol. Prod. Mfg. 5 (3), 21–24
(1984).
18. H. Ramachandruni and S. Hoag, “Applica-
tion of a Modified Annular Shear-Cell Mea-
suring Lubrication of Pharmaceutical Pow-
ders,” University of Maryland, poster
presentation at the AAPS Annual Meeting,
San Francisco, 1998.
19. J.K. Prescott, D.A. Ploof, and J.W. Carson,
“Developing a Better Understanding of Wall
Friction,” Powder Handing and Processing 11
(1), 27–35 (Jan.–March 1999).
20. United States Pharmacopeia, “^616& Bulk and
Tapped Density” in USP 24/NF 19 (US Phar-
macopial Convention, Inc., Rockville, MD)
pp. 1913–1914 (2000).
21. G.E. Peck et al., “Tablet Formulation and De-
sign,” in Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms:
Tablets, H.A. Lieberman, L. Lachman, and
J.B. Schwartz, Eds. (Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
York, 2d ed., Volume 1, 1989), p. 116.
22. J.K. Prescott and R.J. Hossfeld, “Maintaining
Product Uniformity and Uninterrupted Flow
to Direct-Compression Tableting Presses,”
Pharm. Technol. 18 (6), 98–114 (1994).
23. R.F. Shangraw, “Compressed Tablets by Di-
rection Compression,” Pharmaceutical Dosage
Forms: Tablets, H.A. Lieberman, L. Lachman,
and J.B. Schwartz, Eds. (Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
New York, 2d ed., Volume 1, 1989), p. 219.
24. B.C. Lippens and J. Mulder, “Prediction of
the Minimum Fluidization Velocity,” Powder
Technol. 75 (1), 67–78 (April 1993).
25. R.K. Chang et al., “A Comparison of Free-
Flowing, Segregating, and Non–Free-Flowing
Cohesive Mixing Systems in Assessing the Per-
formance of a Modified V-Shaped Solids
Mixer,” Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 21 (3), 361–368
(1995).
26. B.J. Ennis, “An Introduction to Powder Com-
paction and Tableting,” workshop presented
at the Powder & Bulk Solids Conference,
Chicago, Illinois,1997.
27. R.W. Miller, “Roller Compaction Technol-
ogy,” in Handbook of Granulation Technol-
ogy, D.M. Parikh, Ed. (Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
New York, 1st ed, 1997) pp.100–150.
28. J.R. Johanson, “A Rolling Theory for Gran-
ular Solids,” J. Appl. Mech. 32 (4), 842–848
(Dec. 1965).
29. J.R. Johanson and B.D. Cox, “Fluid Entrain-
ment Effects in Roll Press Compaction,” Pow-
der Handling & Processing 1 (2), 183–185
(June 1989).
30. D. Geldart, “Types of Gas Fluidization,” Pow-
der Technol. 7, 285–292 (1973).
Continued on page 236
Circle 63 or eINFO 63
84 Pharmaceutical Technology OCTOBER 2000 www.phar maportal.com