Performance of a Pressure Pneumatic Grain Conveying System
Kevin D . Baker, Richard L. Stroshine, George H. Foster, Kevin J. Magee
ASSOC. MEMBER ASSOC. MEMBER
ASAE ASAE
ABSTRACT
OWER, pressure, and grain velocity of a pressure
P pneumatic grain conveying system were evaluated
using dry shelled corn. Two system configurations (10 cm
or 4 in diameter conveying pipe) were tested at grain flow
rates of 3 to 20 t/h (100 to 800 bu/h) and at conveying air
velocities of 15 to 30 m/s (3000 to 6000 fpm). Energy
usage per tonne decreased as grain flow increased and
increased as air velocity increased. All system pressure
components increased proportionally as grain flow
increased. Total system pressure was minimized with an
air velocity of 20 m/s (4000 fpm). Pressure drop to
initially accelerate corn was the same for both piping
configurations and increased as air velocity increased.
Pressure drop in the vertical pipe section decreased as air
velocity increased. Median grain velocity decreased as
grain flow increased. Reported values for terminal grain
velocity approximated the difference between air velocity
and grain velocity at locations where grain speeds were
highest. At air velocities of 20 m/s (4000 fpm) or less,
kernel velocity and corresponding potential for kernel
impact damage were low.
INTRODUCTION
Pneumatic conveying systems are being used more
frequently in the United States for handling grain,
especially for moving grain from continuous flow and
batch type farm dryers to bins. A number of grain
handling companies have added pneumatic systems to
their product lines. Design of pneumatic conveying
systems has generally been regarded as an art, with little
scientific basis, although several design procedures have
been proposed. Based upon theoretical analysis, Cramp
and Priestly (1924) presented a design procedure for
vertical suction conveying of grains which they then
verified experimentally. Chatley (1940) presented a
procedure for calculating the power requirement for
vertical and horizontal suction conveying. He concluded
that horizontal conveying required more power per unit
length than vertical conveying, based on the assumption
that the air velocity be sufficiently high to suspend the
kernels as they were conveyed. Jennings (1940) disputed
Article was submitted for publication in May, 1985; reviewed and
approved for publication by the Electric Power and Processing Div. of
ASAE in September, 1985. Presented as ASAE Paper No. 84-3515.
Journal Paper No. 10254 of the Purdue Agricultural Experiment
Station, W. Lafayette, IN.
The authors are: KEVIN BAKER, Graduate Assistant, Agricultural
Engineering Dept, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, RICHARD
STROSHINE, Assistant Professor, GEORGE FOSTER, Professor,
Emeritus, and KEVIN MAGEE, (Former Graduate Student),
Agricultural Enginering Dept., Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN.
72 © 1985 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0883-8542/85/0102-0072S02.00
FELLOW ASSOC. MEMBER
ASAE ASAE
Chatley's conclusion, stating that vertical conveying
required more power than horizontal conveying, based
upon observations of practical, working systems, and
concluding that experience was of greater value than
theory when designing pneumatic systems. In Segler's
(1951) design procedure for pressure-type pneumatic
systems, an optimal conveying air velocity was selected
and the associated pressure drop determined. Gluck
(1968) presented tables of recommended motor sizes and
pipe sizes for pressure and suction pneumatic systems
based upon manufacturers' experiences. Stoess (1983)
described design procedures for vacuum and pressure
pneumatic systems based upon design factors which are
dependent upon type of material and distance conveyed.
Knowledge of power and pressure requirements and
product velocities for pneumatic conveying is important
to designers. Crane and Carleton (1957) developed and
verified an equation to predict pressure drop along
straight sections of pneumatic conveying pipe at any
angle of inclination when steady-state conditions
prevailed. Cornish and Charity (1966) presented a
procedure to determine pressure drop attributed to a
horizontal elbow in a pneumatic system. Wolfe et al.
(1970) developed an equation for predicting pressure
drop in horizontal conveying pipes with accelerating or
steady-state flow. In these studies, static pressure was
limited to a maximum 5.0 kPa (20 in. H 2 0), and airflow
was assumed to be incompressible. The authors*warned
that these equations may not apply to systems which
operate at higher pressures. Currently, positive
displacement air pumps are used for pressure pneumatic
conveying of grains, allowing higher air pressures to be
used. Zenz (1949) reported pressure drops for vertical
and horizontal suction conveying of rapeseed, sand, glass
beads, and salt with higher pressure and at varied
material flow rates and air velocities. Segler (1951)
reported minimum air velocities and resistance to flow at
varied grain flow rates and pipe diameters for pressure
conveying of small grains. Susai and Gustafson (1982)
reported power requirements, quality change, and kernel
velocities for corn and soybeans in a combination
suction-pressure system. Power required to accelerate
grain was a significant portion of the total power
requirement and depended upon change in grain kernel
velocity. Foster (1973) and others have reported that
impact damage to corn primarily depends upon its
velocity.
Magee et al. (1983) reported on damage associated
with pneumatic conveying using the same system as in
this study. They found that with conveying air velocities
of 20 m/s (4000 fpm) or less, grain damage and dust
generation were similar to levels reported for bucket
elevators and drag conveyors. Grain damage increased
exponentially as air velocity increased above 20 m/s
APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE

Fig. 1—The pneumatic conveying system, showing the 4-elbow
conveying pipe route (solid lines) and 2-elbow conveying pipe route
(dashed lines). Sections of plexiglass pipe for the photography are
shaded. (Components are drawn to scale).
(4000 fpm). Feed rate had little effect upon damage.
Brittle corn had more damage than non-brittle corn.
In order to provide information for manufacturers to
improve designs and for operators to reduce energy
consumption and operating cost, a pressure pneumatic
system handling shelled corn in 10 cm (4 in.) diameter
conveying pipe was tested. Specific objectives were to:
1. Measure power consumption for a range of grain
flow rates and air velocities and determine operating
conditions which give optimum power consumption,
2. Measure pressure drops for the total system, the
acceleration section, vertical section, a horizontal turn,
and the air filter and silencers and establish the effect of
varying grain flow rate and air velocity on these pressure
drops,
3. Measure kernel velocities and compare with
calculated air velocities, over a range of grain flow rates
and air velocities.
TEST PROCEDURE
The pneumatic system (Fig. 1) was powered by a
positive displacement, lobe type air pump (4506) driven
by a 15 kW (20 hp) 3-phase electric motor. Air flow rate
was measured as it entered the system through a nozzle
chamber. A paper cartridge filter removed dust particles
from the air. Chamber type silencers before and after the
air pump reduced noise. Grain was fed into the system by
a rotary air lock feeder placed downstream from the air
pump, so that the grain was conveyed by pressurized air
only. The conveying pipe was nominal 10 cm (4 in.)
diameter galvanized steel tubing. Inside diameter was
9.75 cm (3.84 in.). Grain was decelerated and discharged
from the system through a 51 cm (20 in) diameter cyclone
into a bin with maximum 3 m (10 ft) drop height.
Two systems of different lengths were studied. In one,
the 4-elbow system, (Fig. 1, solid lines) the total
horizontal and vertical conveying distances were 45.6 m
(150 ft) and 4.4 m (14.3 ft) respectively, with 4 elbows
included. Elbows had a sweep radius of 1.2 m (4 ft). The
Vol. l(2):November, 1985
2-elbow system, (Fig. 1, dashed lines) had total
horizontal and vertical conveying distances of 27 m (88.7
ft) and 4.4 m (14.3 ft) respectively, with two elbows
included.
Sublots of 900 kg (2000 lb) of corn (approximately
13% moisture content, dried using 70°C (160°F) air),
were taken from a storage bin, cleaned by a No. 4 mesh
rotating screen cleaner, and conveyed into a holding bin
above the airlock feeder. Test sublots required from 5 to
10 min to be pneumatically conveyed through the system
to a second holding bin. Each sublot of corn was tested
once.
Air flow rate and grain flow rate were control
variables. Air flow rate was adjusted by differing the
sheave ratio for the V-belt drive connecting the air pump
to its motor. Finer variations were achieved by adjusting
a bypass valve which allowed compressed air to
recirculate from the blower outlet to the blower inlet.
Volumetric air flow rate was measured using the pressure
drop through a 10.2 cm (4 in.) long-radius nozzle located
at the system's air inlet. Dry and wet bulb temperatures
were measured with an aspirated psychrometer and
atmospheric pressure was measured with a mercury
barometer in order to determine air density. Compressed
air vented from the air lock feeder was also recirculated
back to the blower inlet so that the air flow rate at the
system inlet would be nearly the same as that at the
system discharge. Air flow rate was varied to provide
pipe entrance air velocities from 15 to 30 m/s (3000 to
6000 ft/min).
Grain flow rate was controlled by adjusting the
opening in a slide gate between the holding bin and the
airlock feeder. For each test the grain flow was checked
by weighing the test lot on a platform scale and dividing
by the conveying time. The feed rate was varied from 2.5
to 20 t/h (100 to 800 bu/h).
The ratio of airflow to grain flow is a factor used in the
design of pneumatic conveying systems. It can be
expressed as mass flow of conveyed material to mass flow
of air (solids to gas ratio) or as volumetric air flow to
mass flow of material (saturation ratio). In our tests the
solids to gas ratio ranged from 4 to 32 kg/kg and the
saturation ratio ranged from 27 to 215 liter/kg (.43 to
3.45 ftVlb). Systems with solid to gas ratios ranging from
0.1 to 5 can be termed dilute phase, while those with
ratios ranging from 25 to 900 can be termed dense phase
(Wen and O'Brien, 1976). Our system operated in the
transitional stage between dilute phase and dense phase
flow.
Two replications of each test (Table 1) were run.
Power drawn by the motor on the air pump was
measured using a solid-state electrical power transducer.
A digital phototachometer measured the air pump
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TESTS CONDUCTED
Uncompressed air velocity
Grain flow rate 15 20 25 30 (m/s)
(t/h) (bu/h) 3000 4000 5000 6000 (fpm)
2.5 100 2,4
5 200 2,4
7.5 300 2
10 400 4 2,4 4 4
15 600 2,4
20 800 4
2: indicates test conducted on 2-elbow system
4: indicates test conducted on 4-elbow system
73
speed. Air pressures were measured using solid state
pressure transducers located as shown in Fig. 1. Each
transducer measured the pressure in a manifold
connecting two small holes on opposite sides of the
conveying pipe. The transducer immediately before the
airlock feeder measured total system pressure. Voltage
outputs of the pressure transducers and the power
transducer were monitored with a data logger which
sequentially scanned them every 15 s with about 0.5 s
between each reading. Pressure transducers were
individually calibrated before installation by connecting
them in parallel with a U-tube manometer filled with
mercury and applying a range of constant pressures to
the pair of instruments. Calibration curves for the
transducers converted voltage to pressure.
Grain kernel velocities were measured with high-speed
photography. Sections of clear plexi-glass pipe, of the
same diameter as the conveying pipe, were installed in
the system at five locations (Fig. 1): after 10 m (33 ft) of
horizontal flow, midway up the vertical pipe, after the
last elbow (in the 4-elbow system only) and
approximately 2 m (6 ft) before the cyclone collector.
Kernel velocities were calculated using the camera
framing rate (determined by counting frames between
timing light cycles) and the number of frames required
for selected kernels to travel TO cm.
TEST RESULTS
Energy Requirements
Electrical consumption per unit weight of material
conveyed was calculated by dividing measured electrical
power drawn by the air pump motor (kW) by the grain
flow rate. Pneumatic energy* per unit weight was
calculated from the product of air flow rate and total
pressure divided by grain flow rate. Pneumatic energy
indicated relative system performance more accurately,
since differing proportions of recirculated air among the
tests, as well as motor efficiency variation with loading,
would affect the electrical consumption, but not the air
power. Changing the grain flow rate had a much greater
effect on electrical power consumption than changing the
uncompressed air velocityt (Figs. 2 and 3). Pneumatic
energy was nearly constant for grain flow rates above 5
t/h (200 bu/h, Fig. 2) but increased as air flow increased
(Fig. 3).
Electrical consumption and pneumatic energy per unit
weight decreased as grain flow rate increased with a
constant uncompressed air velocity (Fig. 2). Thus the
system operated more efficiently at higher grain flow
rates. Increasing the grain flow rate from 3 to 15 t/h (100
to 600 bu/h) approximately doubled the efficiency.
Pneumatic energy decreased only slightly. Therefore, the
higher electrical consumption was primarily the result of
recirculating more air and motor efficiency reduction
due to lower load.
ELECTRICAL
ENERGY
PNEUMATIC
ENERGY
o
10 (tonne/h) 15
400 (bu/h)
Grain flow rate
15 20 25
Solids to gas ratio (kg/kg)
Fig. 2—Electrical consumption rate and pneumatic energy for
conveying dry shelled corn with an uncompressed air velocity of 20 m/s
(4000 fpm).
and removing two turns lowered resistance to flow from
wall friction. The same acceleration zone and vertical
conveying section were used in the two systems. This
suggests that energy requirements for accelerating and
elevating the grain are greater than energy to convey the
grain horizontally or around an elbow.
The 4-elbow system operated most efficiently with
uncompressed air velocities near 20 m/s (4000 fpm, Fig.
3). Lower and higher air velocities increased electrical
consumption per unit weight. The maximum increase
was 33% with 30 m/s (6000 fpm) air velocity.
When operating the pneumatic system with an air
velocity of 20 m/s (4000 fpm) and grain flow rates from
10 to 20 t/h (400 to 800 bu/h), pneumatic energy was 10
to 20% greater than the shaft energy needed to achieve
the same capacity in a 15 cm (6 in.) auger system with
equal horizontal and vertical conveying distances. Data
for 14% m.c. shelled corn (White et al., 1962) were used
to estimate full capacity power requirements for augers.
However, pneumatic systems use an air pump to convert
shaft energy to pneumatic energy, which typically is 55 to
70% efficient. Considering an air pump efficiency of
70%, the 10% greater pneumatic energy, and the same
motor efficiency for both systems, the electricity needed
to operate a pneumatic system would be 1.6 times the
amount needed for a comparable auger system. Filters
-
.ELECTRICAL"
^-"^ENERGY
-
,04J=

At all grain flow rates, the shorter (39% less distance)

2-elbow system had 20% lower electrical consumption PNEUMATIC
_ + ENERGY
and pneumatic energy per unit weight than the 4-elbow
system (Fig. 2). Apparently, reducing conveying distance - ~+
15 20 (m/s) 25 30
4 0 0 0 (fpm) 5000
Uncompressed air velocity
*Pneumatic energy refers to the sum of the kinetic and potential
12
energy transmitted to the conveying air by the air pump. i ratio (kg/kg)
tUncompressed air velocity refers to the average air speed in an
empty pipe at ambient pressure and temperature, or the inlet air Fig. 3—Electrical consumption rate and pneumatic energy for
velocity. The actual conveying air velocity will vary with temperature, conveying dry shelled corn at a grain flow rate of 10 t/h (400 bu/h) in
pressure and the amount of grain in the conveying pipe. the 4-elbow system.

74 APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE

 velocity increased (Figs. 4 and 5), and was approximately
Total
(4-Elbow) the same for both systems at the same grain flow rate.
Therefore, the component needed to accelerate the grain
was almost constant for the same grain flow rate and
conveying air velocity.
> Total
Pressure drop for the vertical section of the 4-elbow
(2-Elbow)
system (including two elbows) increased as grain flow
increased and decreased as air velocity increased (Figs. 4
and 5). Neglecting resistance to flow, the theoretical
^, + Vertical
pressure drop required to lift the grain (Segler, 1951)
f _ _ A Acceleration decreased as air velocity increased as calculated by
equation [1].
-""-"*""" 5 10 (tonne/h)
4 0 0 (bu/h)
Grain flow rate
APV = Ah x rh /(367 x v a x Ap) (SI Units) [la]
Solids to gas ratio (kg/kg)

Fig. 4—Pressure needed to convey dry shelled corn at an uncompressed

air velocity of 20 m/s (4000 fpm). APV = Ah x rh g /(154 x v a x Ap) (English Units)

and silencers on pneumatic systems plus recirculation of [lb]

a portion of the compressed air increased the difference
in electrical demand in our tests.
Pressure Requirements
Pressure required to convey grain increased as grain
flow increased with constant uncompressed air velocity
(Fig. 4). The pressure increase appeared to be
proportional to grain flow for both systems. Thus
doubling of grain flow rate would double the required
pressure. Total pressure in the 2-elbow system was about
25% less than that in the 4-elbow system, while
conveying distance was reduced 39%. This indicates that
the pressure needed to accelerate and lift the grain was
greater than the pressure to convey grain horizontally or
to move it around elbows. Pressure data are consistent
with measured energy requirements.
Required pressure in the 4-elbow system was
minimized with an uncompressed air velocity of 20 m/s
(4000 fpm, Fig. 5). At 15 m/s (3000 fpm) the pressure
was higher than at other velocities in the 4-elbow system.
Apparently the conveying pipe filled with grain, causing
the portion of cross sectional area available for air flow to
decrease and the pressure to increase.
Pressure drop across the 8.7 m (28.9 ft) horizontal
acceleration zone was calculated using the difference in
pressure readings at the two ends of this pipe section.
Pressure increased as grain flow rate and conveying air
- performance was not significantly affected. Pressure
- drop across the air filter and first silencer was much
- -
where: APV = pressure drop to lift grain (kPa or psi)
Ah = height grain is lifted (m or ft)
rhg = grain mass flow rate (t/h or bu/h)
va = conveying air velocity (m/s or fpm)
Ap = pipe cross-sectional area (m2 or ft2)
Calculated theoretical values were about one-tenth the
value of our measurements, indicating energy loss due to
friction was highly significant. Trends observed for
pressure drop are similar to those reported by Crane and
Carleton (1957) for conveying with essentially
uncompressed air.
Pressure drop across a horizontal elbow (sweep radius
to diameter ratio of 12.5) was small. The maximum drop
was 1.0 kPa (0.15 psi) for the 20 t/h (800 bu/h) feedrate.
At lower grain flows, pressure drop was less and
sometimes appeared to increase. If pressure drop across
elbows is to be measured, sensitivity of the measurement
must be improved. For example, the error caused by
using different pressure transducers before and after the
elbow could be eliminated by using a single differential
transducer. Actual pressure drop caused by the elbow
would be measured using a technique such as that used
by Cornish and Charity (1966).
Pressure drop across combinations of filter and
silencer, and silencer and bypass tee increased as
conveying air velocity increased (Table 2). Pressure drop
across a silencer and bypass tee was relatively low. Thus,
by adding the silencers to the system, overall
greater, indicating the air filter could have a significant
effect upon performance.

^________—V Total
-
- TABLE 2. PRESSURE DROP ACROSS AIR FILTER,
SILENCERS AND BYPASS TEE.
Pressure drop
Vertical (4.4 m)
-
for air filter for second silencer
" Acceleration (8.7 m)
Uncompressed and first silencer and bypass tee
15 (m/s) 25 air velocity
, 2 l° 3
i°
4 0 0 0 (fpm) 5000
(m/s) (fpm) (kPa) (psi) (kPa) (psi)
Uncompressed air velocity
15 12 15.9 3130 1.9 0.28 0.2 0.03
Solids to gas ratio (kg/kg)
20.9 4110 2.1 0.31 0.5 0.07
25.9 5100 3.0 0.44 1.0 0.15
Fig. 5—Pressure needed to convey dry shelled corn with a grain flow 30.7 6040 4.0 0.59 1.1 0.17
rate of 10 tonne/h (400 bu/h) in the 4-elbow system.

Vol. l(2):November, 1985

TABLE 3. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PNEUMATIC
SYSTEM WHEN OPERATING WITH NO AIR RECIRCULATION
(MAXIMUM AIR VELOCITY).
.1 \
Grain Blower P o w sr to System M a x air
flow rate speed blower motor pressure velocity

(t/h) (bu/h) (rpm) (kW) (hp) (kPa) (psi) (m/s) (fpm)

2-elbow system
0. 0. 3171 5.9 7.9 5.2 0.75 28.4 5590
5.8 228 3161 7.5 10.1 11.2 1.62 27.4 5390
10.0 394 3151 9.3 12.5 18.2 2.64 26.5 5220
15.3 602 3138 11.5 15.4 27.7 4.02 25.5 5020
22.5 886 3120 14.7 19.7 39.2 5.69 24.4 4800

4-elbow system
0. 0. 3168 6.5 8.7 7.2
5.7 224 3155 8.8 11.8 17.5
9.6 378 3140 11.1 14.9 26.5
15.4 606 3113 14.8 19.8 41.0
21.8 858 3057 20.6 27.6 60.7
The 4-elbow system operated best with a grain flow of
15 t/h (600 bu/h) and an uncompressed air velocity of 20
m/s (4000 fpm). Increased grain flows overloaded the
motor. Lowest pressure and energy requirements were
with 20 m/s (4000 fpm) conveying air velocity.
Recommended design factors (Stoess, 1983) for pressure
conveying of shelled corn over an equivalent distance are:
saturation - 62 L/kg (1.0 ftVlb), power factor - 1.6
kWh/t (1.9 hp-h/ton), pressure factor - 5.0, and
compressed air velocity 16.8 m/s (55 ft/s). Calculated
values for the 15 t/h, 20 m/s (600 bu/h, 4000 fpm) test
were: saturation - 36 L/kg (0.6 ftVlb), power factor - 1.0
kWh/t (1.2 hp-h/ton), pressure factor - 3.6, and
compressed air velocity - 16.0 m/s (52.5 ft/s).
Recommended design factors were higher than necessary
which may have been due to incorporation of a factor of
safety. Over design can result in higher kernel velocities
and more physical damage to the corn.
Maximum Velocity Relationships
The data reported above were collected using
controlled conveying air velocity. In actual practice,
velocity would not be controlled unless a velocity
compensator were installed. Components of a pneumatic
system are sized to provide a minimum design value for
air velocity in the conveying pipes (20 m/s or 4000 fpm
for dry shelled corn). If the same system is used for
differing grain flow rates or conveying distances, the
components must be sized to meet maximum demand.
Data in Table 3 were collected with the air bypass valve
in the fully closed position providing the maximum
possible air flow at a given air pump speed. Blower speed
was the lowest used in our tests. As grain flow or
conveying distance decreased, system pressure
decreased, causing the pump airflow output and the
1.04 27.9 5490
2.54 26.6 5240
3.84 25.6 5040
5.95 24.0 4720
8.80 21.9 4310 Fig. 6—Grain flow patterns in the 4-elbow pneumatic conveying
system.
A. At the end of the acceleration zone (dispersed flow).
B. In vertical section (dispersed flow).
C. After the last elbow (slug flow).
conveying air velocity to increase unless some
compensation were made. Higher conveying velocity
could cause more damage to grain. Power, pressure, and
maximum air velocity appeared to vary linearly with
grain flow (Baker et al., 1984).
Grain Kernel Velocities
At the first horizontal section of plexiglass tube (Fig.
1) and at the vertical section, grain flow (shown by high-
speed photography) was relatively dispersed (Fig. 6)
similar to chopped forage (Brusewitz and Wolfe, 1967).
Kernels rotated and slid around each other, most of
which flowed at an average speed reported as median
grain speed. Approximately 1% of the kernels moved
faster. Near the discharge, grain flowed as a collected
mass along the bottom of the pipe, with almost no
change in relative position or velocity (Fig. 6).
With 20 and 30 m/s (4000 and 6000 fpm)
uncompressed air velocities, as the grain flowed through
the system, it accelerated to the first horizontal position,
slowed down as it was elevated, and then picked up speed
again before it reached the final horizontal position
(Table 5). With 15 m/s (3000 fpm) air velocity, grain
velocity at the second horizontal section was the same as
at the vertical section. Grain velocity was highest at the
first horizontal position.
For horizontal flow, speeds in the 2-elbow system were
faster than those in the 4-elbow system (Table 4). For
vertical flow, speeds in the 2-elbow system were slower
than those in the 4-elbow system. Speeds near the
cyclone were over 25% faster for the 2-elbow system. The
position of the elbows may have affected kernel velocity,

TABLE 4. GRAIN SPEEDS WITH A 2 0 m/s ( 4 0 0 0 f p m ) U N C O M P R E S S E D AIR V E L O C I T Y .

Photographing location
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal*
at feeder (after acceleration)
Grain Compressed
flow rate air velocity Median Maximum Median Maximum Median Maximum
System (t/h) (bu/h) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm)

2-elbow 5 200 19.0 3740 7.6 1500 9.9 1950 2.8 550 7.1 1400 6.9 1360 9.3 1830
15 600 16.2 3190 5.3 1040 9.5 1870 2.4 470 8.6 1690 6.0 1180 9.5 1870

4-elbow 5 200 18.3 3600 7.1 1400 9.7 1910 3.4 670 7.1 1400 5.5 1080 9.9 1950
15 600 16.0 3150 4.5 890 8.1 1590 2.8 550 7.5 1480 3.6 710 9.1 1790

*This is n o t t h e same p o s i t i o n as is s h o w n in Table 5.

76 APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE

 TABLE 5. MAXIMUM AND MEDIAN GRAIN SPEEDS WITH A 15 t/h (600 bu/h) GRAIN FLOW RATE IN THE 4-ELBOW SYSTEM.
Photographing location
Horizontal Horizontal
Compressed (After acceleration) Vertical (After final elbow)
Uncompressed air velocity
air velocity at feeder Median Maximum Median Maximum Median Maximum
(m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm) (m/s) (fpm)
15 3000 12.7 2500 2.2 430 5.8 1140 1.9 370 6.0 1180 1.9 370 8.5 1670
20 4000 16.0 3150 4.5 890 8.1 1590 2.8 550 7.5 1480 4.5 890 18.5 3640
30 6000 23.4 4600 11.0 2170 14.5 2850 6.0 1180 8.5 1670 9.4 1850 18.5 3640

since grain typically decelerates when flowing around
elbows and accelerates in straight pipe sections following
elbows. Thus, grain accelerated more in straight pipe
preceeding the cyclone in the 2-elbow system (16 m or 52
ft of straight pipe) than in the 4-elbow system (8 m of 26
ft of straight pipe). Kernel velocity increased as grain
flow decreased with conveying air velocity held constant.
Median grain speeds (Table 5) were about 50% lower
than values for the suction side of a vacuum pressure
system (Susai and Gustafsion, 1982). Grain speed
increased significantly as air velocity increased. Actual
air velocities were calculated using equations [2], [3] and
[4]. Temperature, humidity and pressure measurements
were used to correct for density changes and calculate the
nominal compressed air velocity using the ideal gas law.
A = 2.78 x m g /(p x v ) (SI Units)
A g = 0.933 x m g / ( p g x v g ) (English units)
e^-VAp
v
a,ac = v
a,nc/e
where: Ap pipe cross sectional area (cm2 or ft2)
= m/s (4000 fpm). Power consumption for initial
Ag area of pipe occupied by grain (cm2 or ft2)
= acceleration and vertical conveying appeared to be
£ =
void fraction in pipe
v
a,ac —
actual compressed air velocity (m/s or
fpm)
v
a,nc — nominal compressed air velocity (m/s or
fpm)
vg = grain velocity (m/s or fpm)
mg = grain flow rate (t/h or bu/h)
p g = grain specific density (g/cm 3 or lb/ft3)
For the first horizontal photographing location, the
difference between actual air velocity and grain velocity
(11.4 to 14.0 m/s or 37.3 to 45.9 ft/s) was nearly equal to
the terminal velocity of free-falling corn (7.9 to 12.8 m/s
or 26 to 42 ft/s, Uhl and Lamp, 1966). For design
purposes, grain speeds in pneumatic systems may be
estimated using the difference between actual conveying
air velocity and reported values for terminal grain
velocity. For the vertical photographing location, the
difference between actual air velocity and grain velocity
(14.4 to 20.3 m/s or 47.2 to 66.6 ft/s) was greater;
however, there was little distance to allow grain
acceleration in the vertical section. For the
photographing location preceeding the cyclone, terminal
grain velocity approximated the velocity difference in the
2-elbow system. The difference was higher in the 4-elbow
Vol. l(2):November, 1985
system which had less distance for grain acceleration
than the 2-elbow system.
Moreira et al. (1981) reported that impact damage to
corn was not significant at velocities below 10 m/s (32.8
ft/s). Measured median velocities were less than this
except with uncompressed air velocities of 30 m/s (6000
fpm). Several maximum velocities were greater than 10
m/s (32.8 ft/s); however, since few kernels were traveling
at the maximum velocity, potential for damage would be
low. When kernel velocity measurements were taken, the
bypass valve was opened to control air velocity, similar to
a system operating with a velocity compensator. In
systems where airflow is not controlled, a decrease in
feed rate or conveying distance from system design levels
could result in higher kernel velocity and greater
damage.
[2a]
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Performance of a pressure-type pneumatic conveying
[2b] system was evaluated using dry shelled corn in 2 system
configurations. Grain flow varied from 3 to 20 t/h (100 to
800 bu/h). Conveying air velocity varied from 15 to 30
W m/s (3000 to 6000 fpm). Conclusions are as follows:
• Electrical consumption and pneumatic energy per
unit weight of material conveyed decreased as grain flow
[4] increased and were more responsive to changes in grain
flow than to changes in air velocity. Electrical
consumption was optimized with an air velocity of 20
greater than that for conveying through horizontal
sections which included elbows.
• The pneumatic system required at least 1.6 times
more electricity than indicated by design data for a 15 cm
(6 in) auger with equal grain flow and equal horizontal
and vertical conveying distance.
• Relationships between pressure and grain flow and
between pressure and air velocity were similar to those
reported for pneumatic systems in which there was very
little compression of the air. System operating pressure
increased almost linearly as grain flow increased.
Pressure drop across the silencer was small, but that
across the filter was significant. Recommended design
factors by Stoess (1983) were higher than minimums
needed, perhaps due to a safety factor.
• Median grain kernel velocities were less than half
the conveying air velocity. Reported values for terminal
velocity of free-falling corn closely approximated the
difference between actual air velocity and kernel velocity
at locations where grain speeds were highest.
• At airflows of 20 m/s (4000 fpm or less), kernel
velocities were less than 10 m/s (2000 fpm), and,
according to the literature, potential for impact damage
is low.
77
References
1. Baker, K. D., R. L. Stroshine, G. H. Foster and K. J. Magee.
1984. Performance of a pressure pneumatic grain conveying system.
ASAE Paper No. 84-3515, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
2. Brusewitz, G. H., and R. R. Wolfe. 1967. Flow characteristics
in the pneumatic conveying of chopped forage. TRANSACTIONS of
the ASAE 10(3):320-324, 329.
3. Chatley, H. 1940. The pumping of granular solids in fluid
suspension. Engineering. London. 149:230-231.
4. Cornish, G. K. and L. F. Charity. 1966. Pressure drop in
elbows of a pneumatic conveying system. TRANSACTIONS of the
ASAE9(1):29-31.
5. Crane, J. W. and W. M. Carleton. 1957. Predicting pressure
drop in pneumatic conveying of grains. AGRICULTURAL
ENGINEERING 36(3):168-171, 180.
6. Cramp, W. and H. Priestly. 1924. Pneumatic grain elevators.
The Engineer. London. 137:34-36ff.
7. Foster, G. H. 1973. Grain breakage caused by commercial
handling methods. USDA Market Research Report No. 968.
8. Gluck, S. E. 1968. Design tips for pneumatic conveyors.
Hydrocarbon Processing, 47(1):88-95.
9. Jennings, M. 1940. Pneumatic conveying in theory and
practice. Engineering. London. 150:361-363.
10. Leva, M. 1959. Fluidization. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.
11. Magee, K. J., R. L. Stroshine, G. H. Foster and K. D. Baker.
1983. Nature and extent of grain damage caused by pneumatic
conveying systems. ASAE Paper No. 83-3508. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI
49085.
78
12. Mohsenin, N. N. 1970. Physical properties of plant and animal
materials. Vol I: Structure, physical characteristics, and mechanical
properties. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York.
13. Moreira, S. M. C , G. W. Krutz, and G. H. Foster. 1981.
Crack formation in corn kernels subject to impact. TRANSACTIONS
of the ASAE. 24(4):889-892.
14. Segler, G. 1951. Pneumatic grain conveying. National Institute
of Agricultural Engineering. Silsoe, Bedfordshire.
15. Stoess, H. A. Jr. 1983. Pneumatic conveying. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
16. Susai, A. D. and R. J. Gustafson. 1982. Power requirements
and quality change of material for a pneumatic conveying system.
ASAE Paper No. 82-3559, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
17. Uhl, J. B. and B.J. Lamp. 1966. Pneumatic separation of grain
and straw mixtures. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 9(2):244-246.
18. Wen, C. Y. and W. S. O'Brien. 1976. Chapter 3. Pneumatic
conveying and transporting. In: Gas-Solids Handling in the Process
Industries (Marchello and Gomezplata, ed.). Marcell Dekker, Inc.
19. White, G. M., L. A. Schaper, I. J. Ross, and G. W. Isaacs.
1962. Performance characteristics of enclosed screw conveyors
handling shelled corn and soybeans. Research bulletin No. 740. Purdue
University, Agricultural Experiment Station, West Lafayette, IN
47907.
20. Wolfe, R. R., M. M. Smetana, and G. W. Krutz. 1970.
Performance characteristics and feeder design in pneumatic conveying
of chopped forage. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 13(3):332-334, 339.
21. Zenz, F. A. 1949. Two-phase fluid-solid flow. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry. 41(12):2801-06.
APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE