See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292685470

Estimation of pressure drop in pneumatic conveying of agricultural grains

Article · September 1993

CITATIONS READS
5 1,510

2 authors, including:

Hifjur Raheman
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
91 PUBLICATIONS   4,044 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

1. Power generation with reduced emission using de-oiled cake and biodiesel from non-edible oil seeds View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hifjur Raheman on 05 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PRESSURE DROP GRADIENT AND SOLID FRICTION FACTOR
IN HORIZONTAL PNEUMATIC CONVEYING
OF AGRICULTURAL GRAINS

H. Raheman, V. K. Jindal

ABSTRACT. Experiments on horizontal pneumatic conveying of rough rice, milled rice, and soybean indicated that the total
pressure drop gradient is a function of air velocity, solid–to–air ratio, and particle and pipe diameter. Total pressure drop
gradients were analyzed by summing the contributions of individual components for pressure drop due to air and solids
separately. Fanning’s equation was used to estimate the pressure drop due to air in all experiments. An equation analogous
to Fanning’s equation involving a solid friction factor, dispersed solids density, and solid velocity was assumed to represent
the pressure drop due to solids. A generalized equation comprising of selected dimensionless parameters – velocity ratio
(Vt /Vs ); particle to pipe diameter ratio (dp /D); Froud’s number based on terminal velocity (Vt 2/gD) as well as air velocity
(Va 2/gD); solid–to–air ratio; and particle Reynold’s number (ra Vslip dp /ma ) – was developed for estimating the solid friction
factor. Applicability of the developed equation was verified for horizontal pneumatic conveying of corn and mungbean.
Experimental and estimated values were found to be in good agreement showing the average absolute variation within 2 to
12% thus validating the developed correlations and the approach for estimating the pressure drop gradients for general use
for particles ranging in size from approximately 2 to 7 mm.
Keywords. Solid–to–air ratio, Velocity ratio, Diameter ratio, Single–phase flow, Pressure drop due to solids.

T
he basic step in design of pneumatic conveying
systems is the correct estimation of total pressure
drop in the conveying line and is estimated by
either summing the individual contributions of air
and solid or by using empirically developed equations. The
first method considers contributions associated with wall
friction, particle friction, particle acceleration, and support
of particles. Cramp and Priestly (1924) proposed this
approach and it has been followed notably by Vogt and White
(1948), Hariu and Molstad (1949), Pinkus and Troy (1952),
Capes and Nakamura (1973), Crane and Carleton (1957),
Mehta et al. (1957), Klinzing (1979), Weber (1981), Yang et
al. (1987), and many others either in horizontal or vertical
pneumatic conveying. In general, the pressure drop in
horizontal pneumatic conveying lines is represented by the
following equation :
DPt = DPaa + DPas + DPfa + DPfs (1)
Under steady state operation, the acceleration losses drop
out and equation 1 reduces to
DPt = DPfa + DPfs (2)
The terms appearing in equation 2 have been defined
differently by different researchers based on the assumptions
made in their analyses. Pinkus and Troy (1952) provided a
convincing theory for predicting pressure drop in horizontal
pneumatic conveying of sand particles. Crane and Carleton
(1957) followed their approach and developed a relationship
for estimating pressure drop in pneumatic conveying of
wheat in pipes of any inclination as follows:
f r V 2 L 2 f V Lm m gL sin Θ
∆Pt = a a a + s s s + s (3)
D D Vs
and
D[ r aCd Ap (Va − Vs ) 2 − 2gv p r s sin Θ]
fs = 2
(4)
4v p r sVs
Zenz and Othmer (1960) considered both solid flow rate
as well as air velocity for determining the pressure drop in
horizontal pneumatic conveying by using the following
relationship:

Va ra 2f a r aV a L
2 2
m sV s
DP = + +
t
2 g D
Article was submitted for review in November 2000; approved for (5)
publication by Food & Process Engineering Institute of ASAE in May f sV s m m s gL
2001 . (1 +
s
)+
The authors are Hifjur Raheman, Assistant Professor, Department of f aV a V ar a Vs
Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, India, and Vinod K. Jindal, ASAE Member Engineer,
Professor, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. Corresponding 3raCd D Va − Vs 2
author: H. Raheman, Department of Agricultural & Food Engineering, fs = ( )
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, India; phone: 2r s d p Vs (6)
0322–83160; fax: 0322–82244; e–mail: hifjur@agfe.iitkgp.ernet.in.

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

Vol. 17(5): 649–656 E 2001 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0883–8542 649
and
Vs = Va – Vt
Researchers like Pinkus and Troy (1952), Hinkle (1953),
Crane and Carleton (1957), Mehta et al. (1957), Zenz and
Othmer (1960), Wiedemann and Wagner (1976), Yang et al.
(1987), Weber (1981, 1991), and many others have analyzed
the pressure drop due to the presence of solids in a form
analogous to Fanning’s equation in single phase flow:
2 f s r dsVs 2 L
∆Pfs =
D grains were collected in plastic buckets then manually
where fs is the solid friction factor similar to Fanning’s fric-
tion factor.
The approach of Capes and Nakamura (1973), Yousfi and
Gau (1974), Yang et al. (1987), and Mathur and Klinzing
(1984) also considered voids in addition to the terms
appearing in equation 8. The correlations developed for fs
both for agricultural and non–agricultural materials are
reported in table 1. From this table, it can be seen that the
correlation developed by Weber (1981, 1991) are for both
agricultural and non–agricultural material and are
independent of solid velocity. The correlation developed by
Capes and Nakamura (1973) showed fs as an inverse function
of solid velocity. Whereas the studies of Yousfi and Gau
(1974) suggested the friction factor to be almost constant.
Jones et al. (1967) reported that fs was an unique function
ofsolid–to–air ratio. Several other researchers have indicated
that fs was apparently a function of slip velocity, particle
diameter, pipe diameter, velocity of air and both solid and air
density (Pinkus and Troy, 1952; Hinkle, 1953; Crane and
Carleton, 1957; Mehta et al., 1957; Yang et al., 1987).
Most of the correlations listed in table 1 were developed
for materials like sand, glass beads, aluminum, etc. and their
applicability to agricultural materials has not yet been
reported. Correlation developed by Crane and Carleton
(1957) was mainly for pneumatic conveying of wheat and its
applicability to other agricultural grains is not known.
Though the concept of solid friction factor appears to be
promising, a detailed study was necessary to develop a
generalized relationship for agricultural materials. Thus, a
study was undertaken to identify the variables affecting the
solid friction factor and the total pressure drop gradient and
to develop generalized correlations for predicting these
parameters for agricultural materials.
Table 1. A summary of published correlations for estimating solid friction factor for both agricultural grains and other materials.
Investigator Flow Direction[a]
Agricultural Grains
Crane and Carleton (1957) H, V
Weber (1991) H,V
Other Materials
Pinkus and Troy (1952) H 2fsρdsVs2L/D
Hinkle (1953) H,V
Mehta et al. (1957) H 4fsρdsVs2L/2D
Jones et al. (1967) H 2fsρaVa2L/D
Capes and Nakamura (1973) H,V
Yousfi and Gau (1974) H,V
Yang et al.(1987) H 2fsρs(1–ε)Vs2L/D
Mathur and Klinzing (1984) H,V
[a] H = Horizontal; V = Vertical.
650
MATERIALS AND METHODS
(7) Experiments were conducted in horizontal pneumatic
conveying of rough rice, milled rice, and soybean for
solid–to–air ratios ranging from 0.7 to 3.5 in 54, 68, and
82 mm (2.13, 2.68, and 3.23 in.) inside diameter galvanized
iron pipes of 6.5 m (21.3 ft) length. The experimental set–up
used is shown in figure 1 (Raheman, 1991). The horizontal
pipe was laid at a height of 0.5 m (19.7 in.). Material was fed
into the pipe by gravity from the hopper through a screw
feeder and forced to move along the pipe by air discharged
(8)
from the blower. After passing through the test section, the
reloaded into the hopper for recirculation. Physical
properties of grains tested are given in table 2. Conveying air
velocity was determined with a hot–wire anemometer
installed at the centerline at a distance of 3.0 m (9.84 ft) from
the grain feeding point in the set–up. The anemometer was
calibrated in the 0– to 50–m/s range with the help of a
standard venturi installed upstream. Pressure drop across the
venturi was measured for different settings of the blower and
corresponding air velocities were concurrently recorded by
the hot–wire anemometer. Three replications were made for
each air flow rate and average values were computed. The
hot–wire anemometer readings were calibrated against the
venturi measurements of air velocity, which was taken as the
standard. Using the calibration equation, air velocity in the
conveying pipeline was set with a hot–wire anemometer.
Three measurements were taken and averaged to ensure the
proper air flow rate.
The solid–to–air ratio, which is defined as the ratio of
mass of solid conveyed per unit time per unit cross sectional
area of pipe to mass of air conveyed per unit time per unit
cross sectional area of the same pipe, was maintained by
controlling solid and air flow rates. The solid velocity for
different grains was indirectly determined by measuring the
dispersed solids density using equation 9.
Vs = ms /(Ards ) (9)
The dispersed solids density was measured by a
mechanical sample–trapping device installed at the end of
the horizontal conveying pipeline as shown in figure 2. This
device consisted of two pipes of length 1 m (39.37 in.) each
and diameter equivalent to the conveying pipe line and were
welded to 10–mm thick mild steel square plates at the two
ends. The entire assembly could be slid in a reciprocating
∆Pfs Friction Factor (fs)
2fsVsmsL/D D[ρaCdAp(Va–Vs)2–2gVpρssinθ]/4VpρsVs2
4fsρaVa2L/2D 1.315µ0.711(Va2/gD)–1.047
CdρagD{(Va–Vs)/Vs}2/(4ρsdp)
2fsρdsVs2L/D 3CdρaD{(Va–Vs)/Vs}2/(8ρsdp)
3CdρagD{(Va–Vs)2/Vs}/(8ρsdp)
bµn, where b and n are empirical constants
2fsρs(1–ε)Vs2L/D 0.048(1/Vs)–1.22
2fsρs(1–ε)Vs2L/D 0.0015
0.0293{(1–ε)/ε3}{(1–ε)Vt.
Va/{(gD)0.5(Va–Vs)}}–1.15
2fsρs(1–ε)Vs2L/D 55.5D1.1/(Va0.64dp0.26ρs0.91)
APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
 Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing details of the experimental arrangement.

motion on a smooth angle iron with side collars in order to
align either of the two pipes with the conveying pipeline. Two
steel balls were provided on the lower side of each mild steel
plate to reduce friction while sliding. This device was posi-
tioned in such a way that one pipe was always aligned with
the conveying pipe line. This device was swiftly moved
manually from one aligned position to the other so that the
second sample pipe was aligned with the conveying pipeline
without disturbing the flow. The mass of the sample trapped
in the first pipe was immediately collected in a plastic bag
and weighed. Dispersed solids density was then determined
by dividing the weight of sample collected by the volume of
pipe section. Similar procedures were used for various com-
binations of air and solid flow rates for all the grains tested.
A minimum of three replications was made for all observa-
tions.
Under steady–state operation, the total pressure drop
gradient in pneumatic conveying was the sum of pressure
drop gradients due to air alone and that due to the presence
of solids. The pressure drop gradients were measured by
using ‘U’ tube manometers with water as the working fluid
across the section of 0.5 m (19.7 in.) apart along the convey-
ing line to ensure the zone of steady–state operation (constant
pressure drop per unit length of the pipe). After the blower
was switched on, the air velocity was adjusted with the regu-
lating valves with no solids present in the conveying line.
Pressure drop due to air alone was then determined by record-
ing the corresponding shift in liquid levels in the manome-
ters. Next, grain was introduced into the pipe by switching on
the feeder conveyor, which was set to maintain the desired
solid flow rate. Grain was allowed to flow for 5 min. to reach
the steady–state operation. The total pressure drop gradient
was then measured again by the manometer. Manometer
readings were taken at least five times to determine average
values of the pressure drop gradient. A similar procedure was

Table 2. Physical properties of grains used in pneumatic conveying experiments.

Grain
Physical
Properties Rough Rice Milled Rice Soybean Corn Mungbean
Moisture content:
% w.b. 11.3 12.0 9.8 13.2 12.2
Particle
equivalent 3.64 3.03 6.79 6.96 4.35
dia.: mm (in.) (0.143) (0.119) (0.267) (0.274) (0.171)
Bulk density: 510.0 798.0 681.1 799.5 646.7
kg/m3 (lb/ft3) (31.84) (49.82) (42.52) (49.91) (40.37)
Single kernel 0.029 0.020 0.198 0.223 0.052
Weight: g (lb) (6.39×10–5) (4.41×10–5) (4.37×10–4) (4.92×10–4) (1.15×10–4)
Single kernel 25 15 164 177 43
vol.: mm3 (in.3) (1.53×10–3) (9.15×10–4) (0.01) (0.011) (2.62x10 –3)
Solids density: 1134.5 1398.5 1209.2 1261.4 1204.3
kg/m3 (lb/ft3) (70.82) (87.31) (75.48) (78.75) (75.18) Figure 2. Material trapping device for measuring dispersed solid density.

Vol. 17(5): 649–656 651

followed for several (five to six) combinations of air and solid
flow rate for five different solid–to–air ratios for three differ-
ent grains and for three replications for each combination.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The experimental observations on pressure drop gradients
for air alone and for different solid–air mixtures for
pneumatic conveying of rough rice, milled rice, and soybean
in pipes of three different diameters are presented in figures
3, 4, and 5, respectively. These plots show the total pressure
drop per meter length of the pipe as a function of air velocity
for different solid–to–air ratios. In each pipe, five
solid–to–air ratios were maintained for all grains. In addition,
a minimum of five different combinations of solid flow and
air flow were used for a given solid–to–air ratio.
In general, the total pressure drop gradients increased with
the increase in the air velocity. Theoretically, the pressure
drop gradient varies linearly with the square of the air
velocity in turbulent flow. The experimental results appeared
to show a slightly curvilinear relationship between the
pressure drop gradient and air velocity. However, such
relationships often appeared to be linear due to the narrow
range of air velocity used in our tests. For a given solid–to–air
ratio, total pressure drop gradient increased with an increase
in the solid flow rate (figs. 3 to 5). It is conceivable that a
higher solid flow rate might result in increased inter–particle
as well as particle–to–wall interactions and thus lead to
higher pressure drops.
Many researchers in pneumatic conveying have
recognized the importance of solid–to–air ratio (Richards
and Wiersma, 1973; Weidmann and Wagner, 1976; Weber,
1981, 1991). The plots of total pressure drop gradient versus
air velocity for different solid–to–air ratios are rarely
reported because the selection of solid flow rate is a more
convenient experimental parameter. In the present study, an
attempt was made to visualize the effect of solid–to–air ratio
on total pressure drop gradient in the experimental range of
air velocity (figs. 3 to 5). All these plots indicated that
pressure drop per meter of pipe length increased with an
increase in solid–to–air ratio at any given air velocity. For the
case when solid–to–air ratio was held constant by increasing
both solid and air flow rates, there was a distinct increase in Figure 3. Total pressure drop gradient as a function of air velocity in
the total pressure drop gradient. These results confirmed that horizontal pneumatic conveying of rough rice.
the solid–to–air ratio could not be considered as an
independent parameter. The pressure drop gradients for all observed in pipes of different inside diameters. From the
grains decreased with increase in pipe diameter (figs. 3 to 5). above discussions, it was concluded that the total pressure
The results were consistent with the fact that pressure drop drop gradient in pneumatic conveying of agricultural grains
due to air flow in a pipe varies inversely with pipe diameter under steady state was influenced by air velocity, solid flow
because the friction at the pipe wall increases exponentially rate, solid–to–air ratio, and both particle and pipe diameters.
with the decrease in pipe diameter.
The effect of equivalent grain diameter on total pressure ESTIMATION OF PRESSURE DROP GRADIENTS
drop gradient in 54–mm pipe diameter is shown in figures 6a Under steady state operation, the total pressure drop in
and 6b for solid–to–air ratio of 0.7 and 3.5, respectively. horizontal pneumatic conveying could be considered to be
Among the three grains tested, the highest and lowest comprised of pressure drop due to air and pressure drop due
pressure drop gradients were observed for soybean and to solids. The pressure drop due to air flow alone in mm of
milled rice, respectively, at any given air velocity. The water was estimated by Fanning’s equation:
difference in pressure drop gradients increased with an
increase in the solid–to–air ratio. Apparently, soybean and 2 f a raVa2 L (10)
∆Pfa’ =
milled rice, being the largest and smallest among the grains 9.81D
tested, offered the highest and lowest resistances,
The conversion factor used in the denominator expresses
respectively, in two–phase flow. Similar findings were also
the pressure drop directly in mm of water. The value of

652 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

Figure 4. Total pressure drop gradient as a function of air velocity in
horizontal pneumatic conveying of milled rice.
Fanning’s friction factor, fa, was determined by the well–
known Nikuradse’s equation for fully turbulent flow as fol-
lows:
1/ Ǡ fa = 4 log (D/2e’) + 3.48
The value of pipe roughness, e’, was assumed to be 0.15
mm for galvanized iron pipes (Perry and Green, 1984). The
pressure drop due to air estimated by using equation 10 is
indicated by solid lines and compared with the experimental
data points (figs. 3 to 5). A good agreement between
experimental and estimated values of pressure drop due to air
alone was observed in all three pipes.
The pressure drop due to solids only was determined by
appropriately deducting the pressure drop due to air from the
total pressure drop. Subsequently, the pressure drop due to
solids could be used to determine a solid friction factorr
Vol. 17(5): 649–656
Figure 5. Total pressure drop gradient as a function of air velocity in
horizontal pneumatic conveying of soybean.
analogous to a single–phase fluid flow and expressed in a
form similar to the Fanning’s equation as follows, where fs is
the solid friction factor:
(11)
2 f s rdsVs 2L (12)
∆Pfs’ =
9.81D
Using equation 12, the values for the solid friction factor
were computed for rough rice, milled rice and soybean in 54,
68 and 82 mm inside diameter pipes. Based on the complete
set of data, a generalized equation was developed for fs by
step–wise multiple regression analysis in the following form:
fs = a1 (Vt /Vs ) (Vt 2/gD) –0.95 (dp /D) 0.7 + a2 m1.5
+ a3 (Va 2/gD) –0.7 +a4 (ra Vslip dp / ma ) 0.9 + a5 (13)
653
Figure 6. Effects of equivalent grain diameter on total pressure drop
gradient in horizontal pneumatic conveying of agricultural grains for
different solid–to–air ratios in 54–mm inside diameter pipe.
where
(Vt/Vs) = velocity ratio
(dp/D) = diameter ratio
µ = solid–to–air ratio
(Vt2/gD) = Froud’s number related to solids
(Va2/gD) = Froud’s number related to pipe
(ra Vslipdp/ ma ) = particle Reynold’s number
a1 to a5 = regression coefficients
The results of stepwise multiple regression analysis
(SPSSX) for estimating the solid friction factor is presented
in table 3. The coefficient of determination could not be
improved beyond 0.93. In general, the determination of
pressure drop due to solids only and the solid friction factor
is not very accurate due to experimental errors involved. The
generalized relationships developed in the form of
equation 13 clearly showed the contribution of each
dimensionless group. The results of this analysis showed that
a velocity ratio (Vt/Vs), diameter ratio (dp/D), and solids
Froud’s number (Vt2/gD) played the dominant roles along
with the solid–to–air ratio, particle Reynold’s number
(raVslipdp/µa) and pipe Froud’s number (Va2/gD) in
determining the solid friction factor. The experimentally
determined and estimated values of solid friction factor,
pressure drop gradients due to solids and total pressure drop
gradients are compared infigure 7. These plots and high
654
Figure 7. Comparison of experimental and estimated values of solid
friction factor and pressure drop gradient in pneumatic conveying of
agricultural grains.
values of coefficient of determination indicate good agree-
ment between experimentally determined and estimated val-
ues.
GENERAL APPLICABILITY
The general applicability of the correlations developed for
fs was verified for the pneumatic conveying of corn and
mungbean. The experimental values of total pressure drop
gradient and calculated values of pressure drop gradient due
to solids and solid friction factor were compared with the
values predicted using the relationship developed and
presented in the table 4. The low values of the percent
variations presented support the general applicability of the
developed correlation for solid friction factor and the
approach for estimating the total pressure drop gradient.
APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
 Table 3 Results of step–wise multiple regression analysis for estimating solid friction factor in horizontal pneumatic conveying.
Step Variables
1 {(Vt/Vs)(dp/D)0.7 (Vt2/gD)–0.95}
2 {(Vt/Vs)(dp/D)0.7 (Vt2/gD)–0.95}, µ1.5
3 {(Vt/Vs)(dp/D)0.7 (Vt2/gD)–0.95}, µ1.5 (Va2/gD)–0.7
{(Vt/Vs)(dp/D)0.7 (Vt2/gD)–0.95}, µ1.5 (Va2/gD)–0.7,
4 (Rep)0.9
[a] SEE – Standard error of estimate
CONCLUSIONS
Total pressure drop gradients observed for rough rice,
milled rice, and soybean in horizontal pneumatic conveying
increased with air velocity and solid–to–air ratio. A reduction
in pressure drop gradient was observed in all cases with an
increase in conveying pipe diameter. The data obtained on
pressure drop gradients for different grains were analyzed by
summing the contributions of individual components for
pressure drop due to air and solids. Fanning’s equation was
used to estimate the pressure drop due to air in all
experiments. An equation analogous to Fanning’s equation
involving a solid friction factor (fs), dispersed solids density
(rδσ), and solid velocity was assumed to represent the
pressure drop due to solids. The computed values of solid
friction factor were found to be dependent on selected
dimensionless parameters: velocity ratio (Vt/Vs), particle to
pipe diameter ratio (dp/D), and Froud’s number based on
terminal velocity (Vt2/gD) as well as air velocity (Va2/gD),
solid–to–air ratio, and particle Reynold’s number
(raVslipdp/µa). A generalized equation was developed for the
solid friction factor and its applicability was verified for
horizontal pneumatic conveying of corn and mungbean.
Experimental and estimated values for total pressure drop
gradient are found to be in good agreement showing the
average absolute variation within 2 to 12% and thus
validating the developed correlations for general use for
particles ranging in size from approximately 2 to 7 mm.
Table 4. Results showing percent variations in experimental
and estimated parameters in horizontal pneumatic
conveying of corn and mungbean.
Variations (%)
Corn Mungbean
Avg.
Parameter Min. Max. (abs)[a] Min. Max. (abs)
Solid friction factor (fs) –11 10 8 10
Pressure drop gradient
due to solids (∆Pfs) –15 14 9 –13
Total pressure drop
gradient (∆Pt) –4 1 2 –3
[a] Average variation (abs) =
100 n Experimental – Predicted
∑
n i =1 Experimental
Vol. 17(5): 649–656
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 R2 SEE[a]
4.98 – – – –0.004 0.80 8.1E–4
4.53 2.3E–4 – – –0.004 0.86 6.7E–4
4.15 2.9E–4 0.33 – –0.005 0.92 5.1E–4
3.35 3.3E–4 0.53 3.4E–7 –0.006 0.93 4.6E–4
REFERENCES
Capes, C. E., and K. Nakamura. 1973. Vertical pneumatic
conveying: An experimental study with particles in the
intermediate and turbulent flow regimes. Ca. J. of Chem. Eng.
51(1): 31–38.
Cramp, N., and A. Priestly. 1924. Pneumatic grain elevator. The
Engineer 137(1): 112.
Crane, J. W., and W. M. Caleton. 1957. Predicting pressure drop in
pneumatic conveying of grains. Agricultural Engineering 38(3):
168–171,180.
Hariu, O. H., and M. C. Molstad. 1949. Pressure drop in vertical
tubes in transport of solids by gasses. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry 41(6): 1148–1160.
Hinkle, B. L. 1953. Acceleration of particles and pressure drops
encountered in horizontal pneumatic conveying. Ph. D. thesis,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga: Georgia Institute
of Technology.
Jones, J. H., W. G. Barun, T. E. Daubert, and H. D. Allendorf. 1967.
A.I. Chem. Eng. J. 13: 608 (as cited by Govier and Aziz, 1972).
Klinzing, G. E. 1979. Vertical pneumatic transport of solids in the
minimum pressure drop region. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Process Design and Development 18(3): 404–408.
Mathur, M. P., and G. E. Klinzing. 1984. Flow measurement in
pneumatic transport of pulverized coal. Powder Technology 40:
309–321.
Mehta, N. C., J. M. Smith, and E. W. Comings. 1957. Pressure drop
in air–solid flow systems. Industrial and Eng. Chem. 49(6):
986–992.
Perry, R. H., and D. W. Green. 1984. Chemical Engineering Hand
Book, 5.24 and 5.45–5.62. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.
Pinkus, O., and N. Y. Troy. 1952. Pressure drop in pneumatic
conveyance of solids. J. Applied Mech. 19(4): 425–431.
Raheman, H. 1991. Solid velocity and pressure drop in pneumatic
conveying of agricultural grains. Dissertation AE–91–2, Asian
Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
Richards, P. C., and M. A. S. Wiersma. 1973. Pressure drop in
Avg. vertical pneumatic conveying Pneumotransport 2, Pub. BHRA
Fluid Eng., Cranefield, Bedford, England: A111 – A115.
Statstical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Version 6.01. SPSS
13 12
Inc., 233 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Ill.
Vogt, E. G., and R. R. White. 1948. Friction in the flow of
11 9 suspensions. Industrial and Eng. Chem. 40(9): 1731–1738.
Weber, M. 1981. Principles of hydraulic and pneumatic conveying
4 2 in pipes. J. of Bulk Solids Handling 1(1): 1–7.
_____. 1991. Friction of the air and the air/solid mixture in
pneumatic conveying. J. of Bulk Solids Handling 11(1): 99–102.
Wiedmann, H. G. R., and K. G. K. Wagner. 1976. Pneumatic
transport of agricultural grain. CSIR Report No. ME1471,
Pretoria, South Africa, 1–27.
Yang, W. C., T. C. Anestis, R. E. Gizzie, and G. B. Haldipur. 1987.
Pneumatic transport in a 10 cm horizontal loop. Powder
Technology 49: 261–269.
Yousfi, Y., and G. Gau. 1974. Aerodynamics of vertical flow of
concentrated gas–solid suspensions–2, pressure loss and relative
gas–solid velocity. Chem. Eng. Sci. 29(9): 1947–1953.
Zenz, F. A., and D. F. Othmer. 1960. Fluidization and Fluid
Particle Systems, 313–373. New York: Reinhold Pub.
655
 NOMENCLATURE Pt = total pressure drop in pneumatic conveying
A = cross sectional area of pipe Rep = Particle Reynold’s number
Ap = projected area of the grain particle Va = velocity of air
Cd = drag coefficient vp = particle volume
D = conveying pipe diameter Vs = solid particle velocity
dp = equivalent particle diameter Vslip = slip velocity
fa = Fanning’s friction factor Vt = terminal velocity
fs = solid friction factor w.b. = wet basis
g = acceleration due to gravity ε = voids
L = length of conveying pipe θ = angle of inclination of the conveying pipe
m.c. = moisture content µ = solid–to–air ratio
ms = solid flow rate µa = viscosity of air
Paa = pressure drop due to acceleration of air ra = density of air
Pas = pressure drop due to acceleration of solid rds = dispersed solids density
Pfa = pressure drop due to friction of air with pipe rs = solid particle density
Pfs = pressure drop due to friction of solid with pipe

656 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

View publication stats