Powder Technology 222 (2012) 58–64

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Powder Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Frictional force measurement between a single plug and the pipe wall in dense phase
pneumatic conveying
Jae Bum Pahk, George E. Klinzing ⁎
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 826 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15261

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A new measurement technique to determine the frictional force between a plug and the pipe wall in dense
Received 24 January 2011 phase pneumatic conveying was developed. Four strain gauges were installed on the outer surface of the
Received in revised form 4 January 2012 pipe wall and strains were measured at different locations (top, back, bottom, and front) of the pipe wall,
Accepted 26 January 2012
where the strain signals were obtained. The frictional forces were determined for different experimental condi-
Available online 3 February 2012
tions such as the superficial air velocity and the amount of material being transported. Polyester and polystyrenes
Keywords:
with different size and shape, and polyolefin materials were tested in this study. It was found that the frictional
Friction force is related to the plug length as well as material properties such as size, shape of the polymer particles and
Dense phase contact area with the wall. In addition, it was found that the frictional force was the highest at the top or sides
Pneumatic conveying of the pipe and was smallest at the bottom of the pipe depending on the particle characteristics. The ratio of
Strain shear stress to the overall driving pressure for the plug decreased when the plug length is increased.
Plug flow © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contact area

1. Introduction
The study of the frictional forces in pneumatic conveying is a very
important subject because it is directly related to pipe wear, particle
abrasion and energy losses. Many studies have been performed to de-
termine the solid friction factors for both dense phase [1] and dilute
phase [2] pneumatic conveying. Jones and Williams [3] developed a
correlation of the solid friction factor for dense phase pneumatic convey-
ing. Relatively few researchers have explored the actual frictional forces
especially on dense phase pneumatic conveying. Vasquez [4], measured
frictional force for plastic pellets using load cells. Considerable attention
was given to the proper aligning of the pipe in these studies. Another ex-
perimental study of frictional force in dense phase conveying was per-
formed by Krull [5]. He measured frictional force for plastic pellets and
many different kinds of grains. Krull employed a force measurement
probe that was inserted into the pipe and measured the frictional force
when plug contacts the probe. This measurement device disturbed the
flow field of the plug. Lecrep, Sommer, and Wolz [6] measured wall
shear stress and normal stress within a slug using a piezoelectric
probe. They found that the wall shear stress is smaller at the top of the
pipe than bottom of the pipe.
In this study a wall frictional force measurement device has been
developed that does not disturb the plug flow by measuring the strain
with strain gauges installed on the outer surface of the pipe. When a
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 412 624 0784; fax: + 1 412 624 4618.
E-mail address: klinzing@provost.pitt.edu (G.E. Klinzing).
plug is moving, the friction between pipe wall and particles in the
plug is generated thus friction causes strain changes on the pipe wall.
The frictional force was determined from this strain signal variation
by using a stress force relationship which employed a calibration
procedure.
2. Experimental setup and calibration
2.1. System setup
Fig. 1 shows the single plug pneumatic conveying system. The alu-
minum pipe conveying line is approximately 10.5 m long and 5.08 cm
in diameter with wall thickness of 3.81 mm. The transporting materi-
al initially is stored in the storage tank and when the pneumatic valve
below the storage tank is opened, material is injected into the pipe.
The compressed air is injected into the pipe with the transporting
material forming a plug which is transported. Two pressure trans-
ducers were installed at 6 m and 8.5 m downstream from the pipe
inlet and strain test section which is located in between the two pres-
sure transducers. Two roller supports were installed to support pipe
that was installed after the strain measurement section. These roller
supports allow the pipe to move in the flow direction when wall fric-
tional force generated by plug. In addition, this study employs only
two roller support for the bending calibration purpose. It is difficult
to analyze the effect of bending from the strain signal if more roller
supports are inserted.
The voltage signal from strain gauge was amplified to increase the
signal magnitude. The strain measurement section, (Fig. 2) was

0032-5910/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2012.01.040
 J.B. Pahk, G.E. Klinzing / Powder Technology 222 (2012) 58–64 59

Fig. 1. Schematic of system.

Fig. 2. Strain gauge test section.

especially designed. The length of test section was 80 cm. Using a
milling machine, the outer surface of the test section was milled to
a 0.5 mm thickness. The maximum allowable pressure has been cal-
culated based on the equation as follows [7]:
2ST
P¼  6895½Pa
ððOD−2TÞ  SFÞ
Where S denotes material strength (Yield strength of 40000 psi for
aluminum pipe was used), T denotes pipe thickness (0.0197
in = 0.05 mm), OD is pipe outer diameter (2.39”), and SF is safety fac-
tor (2.0). Insert these values into Eq. (1) yields the maximum allow-
able pressure of 2.3 × 10 6 Pa and the maximum operational pressure
for this study was 15 × 10 3 Pa which is much smaller than the maxi-
mum allowable pressure.
The four 1000 Ω strain gauges (OMEGA SGT-3/1000-XY13) were
installed on this test section. They were located on the top, bottom,
35
30
25
Force (N)
and two sides of the pipe outer surface. A Wheatstone bridge circuit
was employed to detect the voltage variation from each of strain
gauge. In addition, the voltage signal from strain gauges is also affect-
ed by the temperature variation of the aluminum pipe, thus another
four strain gauges (one for each actual strain gauge) were used as
dummy gauges to remove the temperature effect. To build the
ð1Þ
Wheatstone bridge, a commercial bridge (OMEGA BCM-1) with half
bridge configuration was employed. In addition, the signal from the
Wheatstone bridge was amplified 100 times by AD621 AN amplifier.
The signals from strain gauges and pressure transducers were fed to
a data acquisition card (NI USB-6210) and with the help of LABVIEW
software, signals were collected and stored in the computer. A
MATLAB program was used to analyze signals collected.
2.2. Calibration
When the plug moves through the pipe after the test section, the
frictional force pulls the pipe and the test section is elongated and
the strain gauge responds accordingly. The voltage signals from strain
gauge contain not only the signal due to the friction, but also the ef-
fect due to pressure in the pipe and the bending moments of the
pipe. When the pressure in the pipe is high enough, the thin test sec-
tion could be inflated slightly (though not visually observable) and
the strain gauge may generate a signal. In addition, when the plug is

20
located in between the roller supports, the pipe could bend due to
15
the weight of the plug. These effects can be removed from the signal
Top by two simple calibration procedures.
10 To determine the pressure effect, the end of pipe was closed and
Back
the pressure and strain signals were collected while the pipe were
5 Bottom
pressurizing. It was found that the strain signals have a linear rela-
Front
tionship with the pressure. Overall the effect of pressure was not sig-
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 nificant since the pressure measured was small (usually 3000 to
Strain (x10^-6) 10000 Pa) The effect of pressure was often much smaller than the
strain signal obtained, thus this effect was not considered when de-
Fig. 3. Axial force calibration result. termining the frictional force.
60 J.B. Pahk, G.E. Klinzing / Powder Technology 222 (2012) 58–64

Table 1 3.2. Material transported

Material properties.

Color Shape Sauter Mean diameter Density Polyester, three different size and shape of polystyrene, and poly-
(mm) (kg/m3) olefin were employed in this study. Polyester is a green, cubical shape
Polyester Green Cubical 2.40 ± 0.17 1400 particle with mean diameter of 2.5 mm. Polystyrene is clear, cylindri-
Polystyrene 1 Clear Cylindrical 2.50 ± 0.14 1040 cal shape with mean diameter of 2.6 mm, and 3.5 mm and spherical
Polystyrene 2 Clear Cylindrical 3.40 ± 0.21 1040 shape with the mean diameter of 3.4 mm. The color of polyolefin is
Polystyrene 3 Clear Spherical 3.35 ± 0.16 1040
white and it has an ellipsoidal shape with a mean diameter of
Polyolefin White Ellipsoidal 4.13 ± 0.07 950
4.4 mm. Table 1 shows the summary of the material properties. The
particle sizes were measured 30 times for each material.

3.3. Experimental conditions

To determine the bending effect, an artificial plug was constructed
by placing the experimental materials into a cloth tube. Several plugs
were made with various weights and lengths base on the average
value of the plug weight and length that was transported. The weight
of a each plug has been measured by collecting transported material
and weighing them with a weight scale. The plug made of the cloth
tube was inserted into the pipe at the middle of two roller supports,
and then the strains for each plug were measured. The magnitudes
of strains due to the bending were subtracted from the strain signal
obtained.
The direction of the frictional force is in the axial (flow) direction.
To determine the frictional force from the strain signals collected, an
axial force calibration was performed. Using a pulley and known
weights, the force for axial direction generated and strain data with
respect to applied force were obtained. Fig. 3 shows relationship be-
tween strain and axial force applied to the pipe.
Various conditions for the superficial air velocity and amount of ma-
terials were explored. The superficial air velocity in this study varies
from 3.0 to 4.6 m/s. The amounts of material transported were 600,
800 and 1000 g for each material except for the polyolefin particles.
For polyolefin 1000g plugs generated longer plugs than could able to
be accommodated by the measuring system.
3.4. Data acquisition
For each experiment, four strain data and two pressure data were
utilized. The data sampling frequency was 10 KHz and sampling time
was 10 or 15 second depending on the plug velocity. Longer sampling
times were required for slower moving plugs such as polyolefin.
3.5. Determine plug length and velocity

3. Experiment The plug length and its velocity can be determined by analyzing
the pressure signals measured from the different locations. As seen
3.1. Procedure on Fig. 4, the pressure increases when the plug head passes the first
pressure transducer (upstream pressure) and second pressure trans-
The detailed experimental procedure is described as follow: ducer (downstream pressure), at t1 and t2 respectively. When the
plug tail leaves the first transducer, the pressure (time = t1e) signal
a) Place the particles in to the storage tank.
indicates that the pressure does not increased anymore.
b) Open the pneumatic valve to let the particles drop down into the
The plug velocity can be determined by the distance between the
pipe.
two pressure transducer, which is 2.5 m, divide by time take for a
c) Close the pneumatic valve.
plug head to reach from the first transducer with the second pressure
d) Start data collection.
transducer. (t2-t1)
e) Open the solenoid valve for air injection to the pipe – material
transported.
Plug velocity ¼ 2:5=ðt2–t1Þ ½m=s ð2Þ
f) Collect the material at the end of pipe line (pipe exit).
g) Close the solenoid valve.
Thus the plug length is equal to time take for a plug (from head to
h) End the data collection.
tail) pass through the first transducer divide by the plug velocity.
The material could not form a plug without a stationary layer of the
material in the pipe. Thus to generate the stationary layer, the system Plug length ¼ ðt1e–t1Þ=lug velocity½m ð3Þ
was operated several times until the amount of material input was similar
to the amount of material out of pipe within a 10%. Then the actual test Note that the Eqs. (2) and (3) are valid assuming that the plug velocity
was performed. and length does not vary when it moves between both transducers. These

Fig. 4. Example of pressure signal.

 J.B. Pahk, G.E. Klinzing / Powder Technology 222 (2012) 58–64
Fig. 5. Example of the voltage signal from strain gauge.
assumptions are adequate to use since the length between two pressure
transducer is small (2.5 m).
3.6. Determining the frictional force from the strain signal
The voltage signal from strain gauge was measured when the en-
tire plug is moving in between the two roller support. As discussed,
this signal contains the effect of bending as well as pressure, but the
effect of pressure loss is not a factor in this study. Fig. 5 shows the
voltage signal from strain gauge measured at the bottom of the pipe.
The magnitude of strain signal can be determined by the voltage
difference between reference strain and the strain when the plug is
moving in between the two roller supports. The reference strain is
the strain value when there are no plugs in the pipe so no force is ap-
plied to the pipe. As seen on Fig. 5, the voltage decreased when the
plug is passing through the test section. At this moment, the test sec-
tion was bent downward due to the weight of the plug. When the
plug is moving through the roller support, (after test section) the
strain test section would bend upward since the pipe in between
two roller supports bends downward (see Fig. 6). Thus the strain sig-
nal would have negative value. After subtracting the bending effect,
the pure frictional force has a positive value, which means that the
strain test section is in tension due to the friction.
The procedure to obtain the frictional force from collected data is
as follows:
1) Remove the signal noise for the collected data from pressure
transducers and strain gauges by using low pass filter (less than
10 Hz)
2) Calculate the plug velocity and plug length from pressure data.
3) Determine the maximum strain differences that occur from the
strain signals measured from top, bottom, front and back of the
pipe wall (using the plots similar to the Fig. 5).
4) Remove the effect of bending by using the calibration curve.
5) Determine the frictional force using the force-strain plot (Fig. 3).
Fig. 6. Pipe deformation on bending (exaggerated figure).
61
4. Result and discussion
4.1. Plug velocity and plug length
The plug velocity and plug length vary depending on the superfi-
cial air velocity and the amount of material being transported. With
the same amount of material input, the plug velocity increased
when the superficial air velocity increased. The length of plug was
longer when larger amounts of material were transported under the
same superficial air velocity. In addition, for the same amount of ma-
terial transported, longer plugs were obtained under the lower super-
ficial air velocity. When the superficial air velocity is high, the
material packed tightly thus the plug has a shorter plug length.
4.2. Frictional force
4.2.1. Effect of the plug length
Fig. 7 shows the averaged value of the frictional force measured from
the top, bottom, front and back of the pipe's circumference with respect
to the plug length for polystyrene 2 material. The “averaged frictional
force around the pipe circumference” is the total frictional force
generated by a plug and pipe wall. It was seen that the frictional
force between plug and pipe wall has in general, a linear relation-
ship with the length of the plug. Larger frictional forces are generated
for longer plugs. One could readily understand that when the plug
length is longer, more polymer particles contact on the pipe wall thus
have more frictional force generated. In addition, this Fig. 7 reveals
that the superficial air velocity (as well as plug velocity) does not
have a large effect the frictional force. These phenomena were observed
for all materials tested.
4.2.2. Effect of the particle size and contact area
The particle size affects the frictional force measurement. The su-
perficial air velocity was 3 m/s for two different particle sizes of poly-
styrene1 and 2 (mean diameter of 2.5 mm and 3.4 mm respectively)
with the same cylindrical shape. The average frictional force for
these materials were determined and plotted in Fig. 8. As seen, the
plug with the larger particle size generates more frictional force for
a small plug length (b1 m), however, for plug length longer than
1 m, the frictional force is larger for a plug with smaller particle.
This study conjectured that higher frictional force is generated for
plug with smaller particle size due to the larger overall contact area.
Even though the contact area of individual particle for smaller particle
is smaller than larger particle, the number of particles that contact the
pipe wall for small particle is more than large particle for the same
length of plug, thus overall contact area would larger for plug with
smaller particle.
The relative area of contact for the particles using polyester as a base
was calculated based on the classical solutions for non-adhesive elastic
62 J.B. Pahk, G.E. Klinzing / Powder Technology 222 (2012) 58–64

20 25

20
15

Friction Force (N)

R² = 0.5685
Force (N)

15
10
10

5
Vair=3.5 m/s 5
Spherical shape
Vair=3.9 m/s
Vair=4.6 m/s Cylindrical shape
0 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Plug Length (m) Plug length (m)

Fig. 7. Frictional force vs. plug length, polystyrene 2. Fig. 9. Effect of particle shape on frictional force, superficial air velocity = 4.6 m/s, poly-
styrene 2 and polystyrene 3.

12
30
Frictional Force (N)

10

8 25

Friction Force (N)

6 20

4 15 Top
Polystyrene 1 Back
2
10 Bottom
Polystyrene 2
0 Front
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 5
Plug Length (m)
0
Fig. 8. Effect of particle size on frictional force, polystyrene 1 and polystyrene 2. 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
-5
Plug length (m)

Fig. 10. Frictional force determined from different location, polystyrene 2, Vair= 3.5 m/s.
contact [8] equation and summarized in Table 2. The area of contact is
defined as follows:
4.2.3. Effect of particle shape
 1 To determine the effect of particle shape on friction, two polysty-
3Fn R =3
Acontact ¼π ð4Þ rene materials with similar size (mean diameter of 3.4 and 3.5 mm)
4E
but having different shapes (cylindrical and spherical shape respec-
tively) were tested. The superficial air velocities for the tests were
where Fn is normal force applied to particle, R is a radius of particle, E*,
3.5, 3.9 and 4.6 m/s for cylindrical shaped material, and 3.0, 3.8 and
modified Young's modulus is defined as follow:
4.6 m/s for spherical shape material. For cylindrical shaped material,
it was difficult to form a plug with the superficial air velocity lower
1 1−v21 1−v22 than 3.5 m/s. Fig. 9 show that for the same material with the similar
¼ þ ð5Þ
E E1 E2 material size, a plug of spherical shaped particles produces more fric-
tion for the same plug length as that for the cylindrical shaped. This
where ν1, ν2 are Poisson's ratio of particle and pipe materials, and E1, E2 phenomenon can be explained by noting that the spherical shape of
are Young's modulus of particle and pipe materials respectively. Note the particle has more interaction with the pipe wall than cylindrical
that all materials are assumed to have the same Possion's ratios of 0.3, materials thus number of particles that could interact with the pipe
and the amount of the normal force applied to the particle is the wall more, thus generating more friction.
same. As seen on Table 2, polyolefin material has a much larger area
of contact (more than 6 times) compare to other materials, thus one 4.2.4. Measuring location
can readily understand that this material generates more frictional As mentioned before, the frictional force was determined based on
force. the strain signals measured from top, back, bottom circumferential
surface of the pipe. It was found that the frictional force is not the

Table 2 Table 3
Young's modulus and the area of contact for each material. Voidage for each material.

Material Young's Modulus (GPa) Hertz Area of Contact (Ratio) Material Voidage (Static) Voidage (Dynamic)

Polyester 3.5 1 Polyester 0.41 0.59

Polystyrene 1 3 1.06 Polystyrene 1 0.37 0.51
Polystyrene 2 3 1.18 Polystyrene 2 0.36 0.51
Polystyrene 3 3 1.17 Polystyrene 3 0.36 0.59
Polyolefin 0.09 6.59 Polyolefin 0.36 0.60
 J.B. Pahk, G.E. Klinzing / Powder Technology 222 (2012) 58–64 63

Table 4 0.025
Average plug velocity and plug length with standard deviation for polyester, 4-(a) and
polyolefin, 4-(b) with different experimental condition (Vplug = plug velocity,
0.02
Lplug = plug length).

Vair Input Plug Velocity Plug Length Average Frictional Force

(g) (m/s) (m) (N) 0.015

τw/σp
(a) Vair=3.0
3 600 1.684 ± 0.011 0.430 ± 0.060 2.57 ± 0.93 0.01
Vair=3.9
800 1.637 ± 0.110 0.604 ± 0.119 4.68 ± 1.23
Vair=4.6
1000 1.630 ± 0.038 0.710 ± 0.125 4.29 ± 0.60
3.9 600 2.326 ± 0.091 0.341 ± 0.052 2.74 ± 1.20 0.005
800 2.325 ± 0.075 0.537 ± 0.084 4.91 ± 1.22
1000 2.243 ± 0.078 0.623 ± 0.018 5.47 ± 0.88
0
4.6 600 2.808 ± 0.095 0.324 ± 0.048 3.04 ± 0.81 0 0.5 1 1.5
800 2.880 ± 0.111 0.404 ± 0.055 3.94 ± 0.99 Plug Length (m)
1000 2.830 ± 0.105 0.571 ± 0.123 5.85 ± 1.15

Fig. 11. Normalized force (wall shear.stress/pressure drop) vs. plug length, polystyrene 3.
(b)
3.8 400 0.794 ± 0.015 0.906 ± 0.072 13.22 ± 0.70
600 0.752 ± 0.110 1.315 ± 0.016 17.58 ± 2.23
800 0.705 ± 0.004 1.688 ± 0.053 20.33 ± 1.26 plug, thus particles packed well from bottom to the top of the plug. Un-
4.6 400 1.047 ± 0.020 0.809 ± 0.036 15.11 ± 0.58 like sharp edged materials, less fluidized particles were seen at the top
600 1.018 ± 0.011 1.164 ± 0.059 17.30 ± 1.04 of the pipe.
800 0.952 ± 0.017 1.470 ± 0.063 20.61 ± 0.73 One should note that very small negative frictional forces are seen
in Fig. 10 which can be attributed to the static calibration of the strain
gauges while in reality, the plug is in dynamic and shows varying de-
same at all four measuring locations. Fig. 10 shows the frictional force grees of bending as the plug moves between the rollers.
determined from different measuring location for polystyrene 2 ma-
terial. Fig. 10 shows that the largest frictional force was observed on 4.2.5. Frictional force comparison for each material
the top of the pipe, and the smallest force was observed from the bot- The results from this study for polyester are summarized in
tom of the pipe for this material as well as polyester. One can expect Table 4. In Table 4, the average plug velocity, length and its standard
that more fluidizing occurs at the top of the plug thus particles on the deviation for each experimental condition is presented, other poly-
top interact more actively with the pipe wall generating more fric- mers (polystyrenes) studied show similar results for the standard de-
tion. The plug has been visually observed through the transparent viations. In addition, the result for averaged frictional force is also
section of the pipe. From observation, fluidized occurred at the top included in Table 4.
of the plug, while the other location seemed to be packed. This phe- The frictional force for polyester has the smallest frictional force
nomenon was observed for the materials that have a sharp edges compared to the other materials. This material has a higher density
(e.g. cylindrical shaped and cubical shaped materials). than the other materials and the smallest relative contact area and
The frictional forces measured from back and front of the particle smallest friction area seems to attribute to the smaller frictional
have similar value since the measuring location is symmetrical. The force. The spherical shaped polystyrene, as seen in 4.2.3, allow the in-
plugs transported in this study have a superficial gas velocity from 3 dividual plug to be fluidized more readily, thus showing a higher fric-
to 5 m/sec. Air does leak through the plug as it is being transported tional force than other polystyrene material with a cylindrical shape.
and the particles are fluidized above the minimum fluidization velocity Polyolefin is a rubbery material and it forms longer plug lengths eas-
which is approximately 0.5 m/sec. Viewing the video files of the plug's ily. Individual particles can bounce to the pipe wall easily, thus fric-
movement through the visual section of the pipe one sees that the tional force for this material is larger than the others.
upper surface of the solids is moving faster the lower section. There
are more particle-particle and particle-wall interaction during the 4.2.6. Friction angle
transport process. Pahk and Klinzing [9] have measured the voidage of The friction angle for each material (except polystyrene 3) has
the plugs as they are being transported showing a variation along the been measured by Kalman [10] using Jenike Shear Cell Tester and pre-
plug length being larger at the head and tail of the plug. The average voi- sented in Table 5. It was shown that the results of friction angle cor-
dage measured is higher than that determined assuming the entire plug responds the friction test result in section 4.2.5. Polyester has the
is under the bulk density condition indicating again that fluidization smallest friction angle and has a smallest frictional force, while poly-
does occur in the transport of the plugs. Table 3 shows that the voidage olefin material has a highest friction angle and generated a largest
of the moving plug (dynamic) and packed voidage (Static) for each frictional force.
material.
For particles with rounded shape such as spherical and ellipsoidal 4.2.7. Force normalization
shape with rounded edge (polystyrene 3 and polyolefin), the frictional To normalize the frictional force, first, the wall shear stress has
force was the highest at the sides and smallest at the bottom. From been calculated for each plug. Wall shear stress was readily deter-
the visual observation of these particles, they form a consolidated mined by dividing the frictional force divide by relevant plug's cir-
cumferential area. Then this wall shear stress was divided by
pressure difference between plug head and tail (ΔP), the overall
Table 5 plug driving pressure. Fig. 11 is a plot for the normalized force with
Friction angle for each material.
respect to the plug length. This plot shows how much the wall
Material Friction angle (Tan ) shear stress generated when a plug is moving compare to the pres-
Polyester 0.195 sure difference between plug head and tail. Fig. 11 indicates that for
Polystyrene 1 0.337 shorter plugs (Lplug b 1m) the portion of the wall shear stress is de-
Polystyrene 2 0.217 creased rapidly when the plug length is increased. But for a longer
Polystyrene 3 Not Measured plugs (Lplug > 1), this portion is decreased slightly when plug length
Polyolefin 0.668
is increased. This phenomenon was seen for all particles.
64 J.B. Pahk, G.E. Klinzing / Powder Technology 222 (2012) 58–64
5. Conclusion
During this study, a new technique to measure strain gauge without
disturbing the plug flow has been developed. The frictional force results
indicates that several important factors that affect to the frictional
force:
a) For the same material with the same shape, a plug with smaller
particle sizes generates larger frictional forces due to larger overall
area of contact.
b) With the same material, the spherical shape material generates
more frictional forces when compare to cylindrical shaped materials
c) For the cubical and cylindrical shape of materials, the largest frictional
forces were observed at the top of the plug and the smallest frictional
force was observed at the bottom of the plug.
d) Polyolefin generated the largest frictional force due to its larger
area of contact. The friction for the polyester generates the smallest
frictional force when transported.
e) The friction angle also is a measure of frictional force observed
with the larger friction angle having the larger frictional forces
f) Normalized force result indicates that the portion of shear stress
to the pressure is decreased rapidly for a shorter plug, while it
slightly decreased for a longer plug when plug length is increased.
This indicates a balance of stress being fixed for longer plugs between
the axial stress and wall shear stress
Acknowledgement
Financial support for this study has been provided by NSF, DOW
Chemical Company and Ben Gurion University.
References
[1] R. Pan, Part B: Details of test runs and scale up procedure, Bulk Solids Handling 19
(3) (1999) 321–327.
[2] M. Weber, Principles of hydraulic and pneumatic conveying in pipes, Bulk Solids
Handling 1 (1) (1981) 57–63.
[3] M. Jones, K. Willams, Solid Friction Factors for Fluidized Dense-Phase, Conveying
Particulate Science and Technology 21 (2003) 45–56.
[4] N. Vasquez, L. Sanchez, G.E. Klinzing, S. Dhodapkar, Friction measurement in
dense phase plug flow analysis, Powder Technology 137 (2003) 167–183.
[5] Krull, Tobias, Slug flow pneumatic conveying: Stress field analysis and pressure
drop prediction. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Newcastle 2005. Newcastle,
Australia.
[6] I. Lecreps, K. Sommer, K. Wolz, Stress States and Porosity within Horizontal Slug
by Dense-Phase Pneumatic Conveying, Particulate Science and Technology 27
(2009) 297–313.
[7] http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/pipe_bust_calc.htm, last visit on July
15th 2011.
[8] Classical solutions for non-adhesive elastic contact, “ http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Contact_mechanics#Contact_between_a_sphere_and_an_elastic_half-
space”, last visit on July 15th 2011.
[9] J.B. Pahk, G.E. Klinzing, Voidage Measurement for a Moving Plug in Dense Phase
Pneumatic Conveying Using Two Different Methods, Particulate Science and
Technology 28 (2010) 511–519.
[10] Personal communication with Kalman, Ban Gurion University (Jun. 2008).