Solve Solids Handling Problems by Retrofitting1

by
Herman Purutyan,
Brian H. Pittenger
and
Dr. John W. Carson

some types (raw, unprocessed solids feedstock)

Most flow problems are caused by a funnel approaching 18 months. Once startup began,
flow pattern and can be cured by altering the poor performance continued to plague these
pattern to mass flow, which requires operations with capacity ranging between 40%
changing the hopper or feeder design. Other and 50% of design values.
methods to fix poor flow include mechanical
and chemical flow aids. Although considerable engineering resources
are usually allocated to processing concerns,
(e.g. reaction chemistry), design of material
In plants and processes involving solids, handling systems to prevent problems rarely
ineffective and unreliable handling systems are gets much attention. It is not uncommon to
often a primary cause of startup delays, process find, for example, a critical centrifugation step
inefficiencies, and equipment downtime. This is beset with problems because of a frequently
a major problem, and its extent was confirmed plugging transfer chute, or costly downtime (of
by a six-year study by the Rand Corp. of 40 the centrifuge and the whole process) due to a
solids processing plants in the U.S. and Canada plugged silo.
[1]. The findings revealed that 80% of all plants
studied experienced solids handling problems. Many, if not all, of these problems can be
Also, the affected facilities were slow in coming avoided by basing the design of solids handling
up to speed, with an average startup time for
1
Reprinted with permission from Chemical Engineering Progress, June, 2001. Copyright © 1998 American Institute of
Chemical Engineers. All rights reserved. Not to be uploaded to any other site without written permission from the AIChE.
Individual downloads are permitted so long as a fee of $15 per article is paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923.

400 Business Park Drive Tyngsboro, MA 01879 • Tel: (978) 649-3300 • FAX: (978) 649-3399
Also: San Luis Obispo, CA • Toronto, Canada • Viña del Mar, Chile
www.jenike.com
 Figure 1. Interlocking and cohesive arches are common
problems in silos.

systems on the flow properties of the bulk

materials being handled and processed through
them. However, in many cases, such systems
are designed using prior experience as a basis,
which unfortunately usually only points to what
does not work instead of what works best.
Other times, the design of the solids handling
system is left to the end of the process design,
and fitted into the space left over from the rest Interlocking arch Cohesive arch
of the processing equipment.

What if the equipment is already in place and

the process is limping along? Although it is
much easier to prevent solids handling problems
by using sound design methods at the outset,
there are a number of effective retrofits that can
significantly improve equipment performance.
Retrofitting is often more economical than
completely replacing the faulty equipment, or
living with the problem. The exact choice of a
retrofit will obviously depend on the nature of
the problem, process, product, and constraints.
A broad overview of retrofit options is
discussed in this article, following a discussion
of common problems encountered when
handling bulk solids.
Common flow problems
While handling problems can be encountered in
a variety of equipment, the most common occur
in silos.
(The terms silo, bin, tank, vessel, and bunker are
interchangeable. Silo will be used throughout
this article to represent such equipment. Hopper
is the portion of a silo in which the cross-section
changes, such as a cone, wedge, pyramid, or
other shape.)
The problems in silos consist of:
No-flow from a silo is the most common and
often the most serious solids handling problem.
It can be due to either arching (bridging) or
ratholing.
• Arching occurs when an obstruction in the
shape of an arch or a bridge forms above the
outlet and prevents any further material
discharge. It can be an interlocking arch, where
the particles mechanically lock to form the
obstruction, or a cohesive arch. An interlocking
arch occurs when the particles are large
compared to the outlet size of the hopper. A
cohesive arch happens when particles pack
together to form an obstruction (Figure 1).
• Ratholing can occur in those silos where flow
takes place through a channel that forms within
the material. If the material has sufficient
cohesive strength, once the channel is emptied,
no more discharges (Figure 2).
Erratic flow is the result of obstructions
alternating between an arch and a rathole. A
rathole may collapse due to an external force,
such as vibrations created by a train or a fork-
lift operating nearby, or a flow-aid device such
as an air cannon or a vibrator. While some
material is likely to discharge, falling material
often impacts over the outlet and forms an arch.
An arch may break due to a similar external
force, and material flow may resume until the
flow channel is emptied and a rathole is formed
again.

2
 Figure 4.
2. A
Ratholing
rathole limits
can occur
the live
in those
capacity
silosofwhere
a silo.flow
takes place through a channel that forms within the
material.

Stagnant or density. Segregation or de-mixing of

ingredients may prevent a desired chemical
reaction, may cause an undesired reaction, or
Rathole may cause out-of-spec product, resulting in
costly product waste or rework. Segregation of
fines from the coarse may also have similar
effects [2] (Figure 3).

Associated flow problems

The following are some results of the flow

problems described above:

• Limited live capacity – Although the liquid

Flooding/flushing can occur when handling fine
powders, such as pigments, additives, or
precipitates. When a rathole collapses, the
falling particles entrain air and become
fluidized. Since most solids-handling
equipment cannot handle fluids, material floods
through the feeder uncontrollably. The solid’s
bulk density can often undergo dramatic
variations, negatively impacting on downstream
packaging or processing equipment.
Flooding can also occur when handling fine
powders (100 µm or smaller) in small vessels
with high fill and discharge rates. In such
situations, the powder does not have sufficient
residence time to deaerate, resulting in flooding
through the feeder.
Flow rate limitation is another problem unique
to fine powders. Most fine powders have very
low permeabilities and are affected by any
movement of interstitial air (or other gases).
The pressure gradients caused as a result of this
gas movement can retard discharge from a
hopper, significantly limiting the maximum
achievable rates.
volume of the silo may be sufficient, its live
(usable) capacity can be severely limited due to
stagnant material inside. If a rathole forms, then
the live capacity of the silo effectively becomes
limited to the size of the rathole (see Figure 4);
• Product degradation – When allowed to
remain stagnant, some materials may cake,
oxidize, spoil, or otherwise change physically or
chemically;
• Incomplete or non-uniform processing – In
processing vessels where the product may be
dried, cooled, reacted or purged of volatiles,
flow problems give rise to incomplete
processing which may severely reduce process
efficiency, result in quality problems, or even
lead to dangerous situations, such as when
combustible volatiles are only partially removed
from the product;
Figure 3. Sifting segregation can result in costly product
waste or rework.

Particle segregation can occur both when

handling blends consisting of a number of
ingredients, and when handling a homogenous
substance with a wide variation in particle size

3

• Vibration of structure – Material flow through
silos can result in significant vibrations, which
can be either high-frequency/low-amplitude or
low-frequency/high-amplitude [3]. If not
addressed, these vibrations can result in noise
that violates U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, or
worse, failure of the silo structure, or nearby
equipment;
• Structural failure – Structural failures can
occur when large masses of material fall and
impact on the outlet of the silo and the feeder,
for example as a result of collapsing arches and
ratholes. In addition, silo walls can dent or
wrinkle as a result of uneven loads imposed by
asymmetric flow channels. These dents and
distortions can significantly weaken a silo and
can eventually lead to catastrophic failure [4,5];
and
• Excessive power requirement – Large amounts
of stagnant material over a feeder can
significantly increase the power required to
operate the feeder, in addition to contributing to
some of the other problems already discussed.
Flow patterns
reliably, provided that all of the following four
conditions are met:
1. Material handled consists entirely of coarse
particles – usually 1/4 in. or larger;
2. Material is free flowing – particles do not
stick to each other;
3. Particles are non-degrading – spontaneous
combustion, spoilage, aging, or caking does not
occur when particles are stagnant for extended
durations; and
4. Particle segregation is not a concern.
Unless all of these four conditions are met, flow
related problems will occur in funnel flow silos.
To prevent such problems, a mass flow silo
should be used.
Mass flow is defined as the flow pattern where
upon withdrawal of any material, all of the
contents of a silo move (Figure 6). Mass flow
Figure 5. Funnel flow occurs when the sloping hopper
walls of a silo are not steep enough and smooth enough for
particles to flow along them.

Most of the problems discussed above occur in Moving

silos where flow takes place through a channel

formed within the bulk solid. This describes a
funnel flow pattern, in which some material
moves while the rest remains stationary during
discharge from the silo (Figure 5). Funnel flow
occurs when the sloping hopper walls of a silo
are not steep enough and smooth enough for
particles to flow along them. Particles slide on
themselves rather than the hopper walls, and an
internal flow channel develops.

Funnel flow silos often have flat bottoms or

very shallow hopper angles. They may be used

Stagnant
4
occurs when sloping hopper walls are smooth
enough and steep enough for particles to slide
along them. This type of flow eliminates
ratholing and associated problems of flooding
and stagnant material, as well as maximizes the
usable capacity of the silo.
A third flow pattern, expanded flow, is a
combination of mass flow and funnel flow. An
expanded flow silo consists of a lower section
that is in mass flow and an upper section that is
funnel flow (Figure 7). It is typically used to
overcome ratholing in large silos by using the
mass-flow section to enlarge the flow channel
diameter such that a rathole cannot form. To
use expanded flow, the material must be non-
degrading, segregation must be unimportant,
and the particles must be coarse enough not to
become fluidized. Unless these three conditions
are met, expanded flow should not be used.
RETROFIT OPTIONS
Figure 6. In mass flow, all of the contents of a silo move
upon withdrawal of any material.
5
The most cost-effective retrofit option will
depend on the flow properties of the material
and the types of constraints that are imposed on
the design. In general, retrofit options consist of
the following:
• Hopper modifications;
• Use of inserts;
• Feeder modifications;
• Flow aids (mechanical and chemical);
• Air permeation systems; and
• Fluidization.
Hopper modifications
If the problem is caused by funnel flow,
modifications to the hopper to convert it to mass
flow have high probability of success. The
problems that can be solved by this approach are
flow stoppages or erratic discharge due to
arching and ratholing, flooding or flushing of
fine powders, certain types of segregation,
incomplete or non-uniform processing, silo
Figure 7. An expanded flow silo consists of a lower
section that is in mass flow and an upper section that is
funnel flow.
Exceeds critical
rathole diameter
Funnel
flow
Mass
flow
 Figure 9. A typical wall friction test result from the Jenike
Shear Tester.

vibrations, and
φ' =structural problems.
Wall friction angle, deg Material in the ring is pushed along the
stationary wall surface, and the shear force is
To achieve mass flow, two conditions must be measured as a function of applied normal force.
met as a minimum:
Shear
stress, A typical wall friction test result is shown in
psf sloping walls of the hopper must be φ'
1. The steep
1
Figure 9. The applied normal pressures are
enough and must have sufficiently low friction plotted on the horizontal axis, and the measured
to allow particles to flow
φ'
2
along them; and shear values on the vertical axis. Wall friction
0 angle, φ', is then defined as the angle formed by
2. The hopper opening must be large enough to drawing a straight line from the origin to a point
0 Normal pressure, psf
overcome arching. on the curve. φ' is another way of expressing
the coefficient of friction (µ = tan φ').
Flow along walls
Once the wall friction angles have been
One or more of the following modifications to measured, hopper angles for mass flow can be
the hopper may be considered to achieve flow determined using a series of design charts
along hopper walls: change inner hopper originally developed by Jenike [6]. A typical
surface, the hopper slope, or the hopper design chart for a conical hopper geometry is
geometry. shown in Figure 10. This is an example chart
and should not be used for design. Complete
Before modifications are made, the flow sets of design charts are given in Ref. 6.
properties of a material must be determined.
With respect to flow along hopper walls, the In Figure 10, the hopper angles from vertical,
critical property is friction that develops θc, are plotted along the horizontal axis. The
between the bulk solid and the hopper wall wall friction angles, φ', are on the vertical axis.
surface (wall friction). Wall friction of a The chart contains three regions: mass flow,
material can be easily measured in a laboratory funnel flow, and an uncertain region (which is,
using a Jenike Shear Tester (Figure 8), a small in fact, a margin of safety).
sample of the bulk solid, and various wall
surfaces. When considering retrofitting an existing
hopper, the wall friction tests should be
The test is conducted by first placing the bulk conducted on Figure
a number ofto candidate wall
Figure 10. Data from 9 are used determine
solid in a retaining ring on a flat coupon of wall surfaces,
design which
charts for may
setting include
hopper anglesliners such
for mass as ultra-
flow.
material. Then, various normal forces are high molecular-weight polyethylene, θsmooth or
applied by placing weights on the cover. c
40°
Funnel or coated).
Figure 8. A Jenike Shear Tester determines friction between a solid and a wall surface (uncoated
flow
30°
Normal Pressure = Weight/Area
20° Cover
Bracket φ' Mass
flow Ring Uncertain
10°

0°
Shear Stress =
Force/Area
0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50°

Bulk Solid Sample of Wall Material

θ c
6
 Figure 11. Plane flow geometry is a more robust design,
capable of handling wider variations in material
characteristics.
polished stainless steel sheets, or coatings such
as various epoxies, polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE), and others.
L/W ≥ 2
Changing the hopper wall surface can be an
option in converting a hopper to mass flow if
one of the surfaces tested has a wall friction θp
angle that results in mass flow at the existing
L W
hopper angle.
Chisel Hopper

Example 1 – A silo with a 20-deg. from vertical

conical hopper exhibits funnel flow. The
hopper is constructed from mill finish (No. 1)
stainless steel plate. A wall friction test on this
L/W ≥ 3
wall surface using the bulk solid handled, shows
that wall friction angle φ' is 30 deg. The
combination of these two numbers plots a point θc
θp
within the funnel flow region of the design
chart, which confirms the observation. Another L W
test conducted on a No. 2B-finish stainless steel Transition Hopper
sheet shows that the wall friction angle is
20 deg. The combination of this wall friction
and the hopper angle plots a point within the wall friction angle would result in mass flow.
mass-flow area of the design chart. Thus, lining Thus, cutting off the existing hopper and
the existing hopper with a No. 2B finish installing a new, 22-deg.-from-vertical hopper
stainless steel sheet will convert the silo to mass coated with the epoxy tested will convert the
flow. silo to mass flow.

It is not always possible to find a hopper surface
that results in mass flow at the given hopper
angle. In this case, another option is to increase
the slope of the hopper. This may need to be
done in combination with changing the hopper
surface.
Example 2 – A silo with a 30-deg. from vertical
conical hopper exhibits funnel flow. The
hopper is constructed from carbon steel plate.
Tests on various wall materials show the lowest
wall friction angle to be 20 deg. (on a particular
epoxy coating). The design chart shows that a
20-deg. wall friction angle and a 30-deg. hopper
angle still will result in funnel flow. However,
if the hopper could be steepened to 22 deg. from
vertical, then a wall surface having a 20-deg.
Making a hopper steeper is not always an option
due to, for example, headroom constraints. If
mass flow must be achieved in the existing
headroom, another option is to replace a conical
hopper with a plane flow hopper in which
convergence is on two opposing sides only, and
the outlet is elongated such as a wedge or
transition hopper. The sloping sidewalls of a
plane flow hopper can be made 10- to 12-deg.
less steep than a cone with the same inner
surface and still achieve flow along its walls. In
addition, theory shows that in plane flow there
is no sharp boundary between the mass flow and
the funnel flow regions, so that mass flow is still
possible to the right of the boundary in the
design charts. This makes the plane flow
geometry a more robust design, capable of
handling wider variations in material

7
characteristics. Typical plane flow hoppers are
shown in Figure 11.
Example 3 – A silo with a 35-deg. from vertical
conical hopper exhibits funnel flow. The
hopper is constructed from carbon steel plate.
Tests on several wall materials show the lowest
wall friction angle to be 20 deg. The design
chart shows that a 20-deg. wall friction angle
and a 35-deg. conical hopper still will result in
funnel flow. A 22-deg. or steeper cone is
required for mass flow. However, a transition
hopper with 35-deg. sidewall angles will result
in mass flow, within the existing hopper height.
Thus, replacing the existing hopper with a new
transition hopper with 35-deg. side walls will
convert the silo to mass flow.
In general, when using a plane flow hopper, if
the end walls are converging, the length of the
outlet must be at least three times its width. For
vertical end walls, for example when a chisel
hopper is used, a minimum length-to-width ratio
of 2:1 is sufficient.
Going from a circular outlet to an elongated
outlet will likely require a change in the feeder
as well. Changes in feeder design are addressed
later in this article.
Overcoming arching
In addition to modifications to ensure flow
along hopper walls, mass flow requires that the
hopper has an outlet large enough to overcome
arching. As shown in Figure 1, two types of
arches are possible: interlocking and cohesive.
Figure 12. A Jenike Shear Tester is used to find the
Tocohesive
overcome interlocking
strength of a solid. arches requires that
the diameter of a circular opening be at least 6
Normalparticles
to 8 times that of the largest force handled.
Additional considerations may be necessary Cover for
flaked or stringy materials. Ring
Bulk solid
Shearing
force
Base
8
The second type of arching, namely cohesive
arching, can be analyzed by measuring the
cohesiveness of the material. If, at any given
point, the cohesive strength of a material
exceeds the stresses imposed on it, then a stable
arch will form and flow will stop. To prevent
arching, it is necessary to ensure that the
stresses acting on the material are always
greater than its cohesive strength.
Cohesive strengths of most materials are a
function of consolidating pressures. To
illustrate this, let’s hypothetically assume that a
bulk solid is confined in a cylinder with
frictionless walls. This bulk solid is
consolidated by placing a uniform pressure on
its top surface, P1. After some period of time,
the consolidating pressure is taken off the solid,
and the walls of the cylinder are removed
without disturbing the column of material.
Once the material is unconfined (i.e. the walls
are removed), pressure is once again applied to
the top surface, increasing in magnitude until
the column gives out at a failure pressure, F1.
This failure pressure is, in effect, the material’s
cohesive strength at a consolidating pressure of
P1 .
Given the obvious limitations of this test (such
as frictionless walls and a self-sustaining
column of material), it cannot be used to obtain
cohesive strength values for design. Instead, a
Jenike Shear Tester, for example, can be used
[7] (Figure 12). Normal forces are applied to
the cover to consolidate the material, similar to
the wall friction tests, and the force required to
Figure 13. Typical Flow Function of a solid as determined
by shear the material
Jenike Shear Tester. is measured. The result of
this test is a relationship of cohesive strength to
consolidating pressure, called a "Flow
Cohesive Strength, F
Function," as shown in Figure 13.
Major Consolidating Pressure, P1

Once a material’s Flow Function has been
determined, minimum outlet sizes to overcome
arching can be calculated through a series of
design charts created by Jenike [6].
Typically, the minimum outlet diameter
required to prevent arching across a circular
outlet is roughly twice the minimum width
required for a slotted outlet. For example, if the
minimum outlet diameter to prevent arching is
calculated to be 12 in., a 6-in. wide slotted outlet
(and at least 18 in. long) is sufficient to prevent
arching.
It should be noted that given the same size
outlet, a bulk solid is more likely to arch in a
funnel-flow hopper than in a mass-flow one.
Therefore, modifying the hopper to achieve
flow along hopper walls may be in itself
sufficient to overcome arching. Whether this is
the case or not can be confirmed by checking
the minimum outlet requirements in mass flow
calculated using the cohesive strength test data.
Example 4 – Arching and ratholing frequently
occur in a silo with a 25-deg. from vertical
conical hopper having a 12-in. dia. outlet. The
hopper is constructed from mill finish (No. 1)
stainless steel plate. Wall friction and cohesive
strength tests are performed on the material.
Cohesive strength tests show that if handled in a
mass-flow hopper, the minimum outlet diameter
to overcome arching is 12 in. If handled in a
funnel-flow hopper, the outlet must be 36 in. or
greater to overcome arching and ratholing. In
this case, modifying the hopper to achieve flow
along hopper walls will solve the arching and
ratholing problems.
Example 5 – Assume that, in the above example,
the cohesive strength tests reveal that the
minimum outlet required to prevent arching in a
mass-flow cone is 24 in. One option is to
increase the outlet size to 24 in. and modify the
9
hopper to get mass flow; however, this will limit
the feeder choices. Another option is to replace
the conical hopper with a transition hopper with
a 12 in. wide by 36 in. long outlet.
Combatting ratholing
Whether a rathole will form in a silo is also a
function of cohesive strength. A rathole will
develop if the cohesive strength of the material
is greater than the stresses acting on the
boundary of a flow channel. Cohesive strength
of most materials increases with increasing
consolidation pressure. Since consolidation
pressure experienced by a bulk solid is a
function of the size of a silo, the tendency for a
material to rathole increases with increasing silo
size. On the other hand, it is common to find
materials cohesive enough to form ratholes even
in small silos (5-ft. dia. or less). (Note that
ratholes form only in funnel-flow silos.)
Once the Flow Function of a material is
obtained, critical flow channel diameters to
overcome ratholing can be calculated in a
similar manner to outlet sizes. This critical
diameter, DF, is calculated as a function of silo
size. To avoid ratholing in a funnel-flow silo,
the flow channel must be greater than DF,
which will ensure that the stresses at the
boundary of the flow channel exceed the
strength of the bulk solid. The size of a flow
channel is set by the hopper outlet, and is
approximately equal to its diameter (if it is
circular) or the diagonal of a slotted outlet.
Example 6 – Ratholes form in a 25-ft. diameter
silo, causing flow stoppages and, at times,
uncontrollable fluidized discharge of material,
which occurs due to collapsing ratholes. The
silo cylinder is 35-ft. tall, followed by a conical
hopper extending to a 12-in. dia. outlet with a
screw below.
Tests confirm that the 25-deg. from vertical
conical hopper fabricated using No. 1 mill finish
stainless steel plate results in funnel flow. The
least frictional of all the surfaces tested, a
polyethylene liner, requires 19 deg. from
vertical to achieve mass flow. Given the size of
the silo, it is not practical to replace the hopper
with a steeper one. In this case, another option
to consider is expanded flow.
The 12-in. dia. outlet results in a flow channel
that starts at a 12-in. diameter and then expands
somewhat upwards. Cohesive strength tests
show that the critical rathole diameter, DF, for
this material in a silo of this size is 6 ft.
Therefore, ratholing can be overcome by cutting
the existing hopper at a 6 ft. diameter and
placing below this a 19 deg. from vertical
conical hopper lined with the polyethylene sheet
tested. This modification will result in mass
flow in the silo up to the top of the new hopper
section, and funnel flow above. Note that if the
material is susceptible to segregation or
degradation with time, then other problems may
persist even though this modification will result
in reliable discharge.
Figure 14. Inverted cone placed near the top of a conical
hopper can modify or alter flow in a silo.
10
Use of inserts
Inserts placed inside hoppers can be used to
modify or alter flow in a silo. Early inserts
consisted of inverted cones placed near the tops
of conical hoppers (Figure 14). In theory, under
the right conditions. these inserts can force flow
along a portion of hopper wall. However, in
practice they rarely achieve flow along hopper
walls. Nevertheless, if placed correctly, these
inserts can increase the size of the flow channel,
therefore activating more of the contents of a
silo. Thus if the only problem is one of limited
live capacity of a silo, there may be some merit
in considering such an insert. However, if
misplaced, these inserts can make problems
worse by causing arching.
Another type of insert consists of a hopper-
within-a-hopper, such as cone-within-a-cone, or
wedge-within-a-wedge. (This design is
patented.) These inserts can force material flow
along hopper walls otherwise too shallow or too
frictional for flow (see Figure 15).
Figure 15. Cone-within-a-cone insert forces material flow
along hopper walls otherwise too shallow or too frictional
for flow.
Example 7 – Particle segregation has been a
problem in a silo. Although well-blended
material is transferred to the silo, the discharge
contains large amounts of fines at the beginning
and large amounts of coarse particles at the end
of a run. The problem is caused by a funnel-
flow pattern that results in the center of the silo
being discharged first, followed by the sides.
Note that if the bulk solid is susceptible to
sifting segregation, the process of filling the silo
will result in a higher concentration of fines in
the center. If the silo is then emptied in a
funnel-flow pattern, the center is withdrawn
first, followed by the periphery. To remedy the
situation, the flow must be converted to mass
flow, which results in the sides and the center
discharging roughly at the same time, thereby
reducing the impact of this side-to-side
segregation.
The silo consists of a conical hopper sloping at
35 deg. from vertical. Test results show that the
existing wall surface requires a 20-deg. conical
hopper to achieve mass flow. Perhaps because
of headroom limitations, the cost of replacing
the hopper, or the downtime required, a new 20-
deg. hopper is not feasible. An alternative to
this would be to place an 18-deg. cone inside the
hopper, forming a "cone-within-a-cone" system.
This will force flow along the 35-deg. hopper
walls and convert the silo to mass flow. In
addition, the use of this type of hopper insert
system results in more-uniform velocities in the
silo, which further reduce the impact of
segregation. A uniform velocity may also be
Figure 16. Retrofitted purge silo yields mass flow.
desirable in silos where residence time of the
bulk solid is important, such as in purge vessels,
or when cross-contamination as a result of
products’ mixing in the silo during discharge is
a concern [8].
Example 8 – Funnel flow in a purge silo used to
remove volatiles from granular polymers is
causing incomplete processing, resulting in the
volatiles being discharged with the material.
11
This not only creates an explosion hazard, but
also causes quality problems. In addition,
because of funnel flow, stagnant material in the
silo is causing cross-contamination between
batches.
Converting the purge silo to mass flow ensures a
uniform residence time, hence, uniform purging.
Mass flow also prevents stagnant material,
therefore, significantly reducing cross-
contamination across batches. In continuous
processes where a different batch is placed on
top of another, a certain amount of mixing
occurs as the material flows through the silo.
Ensuring a uniform velocity profile through the
silo can minimize this mixing and minimize
changeover waste.
Wall friction tests show that the existing hopper
slope is too shallow for mass flow regardless of
the surface. Since the silo is a pressure vessel,
any external change to the hopper would require
extensive fabrication and retesting of the
structure. The most practical solution is to use a
"hopper-within-a-hopper" insert to convert the
flow pattern to mass flow, which also provides a
uniform velocity (Figure 16).
Pup tent
Another type of insert, often referred to as a pup
tent, is useful in combining flow channels to
overcome ratholing (Figure 17). The diameter
 Figure 17. A pup tent is useful in combining flow channels
to overcome ratholing.
of a flow channel created by combining two
flow channels is roughly equal to the sum of the
diameters of the individual flow channels. For
example, a pup tent could be used to combine
the flow channels that form above two adjacent
outlets of a silo to dramatically increase the flow
channel size, to the point that a stable rathole
cannot form.
Pup tents can also be used to reduce loading on
feeders with multiple screws. By carefully
placing small pup tents between the screws, the
solids pressure acting on each screw, and,
hence, power requirements can be significantly
lowered. Care must be taken, however, to avoid
formation of arches over the pup tents.
Feeder modifications
In addition to the two requirements stated earlier
(flow along walls, and an outlet large enough to
overcome arching), mass flow also requires that
the entire hopper opening be active. Regardless
of the slope and the surface finish of the hopper
above, if the outlet is partially blocked, funnel
flow will occur. The blockage of the outlet
could be caused by a lip or a ledge formed due
to flange mismatches, partially closed gates, or a
12
feeder that withdraws material from only a part
of the outlet [9]. (A feeder is a piece of
equipment that is used to meter the discharge of
material from a silo.)
A common problem, especially when elongated
outlets are used, is the inability of a feeder to
activate the entire outlet. For flow to occur
from the entire length of the outlet, the feeder
must have a capacity that increases in the
direction of flow.
Two feeders commonly used with elongated
outlets are belts and screws. When using a belt
feeder, the increase in capacity is achieved by
using a tapered interface as shown in Figure 18.
The increasing capacity along the length is
achieved by increasing size of the opening as a
result of the taper.
With a screw feeder, the increase in capacity
may be achieved through the use of a tapered
shaft as shown in Figure 19a, or by increasing
the pitch in the direction of flow, starting from a
half pitch and ending with a full pitch, as shown
in Figure 19b [10]. However, both of these
methods are limited to a length-to-screw
diameter of about 3:1 or less. For longer
lengths, the increase from one flight to the next
becomes so small that, because of fabrication
tolerances, an increase in the direction of feed
cannot be guaranteed.
Figure 18. A belt feeder increases in capacity in the
direction of flow by using a tapered interface.
hopper
 Figure 19. Various methods for increasing capacity in the
flow direction for screw feeders.
A C
a. Tapered Shaft
B C
b. Increasing Pitch
A B C width of the slot is active, which is imperative to
c. Combination Mass-Flow Screw Feeder
A = Conical Shaft and Constant Pitch (Feed Section)
B = Constant Shaft and Increasing Pitch (Feed Section)
C = Constant Shaft and Constant Pitch (Conveying
Section)
The combination of a tapered shaft and
increasing pitch sections is used to achieve
length-to-diameter ratios of up to about 6:1. For
the first half, a section with a tapered shaft and
half pitch is used, which is followed by an
increasing pitch section (Figure 19c).
Example 9 – Arches and ratholes occur in a silo
with a wedge hopper. The hopper has a 14-in.
wide by 6-ft. long outlet. A 6-in. dia. screw in a
V-trough (tapered trough) is used as a feeder.
The screw is constant diameter, constant pitch.
The ratholes form over the back of the screw.
Since the screw is constant pitch and constant
diameter, its capacity is equal to the capacity of
the first flight, and is constant along its length.
The first flight withdraws material from directly
above it, and becomes full. The successive
rotations of the screw convey the contents of the
13
first flight forward to the second flight, which,
having the same capacity, is filled with material
from the first flight. This prevents any more
material entering the flight from above, so the
material forward of the first flight remains
stagnant. This creates a flow channel over the
first flight, and if the material is cohesive, a
rathole forms when the flow channel is emptied.
(Structural failures have also occurred in a
number of cases as a result of the flow channel
which develops along the walls of the silo.)
The solution is to replace the feeder with a 14-
in. dia. mass flow screw feeder, as shown in
Figure 19c, placed in a U-trough. A mass-flow
screw feeder with a uniform increase in capacity
along the length of the outlet will activate the
entire outlet. A screw with a diameter equal to
the width of the slot ensures that the entire
achieve mass flow. Note that the shallow
sidewalls of a V-trough prevent mass flow even
if a mass flow screw and mass flow hopper are
used.
Rotary Valves
Rotary valves are frequently used as feeders. In
some applications, these feeders also serve as a
pressure seal, for example, feeding a pneumatic
conveying line or a reactor at a higher pressure
than the silo.
Rotary valves used as feeders below hoppers
often tend to withdraw material only from a part
of the hopper outlet. As the rotor turns, its
pockets begin to fill as they become exposed. If
the pocket fills with material before it travels the
entire length of the outlet, then mass flow is
hindered as a result of a partially active outlet.
To overcome this problem, a vertical section
should be placed between the rotary valve and
the hopper outlet. Making this vertical section
approximately one dia. tall is typically sufficient
to allow the material flow to expand so as not to
interfere with discharge from the hopper.
When feeding into higher-pressure
environments, especially when handling fine
powders, the effect of gas movement in the
system becomes significant. If a rotary valve is
not vented properly, gas leakage through the
valve into the silo can significantly reduce the
maximum rate at which material can exit the
silo. The upward moving gas acts as a body
force on the powder, opposite to gravity,
retarding flow. In some cases, this gas backflow
can actually cause material to arch in the
hopper, completely stopping discharge. This
problem can be avoided by providing proper
venting to allow the gas to travel an alternative
path, and reducing the amount of gas leakage by
properly maintaining the rotary valve [11].
Use of flow aids
Flow aids are devices or substances often used
to assist gravity in promoting material flow.
Flow aids can be grouped in two classes:
mechanical and chemical. Common mechanical
flow aid devices include air cannons, vibrators,
vibrating dischargers, and agitators. Chemical
flow aids include powdered additives such as
fumed silica and magnesium stearate, or liquid
additives, such as freeze-conditioning agents.
Mechanical flow aids: Air cannons
Flow properties of many materials change with
increasing time under pressure. For example, a
bulk solid may flow out of a certain hopper
reliably as long as discharge from the silo is
continuous. However, after stopping discharge
for some time, say overnight or over a weekend,
the same material may not flow as a result of an
arch that has formed.
Air cannons may be an excellent choice for a
situation such as this. These devices work by
14
quickly releasing a volume of high-pressure air
or other gas into the bin (Figure 20). This
action creates a pressure front, which applies
additional stresses on an arch in an effort to
break it.
The size, number, and location of the air
cannons required depend on the cohesive
strength of the material and the dimensions of
the silo. Once the material’s strength is
measured, mathematical analyses can be used to
determine the specifics of the air cannons
required.
While these devices are effective in breaking
arches that form after material has been stored at
rest, if the problem is due to arch formation
during continuous flow, air cannons are at best a
band-aid solution, and an alternative means of
alleviating the problem should be considered
such as previously mentioned.
Air cannons are also ineffective in overcoming
ratholing. Once an air cannon is fired and a
path is cleared from the air cannon to the
rathole, any subsequent operation of that air
cannon becomes useless, as air just travels
through the path without disturbing any
additional material. To disturb sufficient
material to actually collapse a rathole would
require an unreasonably large number of air
cannons. Even so, a collapsing rathole with
large masses of material falling could cause
Figure 20. Air cannons quickly release a volume of high-
pressure air or other gas into the bin, creating a pressure
front which applies additional stresses on an arch to break
it.
structural damage to the silo and to the
equipment below.
Example 10 – Arches form in a silo every
Monday morning after a system has been shut
down for the weekend. The silo consists of a
conical hopper with a 14-in. diameter outlet.
Operators poke the silo with rods until flow is
established, after which the silo operates well
for the entire week.
Wall friction tests show that the silo’s hopper
section is sufficiently steep and has low enough
friction to provide mass flow. Cohesive
strength tests indicate that the minimum outlet
size required to overcome arching during
continuous flow in a mass flow silo is 10 in.
However, after three days at rest under pressure
in a silo, the cohesive strength increases such
that the minimum outlet required to overcome
arching becomes 3 ft. 6 in. An air cannon
analysis shows that two air cannons placed at
the 4 ft. diameter level are sufficient to
overcome arching after a weekend at rest.
Vibrators
Vibrators impart continuous body forces to the
material through the walls of the handling
equipment. These devices are often mounted on
the hopper sections of silos. Some models
deliver low-frequency/high-amplitude forces,
much like a hammer blow. Others produce
high-frequency/low-amplitude forces through,
for example, rotating a set of unbalanced
masses.
The effect of such devices on most arching and
ratholing problems is minimal. The additional
force required is usually not delivered where it
is needed, namely at an arch or a rathole.
Furthermore, when dealing with pressure-
sensitive materials (those materials that exhibit
an increase in cohesive strength if subjected to
15
forces beyond gravity), such devices may
exacerbate the problem.
Vibrators are better used to reduce buildup in
chutes. By definition, chutes are surfaces on
which a bed of bulk solid slides, in contrast to
hoppers, which are geometries 100% full of
material. Such devices include cyclones and
dust collection hoppers, which act as chutes.
Vibrating dischargers
Mounted at the outlet of a hopper, a vibrating
discharger activates a large cross-section.
Activation is achieved by an insert, commonly
an inverted cone or a dish, that vibrates along
with the outer shell in a gyratory motion caused
by a set of unbalanced rotating weights or a
vertical motion by hydraulic or pneumatic
actuators. Product flows around the insert into a
conical section below, which typically operates
as a chute (Figure 21).
To the extent that it activates a large cross-
section, vibrating this device can be used to
overcome a number of flow problems, provided
a few basics are adhered to.
If a vibrating discharger is used at the outlet of a
funnel-flow silo, then the flow channel created
will approximate the size of the outlet (i.e., the
top diameter of the discharger). If this flow
channel is larger than the critical rathole
diameter discussed above, then stable ratholes
should not form, even though the pattern is
Figure 21. A vibrating discharger activates a large cross-
section via an insert, commonly an inverted cone or a dish.
funnel flow. In this case, if segregation and
degradation of the solid is not a concern, a
discharger could provide reliable flow. If, on the
other hand, the flow channel is not large enough
to overcome ratholing, flow stoppages and other
flow problems related to funnel flow and
ratholing will occur.
It is possible to overcome this problem by
ensuring that the hopper above the discharger is
designed for mass flow. Since the discharger is
isolated from the hopper above, the vibrations
do not affect flow in the hopper, and procedures
for obtaining mass flow, as described above,
apply.
Vibrating dischargers may cause more problems
than they solve if used with pressure-sensitive
solids. The energy input can actually pack
material and cause flow stoppages. With certain
materials (this depends on the material and the
circumstances), distinct flow channels form in
four quadrants of the outlet, caused by the insert
supports, and this can asymmetrically load the
silo above. Such loads can result in structural
damage to the silo [5].
A distinction must be made between a
discharger and a feeder. A discharger is a
device that promotes flow, but does not control
its rate. A feeder, on the other hand, is used to
meter bulk solids. Therefore, if the rate of
discharge is to be controlled, a feeder must be
used below the discharger. In this case, care
must be taken that material does not fill the area
between the discharger and the feeder and get
compacted by vibrations.
Vibrating dischargers should be operated on an
on/off cycle as suggested by the manufacturer,
even if the bulk solid seems to flow without any
vibrations. Not operating the vibrating
discharger can easily result in distinct flow
channels, which can load the silo
asymmetrically. Structural failures have
16
occurred in a number of silos where the
discharger was not being vibrated.
Agitators/flexible walls
Paddles, moving arms, and flexible walls are
sometimes effective in overcoming arching and
ratholing problems; however, these solutions are
typically limited to relatively small hoppers
(several hundred pounds capacity), where solids
pressures and the power required to operate
them are small. A number of commercially
available feeders employ agitation effectively,
and are especially useful when low discharge
rates are required with cohesive bulk solids.
Chemical flow aids
A number of chemicals have been successfully
used as flow aids to alter the flow properties of
the bulk solid handled. These additives, in
general, work by preventing the host particles
from adhering to each other, which is
accomplished by coating the surface of each
particle, removing free moisture, or preventing
the freezing of that moisture. Generally, these
additives are dry powders, such as silicates,
stearates, or phosphates. Their effectiveness
and the amount required can easily be
determined by conducting cohesive strength
tests on samples prepared in a lab.
Some of the considerations of this approach
include the compatibility of the additive with
the material handled and the process, the cost of
the additive, and the cost of an additional
handling system to deliver and mix the additive.
Generally, this approach is considered to be one
of the last resorts in solving a flow problem.
Liquid additives have been used as freeze-
conditioning agents to prevent freezing of moist
materials that are subjected to low temperatures,
such as coal transported by rail or ores stored
outside.

Air permeation systems
When handling fine powders (e.g. all particles
100µm and smaller), the effect of interstitial air
or gas can be significant. As briefly discussed
above, one of these effects is limiting the
discharge rate. As the material moves from the
top of the silo toward its outlet, the pressures
exerted on it at first increase, resulting in a rise
in bulk density. This causes the particles to
become packed closer together, which forces
out a certain amount of gas between them. As
the material continues to move through the
hopper toward the outlet, the consolidating
pressures are reduced and the bulk density
decreases. This can result in a slight amount of
vacuum between the particles in the hopper,
which often creates a gas flow inward through
the outlet, counter to the solids flow. As the rate
of discharge increases, so does the amount of
vacuum; hence, the body forces exerted on the
material by the counter-flowing gas go up.
Eventually, this body force becomes equal and
opposite to the force of gravity, setting the
upper limit to material discharge.
This may also be an option if the material
handled is fine and easily fluidizable.
Fluidization is especially useful where high
discharge rates (e.g., 1,000 ton/h) are required.
Gas injected through permeable membranes
near or at the bottom of the hopper is used to
fluidize the contents of a silo. This changes the
characteristics of the bulk solid almost
completely, making it behave more like a fluid.
The gas must be uniformly distributed through
the material to prevent localized fluidization or
flow channels. If a fast-flowing flow channel or
a rathole develops, then most of the fluidization
gas moves through that path, losing its ability to
fluidize any more material. Additional
considerations when evaluating this as an option
include the need for dry or conditioned gas, the
requirement of an additional system to handle
and clean the gas after use, and discharging with
low density and fluctuating rate.
Figure 22. Typical placements of air permeation systems.
Care must be taken to ensure that the system does not
prevent mass flow.

The flow rate that is limited by this mechanism

can be increased by supplying gas into the
material using an air-permeation system, which
reduces the amount of gas flow in through the
outlet.

Typical placements of air permeation systems

are shown in Figure 22. Care must be taken to
design to ensure the gas permeation system does
not prevent mass flow. The air requirements for
these systems are a function of the permeability
of the bulk solid and are typically very low.
Injecting excessive amounts of air can result in
fluidization of the hopper’s contents, and may
lead to flooding.

Fluidization

17
To sum up
While it is preferable to avoid handling
problems by designing equipment based on flow
characteristics of a bulk solid, problems in
existing equipment can be alleviated. The
majority of flow problems are caused by the
existence of a funnel-flow pattern. These
problems can be solved by altering the flow
pattern to mass flow, which requires changing
the hopper or feeder design as outlined above.
In addition, a number of other methods, such as
the use of mechanical and chemical flow aids,
fluidization, and air permeation, may be useful
means of addressing these problems.
understanding the problem and its causes, as
well as the flow properties of the bulk solid
handled, should form the basis for any retrofit to
alleviate the problem.
Literature cited
[1] Merrow, E. W., "Estimating Startup Times
for Solids-Processing Plants," Chem. Eng., p.
89 (Oct. 24, 1988).
[2] Carson, J. W., et al., "Understanding and
Eliminating Particle Segregation Problems,"
Bulk Solids Handling, 6, pp. 139-144 (Feb.
1986).

A quick guide to the potential effectiveness of
most of the various options presented is given in
Table I. The listing is intended as a starting
point in considering alternatives, and is in no
way definitive or all-inclusive. However,
[3] Purutyan, H. , et al., "Identifying and
Controlling Silo Vibration Mechanisms,"
Powder & Bulk Eng., Part I, 8 (11), pp. 58-65
(Nov. 1994); Part II, 8 (12), pp. 19-28 (Dec.
1994).

Table I. A quick guide to the effectiveness of the various retrofit options

Problem
Solution Arching Ratholing Flooding Rate Limiting Segregating

Hopper Modifications
Liner Good Good Good Poor Good
Transition Hopper Good Good Good Fair Good
Expanded Flow Good Good Good Poor Poor
Larger Outlet Good Fair Poor Good Poor

Inserts
Inverted Cone Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair
Hopper-In-Hopper Good Good Good Poor Good
Pup Tent Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor

Feeder Modifications
Mass-Flow Screw Good Good Good Good Fair
Mass-Flow Belt Interface Good Good Good Good Fair
Vented Rotary Valve Good Poor Poor Good Poor

Flow-Aid Devices
Air Cannon Good Fair Poor Poor Poor
Vibration Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor
Agitation Good Good Fair Poor Fair

Aeration
Air Permeation Poor Poor Poor Good Poor
Fluidization Good Fair Good Good Poor
18

[4] Jenkyn, R. T. and D. J. Goodwill, "Silo
Failures: Lessons to be Learned," Eng. Digest
(Sept. 1987).
[5] Carson, J. W. and R. T. Jenkyn, "Load
Development and Structural Considerations in
Silo Design," paper presented at Reliable Flow
of Particulate Solids II, Oslo, Norway (Aug.
1993).
[6] Jenike, A.W., "Storage and Flow of
Solids," Bulletin No. 123, University of Utah
Engineering Experiment Station, Salt Lake City
(Nov. 1964).
[7] American Society for Testing and
Materials, “Standard Shear Testing Method for
Bulk Solids Using the Jenike Shear Cell,”
ASTM Standard D6128, ASTM, Philadelphia.
[8] Carson, J. W., et al., “Bulk Solid Purge
and Conditioning Vessels,” Chem. Proc., 58 (8),
pp. 77-80 (Aug. 1995).
[9] Carson, J. W., and G. Petro, “Feeder
Selection Guidelines,” Chem. Proc. 1997
Powder & Solids Annual, pp. 40-43 (1977).
[10] Marinelli, J., and J. W. Carson, "Use
Screw Feeders Effectively," Chem. Eng.
Progress, 88 (12), pp. 47-51 (Dec. 1992).
[11] Carson, J. W., "Interfacing Bulk Solids
Conveyors with Upstream Equipment," AIChE
Symposium on Solids Conveying and
Separation, AIChE, New York (Nov. 18, 1987).
[Biographies updated, 2003]
H. PURUTYAN is a vice-president at Jenike &
Johanson, Inc. Westford, MA (Phone: 978/392-
0300; Fax: 978/392-9980; e-mail:
hpurutyan@jenike.com). Since joining the firm
19
in 1991 he has been involved in designing
reliable handling systems for a variety of
applications, ranging from degassing/purging
vessels for olefins to storage and feeding
systems for cement plants. He has extensive
experience with a wide range of difficult-to-
handle materials such as synthetic gypsum,
kaolin clay, fertilizers and titanium dioxide.
Purutyan regularly lectures on the subject of
bulk solids handling through AIChE and to
individual companies. He has authored a
number of articles on the subject, and is the
holder of two patents. He received both his B.S.
and M.S. from Worcester Polytechnic Institute
and an MBA degree at Babson College.
B. H. PITTENGER is a senior consultant at
Jenike & Johanson, Inc. Westford, MA (Phone:
978/392-0300; Fax: 978/392-9980; e-mail:
bhpittenger@jenike.com). Since joining J&J,
he has designed bulk-solids storage and
handling systems ranging from conditioning
silos for food and chemicals, to simple and
accurate batch dosing systems in processing
plants, to developing anti-segregation systems
for powdered metals and pharmaceuticals. He
previously worked at General Electric (GE) as a
production, systems, and quality engineer, and
as a shift and plant supervisor. With GE's
Corporate Audit Staff, he provided systems
designs to many GE businesses, including
Quartz Products, Plastics Europe, Aerospace,
and Power Generation. He has published many
papers and lectures on solids flow for several
professional organizations. Pittenger has a B.S.
from Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, and an
MS from Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
J. W. CARSON is president of Jenike &
Johanson, Inc. Westford, MA (Phone: 978/392-
0300; Fax: 978/392-9980; e-mail:
jwcarson@jenike.com). He joined the firm in
1970 and has been active in research,
consulting, and management. Carson is the
author of over 50 technical papers and articles in
the areas of bin loads, flow of fine powders,
vibration, and using computers to analyze solids
flow. He lectures extensively on the topic of
fine powder storage and flow of solids, and
devotes much of his time to consulting with
clients. He received a BS in mechanical
engineering from Northwestern University, a
PhD from MIT, and is a member of AIChE.

20