Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Powder Technology 179 (2008) 170 – 175

www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Visual analysis of particle bouncing and its effect on pressure drop

in dilute phase pneumatic conveying
Néstor Vásquez a,⁎, Karl Jacob a , Ray Cocco a , Shrikant Dhodapkar b , George E. Klinzing c
a
The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI 48667, USA
b
The Dow Chemical Company, Freeport, TX 77541, USA
c
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
Available online 29 June 2007

Abstract

During the pneumatic conveying of plastic pellets, it has been observed that materials with similar physical characteristics may develop
substantial difference in pressure drop, whose cause is not fully understood. This experimental study focused on the dynamic behavior of the
particles during conveying and its influence on pressure drop.
The bouncing of the particles during pneumatic conveying in dilute phase was visually analyzed by means of a high speed video camera. The
experiments included two different plastic pellets of similar size and density but different modulus of elasticity. The conveying trials were carried
out in a 0.052 m I.D. aluminum pipe conveying system approximately 35 m long. The loading was controlled by an airflow control valve and a
variable speed drive rotary valve. For each material, a series of tests were performed creating a matrix of six solids rates for five different air
velocities. During the conveying trials a high speed video camera was used to record the actual particle motion in a horizontal section with fully
accelerated flow. The videos showed significant difference in bouncing between the soft and the hard pellets. The soft pellets showed very random
and intense bouncing with strong rotation, which affected the rebound considerably. In fact, some particles bounced even backwards. On the other
side, the hard pellets showed significantly less bouncing and rotation.
In addition to the high speed videos, in each test the pressure drop was measured in the horizontal and vertical directions. As expected, a
significant difference in pressure drop was recorded for the same conveying settings when using the different materials. The pressure drop showed
a close relation to the bouncing of the particles, being much higher for the soft pellets.
It can be concluded that the increased pressure drop, developed by the soft polyethylene pellets, is in part due to the multiple times the particles
must be reaccelerated during their transit through the conveying system. Additionally, the reduction in the average particle velocity increases the
drag force. All of this resulted in up to 3-fold increase in pressure drop across the conveying line compared to the hard polyethylene pellets that
showed significantly less bouncing.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pneumatic conveying; Bouncing; Pressure drop; Modulus of elasticity

1. Introduction different. The performance of a pneumatic conveying system in

The pneumatic conveying of solids, as dilute phase, is widely
used in the chemical industry for a wide range of materials due to
its large conveying capacities and relatively low cost. However, the
required pressure to transport these materials can be substantially
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nvasquez@dow.com (N. Vásquez), kvjacob@dow.com
(K. Jacob), ray.cocco@psrichicago.com (R. Cocco), sdhodapkar@dow.com
(S. Dhodapkar), klinzing@provost.pitt.edu (G.E. Klinzing).
0032-5910/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2007.06.015
dilute phase is highly affected by the pressure drop, which in its
turn, depends on several parameters such as material properties,
pipe designs, airflow, etc. Although it is known that some material
properties affect the pressure drop during conveying, [1–3] the
actual process by which they influence the pressure is unclear.
Thus, a high-speed video camera and pressure transmitters were
used to provide a better understanding of how the particle dynam-
ics affect the pressure drop development. The objectives for this
study are to visually analyze the particle dynamics, comparing a
hard material and a soft one and to determine how the particle
dynamics affect the pressure drop.
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 179 (2008) 170–175 171

2. Experimental Table 1
Material properties
The conveying tests were performed in a 0.052 m I.D. Hard pellets Soft pellets
aluminum pipe conveying system approximately 35 m long. Particle shape Ellipsoid Ellipsoid
The material was transported from the feeder vessel to the Equivalent spherical diameter, mm 4 4
receiver vessel (V-120) in dilute phase. The loading, μ (solids Particle density, g/cm3 0.889 0.861
Bulk density, kg/m3 556 542
mass flow/air mass flow), was controlled by the interaction of
Tensile Modulus, 100% Secant, MPa 91.7 (100% secant) 6.6 (2% secant)
the airflow valve and the rotary valve. Both devices were
connected to a computer and operated by Camile TG software,
allowing precise adjustments and loading control. The convey- polyethylene pellets were used in this study. Both materials have
ing system relies on several pressure transmitters, which allow similar size and density but different modulus of elasticity. Because
the measurement of pressure drop in horizontal and vertical the tests were focused on analyzing particle dynamics and pressure,
direction. Fig. 1 shows a diagram of the system layout. the materials for testing had to resist dust or floss generation, so no
Pressure transmitter PDT 403 measures the pressure drop, collateral effects would be produced during the runs. In addition,
dP, in horizontal direction, PDT 402 measures the dP in vertical fresh material was used for every series of runs. Table 1 shows the
direction, and PDT 401 measures the total pressure drop. principal characteristics of the materials used in this study.
Since one of the objectives of this study is to determine the A series of conveying tests were performed with the purpose
influence of material hardness on the pressure drop, two types of of analyzing a wide range of solids rate and air flows. Thirty

Fig. 1. Dilute phase pneumatic conveying system.

172 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 179 (2008) 170–175
Fig. 2. Pressure Gradient when conveying Hard Polyethylene Pellets.
tests were carried out with each material, which corresponded to
five average gas velocities for every one of the six solids rate
defined by the rotary valve speed.
During each run, the data acquisition system took samples at
1 Hz for approximately 150 s. The data included average air
velocity, horizontal pressure drop, vertical pressure drop, total
pressure drop, rotary valve speed, and weight of solids in the feeder
vessel. With the data collected, the pressure drop was plotted as a
function of loading, μ (solids mass flow/air mass flow).
3. Results
3.1. Pressure drop measurements
The pressure drop measurements in horizontal and vertical
direction were normalized as dP / L, where L is the distance
between the pressure taps. Fig. 2 shows the pressure drop for the
hard polyethylene pellets in horizontal and vertical direction as
a function of loading and air velocities (15 m/s and 30 m/s). As
expected, the higher pressure drops were produced in the
vertical sections for the low velocity and the high velocity tests
[4]. The difference between the horizontal and vertical pressure
drop increases at higher air velocity and higher loading.
The conveying tests were repeated using soft polyethylene
pellets as the conveying material. Fig. 3 shows the pressure
Fig. 3. Pressure gradient when conveying Polyethylene Soft Pellets.
drops for these soft polyethylene pellets at 15 m/s and 30 m/s air
velocities. Although it was known that the soft pellets would
produce a higher pressure drop, it was unexpected that the
horizontal and vertical pressure drops were similar at the higher
gas velocities. This was not observed for the hard polyethylene
pellets, where the vertical pressure drop was significantly
higher. At low air velocity, the vertical pressure drop was
slightly higher than the horizontal pressure drop. However, at
the higher air velocity of 30 m/s, pressure drop in horizontal
direction was actually higher than the pressure drop in vertical
direction, especially for loadings higher than 0.88. Additionally,
Fig. 4 shows the total pressure drop in the conveying line for
both materials when conveying at 15 m/s and 30 m/s. It has to be
noted that the pressure drop produced by the soft pellets is up to
3-fold the pressure drop of the hard pellets for similar μ.
3.2. Video analysis
Since differences in the particle dynamics between the soft
and the hard pellets were expected, visual analysis of the
particles motion was performed by a high speed video camera
(HSVC). The videos were recorded on a horizontal section;
5.5 m downstream a long radius bend so the particles had
sufficient pipe length to reaccelerate. The setup included a
transparent section of pipe, a 2000 W lamp, and a fan for
cooling the line. Fig. 5 shows a diagram of the video setup.
The videos showed a significant difference in bouncing
between the soft and the hard pellets. The soft pellets showed
very random and intense bouncing with strong rotation, which
affected the rebound considerably [5–7]. In fact, some particles
bounced even backwards. In contrast, the hard pellets showed
significantly less bouncing and rotation. From the videos, the
particle velocity was measured using two marks on the side of
the pipe separated by 0.2 m. The HSVC recorded the videos at
4000 fps, thus knowing the time between frames and the
distance between the marks on the side of the pipe, the particle
velocity was calculated averaging 3 measurements per each
video. It has to be noted that the velocity was measured only in
the axial direction; therefore, the particles bouncing and
collisions were implicitly considered due to their effect on
reducing the average particle velocity in axial direction.
Fig. 4. Total pressure drop in conveying line.
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 179 (2008) 170–175
Fig. 5. High Speed Video Camera setup.
Since the hard polyethylene pellets showed low bouncing and
collisions, it was relatively simple to measure their particle
velocity following the procedure mentioned above. However,
the soft polyethylene pellets represented a greater challenge
because not all the particles bounced similarly. In fact, some
particles did not bounce at all along the visual area, while others
bounced very intensively. To achieve the measurement of
particle velocity in axial direction, a different approach was
used. Since the videos showed that the soft polyethylene pellets
were homogeneously distributed along the pipe during convey-
ing, it was assumed that the voidage was relatively constant
during the conveying process. Thus, the particles contained in
the 0.2 m cylinder, defined by the marks on the side of the pipe,
were counted and averaged from 25 different frames extracted at
intervals of 75 ms from each video, after the system run in steady
state. The following equation shows how the average. particle
velocity is related to the solids mass flow rate (G ).


G¼
Np dWp
dUp
0:2
Where Np is the number of particles contained in the 0.2
cylinder, Wp is the average mass of each particle, and Up is the
average particle velocity.
Fig. 6. Average particle velocity for hard polyethylene pellets.
173
Thus,


0:2 G
Up ¼ ð2Þ
Np dWp
The measurements from the videos showed that the soft
polyethylene pellets have substantially lower axial velocity than
the hard polyethylene pellets. Figs. 6 and 7 show the average
axial velocities for the hard and soft polyethylene pellets
respectively, for 15 and 30 m/s superficial gas velocity.
4. Discussion
The measurements of the pressure drops and average particle
velocities show significant differences between the hard and the
soft polyethylene pellets, as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The average
particle velocity measured with the hard polyethylene pellets
reached values over 80% of the superficial gas velocity. On the
ð1Þ other hand, the measurements on the soft polyethylene pellets
showed particle velocities in the vicinity of 33% of the
superficial gas velocity for the Ug = 15 m/s and 50% of the
superficial gas velocity for Ug = 30 m/s. Unexpectedly, the
average particle velocity for the soft polyethylene pellets also
appeared to increase when increasing solids loading, as shown
Fig. 7. Average particle velocity for soft polyethylene pellets.
174 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 179 (2008) 170–175

in Fig. 9 for Ug of 30 m/s. This was not observed for the hard
polyethylene pellets at any gas velocity.
The measured average particle velocities were compared to
estimated particle velocities from the Hinkle [8] correlation and
the modified Hinkle correlation (by IGT [9]). The Hinkle
correlation is expressed as:
Up
¼1 0:68d p0:92 D 0:54 0:5
qp qg 0:2 ð3Þ
Ug
whereas the modified Hinkle (IGT) correlation is described as:
Up
¼1 0:044dp0:3 q0:5
p
wrong, correct eqn ð4Þ
Ug is:1-0.064.dp0.3.pp0.5
Fig. 9. Predicted vs. measured particle velocity for soft polyethylene pellets.
Figs. 8 and 9 compare the Hinkle expressions with the
measured values for the particle velocities. For the hard elasticity on conveying pressure drop. For soft and hard poly-
polyethylene pellets, the Hinkle correlation tends to underestimate ethylene pellets, video analysis revealed that the soft polyethylene
the particle velocity, while the modified Hinkle correlation (IGT) particles bounced more intensely during conveying than the hard
tends to overestimate the particle velocity (although its predicted polyethylene particles. These soft pellets showed very random and
values are closer to the measured one). For the soft polyethylene intense bouncing with strong rotation, which affected the rebound
pellets the situation is the opposite, with the Hinkle correlation considerably. In fact, some particles bounced even backwards. The
offering a better prediction of the particle velocity. It is interesting to increased pressure drop, with the soft pellets, is in part due to the
note that none of the correlations estimate the solids velocity con- multiple times the particles must be reaccelerated during their
sidering the modulus of elasticity of the materials being transported. transit through the conveying system. Additionally, intense bounc-
Therefore, their applicability is limited. Also, additional precaution ing increases the difference in axial velocity between the solids and
may be needed when the material being transported is prone to the air, increasing the drag force over the particles. All of this
degrade or when working close to the saltation limit. resulted in up to 3-fold increase in pressure drop across the con-
The pressure drop across a section of the pipeline is a function veying line compared to the hard polyethylene pellets that showed
of drag force, gas friction on the pipe wall, particle friction on the significantly less bouncing.
wall and body forces. Factors [10] that affect the increase in The modulus of elasticity of the material showed to be an
pressure drop for the soft pellets may include frictional forces on important parameter that affects the conveying pressure drop.
the wall due to the intense bouncing, the reacceleration of the This characteristic of the material affects the bouncing of the
particles due to the high rebound angle, particle rotation for a particles, which has a clear effect on the pressure drop.
nonspherical particle, and turbulence resulting from the higher
particle slip velocity. Additional data are required to discern the Nomenclature
extent that these factors play a role on particle “drag” or frictional D Pipe diameter, m
losses with respect to the elastic modulus of a particle. dP Pressure differential, Pa
d.p Particle diameter, m
5. Conclusions G. Solids mass flow rate, kg/s
I.D. Internal diameter
Visual analysis of a pneumatic conveying system proved to be a L Distance, m
valuable tool in understanding the role of the particle modulus of Np Number of particles in a pipe section 0.2 m long
PDT Pressure differential transmitter
Ug Gas velocity, m/s
Up Average particle velocity, m/s
Wp Average mass of each particle, kg

Greek symbols
ρp Particle density, kg/m3
ρg Gas density, kg/m3
μ Ratio: solids mass flow/air mass flow

References
[1] C., Herbreteau, R., Bouard, Experimental study of parameters which
influence the energy minimum in horizontal gas–solid conveying,
Laboratoire d'Etudes Aérodynamiques (CNRS no. 6609), Université de
Fig. 8. Predicted vs. measured particle velocity for hard polyethylene pellets. Poitiers, CEAT, 43m, route de l'aérodrome, 86036 Poitiers Cedex, France.
 N. Vásquez et al. / Powder Technology 179 (2008) 170–175
[2] L.M. Hyder, M.S.A. Bradley, A.R. Reed, K. Hettiaratchi, An investigation
into the effect of particle size on straight-pipe pressure gradients in lean-
phase conveying, The Wolfson Centre for Bulk Solids Handling
Technology, School of Engineering, University of Greenwich, Wellington
Street, Woolwich, London SE18 6PF, UK.
[3] S.V. Dhodapkar, G.E. Klinzing, Pressure fluctuations in pneumatic
conveying systems, Powder Technology 74 (2) (February 1993) 179–195.
[4] K. Hettiaratchi, S.R. Woodhead, A.R. Reed, Comparison between pressure
drop in horizontal and vertical pneumatic conveying pipelines, The
Wolfson Centre for Bulk Solids Handling Technology, School of
Engineering, University of Greenwich, Wellington Street, Woolwich,
London SE18 6PF, UK.
[5] M. Sommerfeld, Analysis of collision effects for turbulent gas-particle
flow in a horizontal channel: Part I. Particle transport • ARTICLE,
International Journal of Multiphase Flow 29 (4) (April 2003) 675–699.
175
[6] M. Sommerfeld, J. Kussin, Analysis of collision effects for turbulent gas-
particle flow in a horizontal channel. Part II. Integral properties and
validation • ARTICLE, International Journal of Multiphase Flow 29 (4)
(April 2003) 701–718.
[7] M. Sommerfeld, N. Huber, Experimental analysis and modeling of
particle-wall collisions • ARTICLE, International Journal of Multiphase
Flow 25 (6-7) (September 11 1999) 1457–1489.
[8] Hinkle, B.L., (1953). PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of technology, Atlanta,
Ga.
[9] Institute of Gas Technology, Dept. of Energy, Contract FE 2286-32,
October 1978.
[10] R.D. Marcus, L.S. Leung, G.E. Klinzing, Pneumatic Conveying of Solids:
A Theoretical and Practical Approach, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY,
1990.