0% found this document useful (0 votes)
5 views8 pages

Example Test Report

The document presents test results on the flow properties of polypropylene powder, including cohesive strength, bulk density, and wall friction under various conditions. It provides minimum outlet dimensions and recommended hopper angles to prevent flow obstructions such as arching and ratholing. The findings are supported by tables and figures detailing the test results and analyses conducted to ensure efficient handling of the powder.

Uploaded by

ryanganicete76
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
5 views8 pages

Example Test Report

The document presents test results on the flow properties of polypropylene powder, including cohesive strength, bulk density, and wall friction under various conditions. It provides minimum outlet dimensions and recommended hopper angles to prevent flow obstructions such as arching and ratholing. The findings are supported by tables and figures detailing the test results and analyses conducted to ensure efficient handling of the powder.

Uploaded by

ryanganicete76
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Flow Properties of and Recommendations for Handling Polypropylene Powder

A sample of polypropylene powder was provided for testing. Cohesive strength,


compressibility, and wall friction tests were performed at 20°C, under conditions that
simulated continuous handling and handling after 24 hr storage at rest. From the test
results, minimum hopper outlet dimensions for prevent obstructions to flow and
recommended mass flow hopper angles were calculated.
Test results
Test results are summarized in Tables 1 through 3 and Figures 1 through 4.
Table 1
Cohesive Strength Test Results
Unconfined Yield
Major Principal Unconfined Yield Effective Angle Kinematic Angle
Strength after 24
Stress Strength of Friction of Friction
hr Storage at Rest
(kPa) (kPa) (deg) (deg)
(kPa)
1.95 1.51 1.99 61 31
5.41 2.34 3.21 54 29
13.7 5.22 6.45 51 29

Table 2
Bulk Density Test Results
Major Principal Stress Bulk Density
(kPa) (kg/m3)
0.0 590
1.1 860
2.3 890
6.7 1010
13.0 1110
25.5 1200
38.0 1280
50.5 1320

Table 3a
Wall Friction Test Results – 304 #2B Stainless Steel
Wall Material Continuous Handling After 24 hr Storage at Rest
Wall Friction Wall Friction
Normal Stress Shear Stress Shear Stress
Angle Angle
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
(deg) (deg)
0.75 0.27 20 0.34 25
1.04 0.33 18 0.43 23
1.36 0.40 16 0.53 21
3.25 0.79 14 1.12 19
7.62 1.71 13 2.49 18
13.9 3.03 12 4.45 18
20.1 4.33 12 6.38 18

Greg Mehos & Associates LLC • 4 Crusade Road • Westford, MA 01886


978-799-7311 • greg@[Link] • gmehos@[Link] • [Link]
Table 3b
Wall Friction Test Results – Tivar 88
Wall Material Continuous Handling After 24 hr Storage at Rest
Wall Friction Wall Friction
Normal Stress Shear Stress Shear Stress
Angle Angle
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
(deg) (deg)
0.75 0.34 25 0.24 18
1.04 0.43 23 0.30 16
1.36 0.53 21 0.36 15
3.25 1.12 19 0.76 13
7.62 2.49 18 1.68 12
13.9 4.45 18 3.00 12
20.1 6.38 18 4.30 12

20
Continuous
After 24 hr Storage at Rest

15
Unconfined Yield Strength (kPa)

10

0
0 5 10 15 20

Major Principal Stress (kPa)

Figure 1. Cohesive strength.

2
75

Effective Angle of Friction


Kinematic Angle of Internal Friction

50

Friction Angle (deg)

25

0
0 5 10 15

Major Principal Stress (kPa)

Figure 2. Internal friction.

1500

1000
Bulk Density (kg/m3)

500

0
0 10 20 30

Major Principal Stress (kPa)

Figure 3. Bulk density.

3
20

Continuous
After 24 hr Storage at Rest

15

Shear Stress (kPa)


10

304 #2B Stainless Steel


0
0 5 10 15 20

Normal Stress (kPa)

Figure 4a. Wall friction on 304 #2B stainless steel.


20

Continuous
After 24 hr Storage at Rest

15
Shear Stress (kPa)

10

Tivar 88
0
0 5 10 15 20

Normal Stress (kPa)

Figure 4b. Wall friction on Tivar 88.

4
Analysis
Using the test results, Andrew Jenike’s analyses were performed to determine critical
outlet dimensions to prevent obstructions to flow and recommended hopper angles for
mass flow.
Minimum hopper outlet dimensions required to prevent arching are given in Table 4.

Table 4
Critical Arching Dimensions
Time (hr) BC (mm) BP (mm) BF (mm)
0 340 160 210
24 580 265 370

BC = minimum outlet diameter to prevent arching in a conical mass flow hopper


BP = minimum width of a slotted outlet to prevent arching in a planar mass flow hopper
BF = minimum width of a slotted outlet to prevent arching in a planar funnel flow hopper
DF, the minimum outlet diameter to prevent formation of a stable rathole, depends on the
maximum solids pressure (see Appendix). Critical rathole diameters are plotted against
maximum solids stress in Figure 5.
3000
Critical Rathole Diameter (mm)

2000

After 24 hr Storage at Rest

Continuous

1000

0
0 5 10 15

Maximum Solids Stress (kPa)

Figure 5. Critical rathole diameter.


The recommended mass flow hopper angle depends on hopper geometry, outlet size, and
wall material. Recommended hopper angles for mass flow are given in Figure 6.

5
45
Planar, Continuous

Recommended Mass Flow Hopper Angle (deg)


40

35

Planar, After 24 hr Storage at Rest


30

25 Axisymmetric, Continuous

20
Axisymmetric, After
24 hr Storage at Rest
15

304 #2B SS
10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Outlet Diameter or Slot Width (mm)

Figure 6a. Recommended mass flow hopper angles, walls fabricated or lined with
304 #2B stainless steel.

45
Planar, Continuous
Recommended Mass Flow Hopper Angle (deg)

40
Planar, After 24 hr Storage at Rest

35

Axisymmetric, Continuous
30

Axisymmetric, After
25 24 hr Storage at Rest

20

15

Tivar 88
10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Outlet Diameter or Slot Width (mm)

Figure 6b. Recommended mass flow hopper angles, walls lined with Tivar 88.

6
Appendix
All bins and hoppers must be properly designed to prevent obstructions to flow, i.e.,
arches or stable ratholes (Figure A1).

Arching Ratholing
Figure A1. Obstructions to flow.
Mass flow, where all material inside the bin or hopper is in motion during discharge, is
usually preferable. Mass flow occurs when the hopper walls are steep enough and low
enough in friction to allow flow along them. Funnel flow is acceptable provided that the
outlet of the vessel is large enough to collapse the ratholes that develop. An expanded
flow bin, which is a mass flow hopper beneath a funnel flow hopper, is also acceptable
provided that the outlet is large enough to prevent arching and its inlet to the lower
hopper is large enough to prevent a stable rathole. Mass flow, funnel flow, and expanded
flow bins are illustrated in Figure A2.

Mass Flow Funnel Flow Expanded Flow


Figure A2. Solids flow patterns.
This report provides (1) minimum outlet dimensions of mass flow and funnel flow
hoppers, (2) recommended mass flow hopper angles for axisymmetric (conical or
pyramidal) bins and planar (wedge-shaped, transition, or chisel) hoppers, and (3)
minimum funnel flow hopper outlet dimensions to prevent a stable rathole. Note that the
critical outlet diameter depends on the maximum solids stress, which can be calculated
from the Janssen equation:

7
ρb gRH ⎡ ⎛ k tan φ ʹz ⎞⎤
σ1 = ⎢1− exp ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎥
k tan φ ʹ ⎢⎣ ⎝ RH ⎟⎠⎥⎦

where σ1 is the major principal stress, g is acceleration due to gravity, ρb is the material’s
average bulk density, RH is the hydraulic radius of the cylinder, k is the Janssen
coefficient (typically assumed equal to 0.4), ϕ' is the wall friction angle, and z is the
distance (z = 0 at the top level of the powder). In the cylinder (vertical-walled section),
the wall friction angle is a function of the stress normal to the wall, which is equal to kσ1.
For small bins, an estimate of the maximum solids stress is σ1 = 2ρbg RH where RH is the
hydraulic radius, i.e., the cross-sectional area of the cylinder section divided by its
perimeter.
Outlet dimensions greater than the minimum and hopper angles steeper than the
recommended values can be specified. The planar mass flow hopper angle can be ca. 10
degrees shallower than the recommended angle.

You might also like