Professional Documents
Culture Documents
=
l
h h
1 2
arcsin tan [5]
Figure 12. Schematic of inclined plane jig showing measurement locations for Equation 5.
3.4 Results
The test results aimed at determining the coefficients of static friction for strand to strand and
strand to flight interactions clearly showed a decreasing coefficient of static friction value for
increasing contact pressures (Table 4, Figure 13, Table 5, and Figure 14). This is particularly
apparent when increasing from 23 Pa to 94 Pa. The coefficient of static friction appears to be
constant for pressures greater than and including 94 Pa. These results are consistent with
hypotenuse, l
height 2, h
2
height 1, h
1
-25-
those obtained by Bejo et al. (2000). Bejo found that as the contact pressure decreased below
approximately 5 kPa the coefficient of static friction increased substantially. Above 5 kPa the
static friction coefficient began to stabilize. It was also found that the grain orientation had a
considerable impact
Table 4. Summary of test results for the coefficient of static friction between two wood
strands at 22C and 55% relative humidity
1
.
Approximate contact pressure (Pa) Primary
strand
orientation
Secondary
strand
orientation
23 47 94 188 375 750 1500
Parallel Parallel Mean 0.63 0.55 0.53 0.49 0.41 0.44 0.41
COV % 24 21 19 17 26 20 25
Perpendicular Perpendicular Mean 0.88 0.81 0.77 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.70
COV % 13 12 19 12 12 18 6
Parallel Perpendicular Mean 0.89 0.60 0.50 0.51 0.41 0.36 0.35
COV % 28 11 20 15 10 12 11
1
Average ambient strand moisture content was 9.2%.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Contact Pressure (Pa)
S
t
a
t
i
c
C
O
F
PERP/PERP
PAR/PERP
PAR/PAR
Figure 13. Static coefficient of friction between two wood strands for increasing contact
pressures and different strand sample orientations.
Perpendicular - Perpendicular
Parallel - Parallel
Parallel - Perpendicular
-26-
Table 5. Summary of test results for the coefficient of static friction between a wood strand
and HDPE at 22C and 55% relative humidity
2
.
Approximate contact pressure (Pa) Primary
strand
orientation
Secondary
strand
orientation
23 47 94 188 375 750 1500
Parallel Parallel Mean 0.31 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.24
COV % 16 23 12 12 8 6 16
Perpendicular Perpendicular Mean 0.38 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28
COV % 18 10 9 6 1 8 5
Parallel Perpendicular Mean 0.39 0.40 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.27
COV % 20 20 12 20 27 12 17
2
Average ambient strand moisture content was 9.2%.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Contact Pressure (Pa)
S
t
a
t
i
c
C
O
F
PERP/PER
P
PAR/PERP
PAR/PAR
Figure 14. Static coefficient of friction between a wood strand and HDPE for increasing
contact pressures and different strand and HDPE sample orientations.
The test results were analyzed using multiple regression analysis in SAS version 9.1. A
logarithm transformation was necessary to normalize the data so that a model could be fit
that accurately predicted the static friction coefficient (Equation 6), while meeting the
assumptions of multiple linear regression analysis at a = 0.05 (Kleinbaum 1988).
Perpendicular - Perpendicular
Parallel - Parallel
Parallel - Perpendicular
-27-
) ( ) (
2 10 1 0
10
x b x Log b b
s
+ +
=
[6]
where:
s
is the predicted static friction coefficient,
x is the contact pressure in pascals, and
b
i
is the predicted parameters for i = 0 to 2.
The appropriate coefficients for the respective systems of materials and orientation are shown
in Tables 6 and 7. In general, these results show an approximate 2:1 ratio between the static
coefficient of friction for wood to wood and wood to HDPE. The complete SAS analysis is
included in Appendix A. It is important to note that this relationship has only been verified
for the range of data presented above and at the ambient temperature and relative humidity
encountered during the test, i.e. approximately 21
o
C and 50% respectively.
Table 6. Regression parameters for determining the coefficient of static friction between two
wood strands at 22C and 55% relative humidity.
Primary strand
orientation
Secondary strand
orientation
b
0
b
1
b
2
Parallel Parallel 4.242 x 10
-2
-1.748 x 10
-1
8.835 x 10
-5
Perpendicular Perpendicular 1.112 x 10
-1
-1.290 x 10
-1
8.835 x 10
-5
Parallel Perpendicular 2.454 x 10
-1
-2.634 x 10
-1
8.835 x 10
-5
Table 7. Regression parameters for determining the coefficient of static friction between a
wood strand and HDPE at 22C and 55% relative humidity.
HDPE orientation Strand orientation b
0
b
1
b
2
Parallel Parallel -3.530 x 10
-1
-1.222 x 10
-1
8.835 x 10
-5
Perpendicular Perpendicular -2.842 x 10
-1
-1.216 x 10
-1
8.835 x 10
-5
Parallel Perpendicular -1.500 x 10
-1
-1.179 x 10
-1
8.835 x 10
-5
3.5 Conclusions
The coefficient of static friction tests confirmed previous work by Bejo et al. (2000) where it
was found that, contrary to classical theoretical research pertaining to friction, the coefficient
of static friction is in fact dependent on the contact pressure between surfaces when at least
one surface is wood. In general, the contact pressure and coefficient of friction were
inversely related, as the contact pressure decreased the friction coefficient increased and
vice-versa. It was also found that the coefficient of friction was highest when the wood
grains were aligned perpendicular - perpendicular and least when they were aligned parallel -
parallel to the sloped plane. Finally, the relationship between the coefficient of friction
between two aspen strands versus that between an aspen strand and HDPE was found to be
approximately 2:1.
-28-
These findings suggest that knowledge of the contact pressures encountered during the
blending operation is necessary to fully describe the slipping of strands in the RDBM.
Because the currently available discrete element modeling software packages are unable to
accommodate for a variable coefficient of static friction, a value must be selected that results
in the most accurate resemblance between the RDBM simulations and the actual observed
dynamics. As an initial starting point for the model validation process, the average of the
two extreme strand orientations will be used together with the average of the higher, more
rapidly changing friction coefficients (contact pressure 188 pa) and the lower, more stable
friction coefficients (contact pressure >188 pa).
-29-
CHAPTER 4
DETERMINATION OF SUITABLE MATERIAL AND INTERACTION
PROPERTIES FOR USE AS INPUT PARAMETERS IN THE RDBM
4.1 Introduction
The RDBM required the input of three mechanical properties for each material used in a
simulation and three interaction properties for each pair of materials that may come in
contact during a simulation (Tables 8 and 9). While all of these properties must be included
for a simulation to be initiated, not all of them have a significant effect on the bulk strand
dynamics. Instead, some of these properties are only significant outside of the tested ranges
and/or are used for measuring incidents of little consequence to this study, such as
compressive forces acting on the particles. Because this research is focused predominantly
on measuring the bulk strand flow within a rotary drum blender, it is only necessary to select
representative values for those factors that are vital to the accurate representation of said
strand flow.
Table 8. Required material and interaction properties for the RDBM.
Material properties Interaction properties
Modulus of rigidity (G) Coefficient of restitution
Poissons ratio () Coefficient of rolling friction
Density () Coefficient of static friction
Table 9. Materials used and materials that may come in contact in the RDBM.
Materials Interactions
Aspen wood strands Strand - Strand
Polyethylene
1
Strand - Polyethylene
1
Polyethylene (PE) has been used here to describe both the high density polyethylene
flights (HDPE) and the ultra high molecular weight polyethylene drum liner
(UHMW). This will be discussed further in section 4.2.1.
Focusing on the behavior of the overall system introduces several inherent challenges. First,
published values for these properties are typically based on measurements taken of individual
pieces of clear wood samples. These values may or may not be accurate for characterizing
the behavior of large collections of strands. They do however provide a useful foundation for
beginning such research. Second, these properties must also incorporate other events that are
occurring in an actual rotary drum blender but are not able to be incorporated into the model
-30-
because of constraints, such as the representation of strands using a series of spheres or the
lack of any air flow dynamics in the model.
In addition to potentially affecting the strand dynamics, preliminary simulations and
literature (DEM Solutions 2008) have also shown that the material properties have a
significant impact on the processing time for a simulation. The processing time increases
with increasing shear modulus of rigidity and decreases with increasing density and
Poissons ratio. If it can be found that any of the above listed material properties do not
significantly impact the bulk material dynamics then values may be chosen that minimize the
time required for processing a simulation. The relationship between the density, ; modulus
of rigidity, G; Poissons ratio, ; particle radius, R; and processing time as represented by the
idealized time step, T
R
is (DEM Solutions 2008):
+
=
G
R
T
R
8766 . 0 1631 . 0
. [7]
In this case where strands are being modeled, the particle radius refers to the individual
particles, or spheres, that are joined to form a strand. As a result, the particle radius is inch
as will be discussed further in Section 4.2.2.
This study was therefore divided into two distinct phases. The first phase consisted of two 2-
level, full factorial experimental designs aimed at determining which material properties and
interaction properties were in fact significant to the overall strand dynamics. The second
phase consisted of a systematic series of simulations aimed at determining suitable values for
those properties that were deemed significant during phase 1. Published values and
experimental results from section 3.4 were employed as initial values from which these
values were improved upon. In order to assess the effectiveness of the tested values at
accurately simulating the bulk strand flow, a series of experiments were simultaneously
conducted and video recorded in a 6 foot laboratory blender for validation purposes. It was
hypothesized in this leg of the project that there is a particular set of input parameters that
produces simulated bulk strand flow that is reasonably similar to reality.
Although there are several materials involved in this process (HDPE, UHMW, and Aspen
wood strands), this study focused exclusively on the material properties of Aspen wood
-31-
strands for several reasons. First, because of the large quantity of strands used in the
simulation, it was assumed through consultation with the software providers that changes
made to the material properties of the strands has a significantly larger impact than changes
made to the material properties of either the blender liner or flights. And second, the
software package assumes the materials to be isotropic. Wood strands are highly anisotropic
and therefore there is not a single value for each of the mechanical properties available in the
public literature (USDA, Forest Products Laboratory 1999). Instead, these values were
selected based on exploratory simulations using published ranges.
Objectives:
1. To determine which material and interaction properties are significant to the bulk
strand flow, and
2. To assign suitable values to those properties deemed to be significant.
4.2 Procedure
4.2.1 Screening design
The significance of the six factors listed in Table 8 was determined using a full factorial, 2
k
design for each the material and the interaction properties (Montgomery 2005; Pyzdek 2003).
Two individual 2
k
designs were followed to minimize the required number of runs and to
facilitate clarity in the results (Table 10). This required that it be assumed there would not be
any significant interactions between the two groups. In total, 16 simulation runs were
required.
Table 10. (Left) Aspen wood strand material properties and (right) interaction properties
simulation design.
Simulation Factors
Run Modulus
of rigidity
Poissons
ratio
Density
1 -1 -1 -1
2 -1 -1 1
3 -1 1 -1
4 1 -1 -1
5 1 1 -1
6 1 -1 1
7 -1 1 1
8 1 1 1
Simulation Factors
Run
Coefficient
of
restitution
Coefficient
of rolling
friction
Coefficient
of static
friction
1 -1 -1 -1
2 -1 -1 1
3 -1 1 -1
4 1 -1 -1
5 1 1 -1
6 1 -1 1
7 -1 1 1
8 1 1 1
-32-
The aspen strand material property levels were selected based on published ranges (USDA,
Forest Products Laboratory 1999), recommendations made by representatives from DEM
Solutions, laboratory results, and preliminary modeling results (Tables 11 and 12). For the
blender liner and flights, which are constructed of UHMW and HDPE respectively, the
material properties were provided by Coil Manufacturing and are listed in Appendix B. To
facilitate the model setup, the averages of these values were used for both components and
this set of values will be referred to as simply polyethylene (PE) for the duration of this
report (Table 13). Because the material properties differ by less than 20% and they are not
the focus of this study it was felt that this was a reasonable simplification to the model.
As a means of further streamlining this portion of the study, the linear interaction factors,
which include wood to wood and wood to PE material contacts, were tested using the same
value for both material contacts. This was largely done to allow for a clearer understanding
of the results.
Table 11. Factor levels for Quaking Aspen material properties.
Material properties (Quaking Aspen) Low level High level
Modulus of rigidity (G) 1 x 10
8
Pa 1 x 10
9
Pa
Poissons ratio () 0.038 0.453
Density () 123.3 kg/m
3
(7.7 pcf)
379.6 kg/m
3
(23.7 pcf)
Table 12. Factor levels for interaction properties.
Interaction properties Low level High level
Coefficient of restitution
(wood-wood & wood-PE)
0.01 0.10
Coefficient of rolling friction
(wood-wood & wood-PE)
0.01 1.00
Coefficient of static friction
(wood-wood & wood-PE)
0.24 0.64
All operating and blender design factors, aside from the six specified, were fixed for the
duration of this project. This included the blender rotation speed, the number of and the
shape of the flights, the blender diameter, and the flight and liner material properties. These
fixed values were selected based on industry standards and limitations of the laboratory
blender (Table 14).
-33-
Table 13. Fixed factor levels for the liner and flights.
Material properties
(liner and flights)
Value
Modulus of rigidity (G) 3.39 x 10
8
Pa
Poissons ratio () 0.42
Density () 935 kg/m
3
Table 14. Fixed factor levels for the blender operation and design.
Fixed blending factors Value
Blender diameter 6.04 ft (1.840 m)
Blender length 1 ft (304.8 mm)
Drum rotation speed 25.5 rpm
Number of flights 8
Flight height 4 in. (101.6 mm)
Flight shape L-shaped
Fill level 1/8
th
In addition, the strands were represented using sticks of the following dimensions: length =
6 inches, width = 1 inch, and thickness = 1 inch (Figure 15). Simplification of the strand
dimensions was necessary because of computing and software limitations. If the actual
strand dimensions were used then the maximum sized sphere possible would be 0.030 inches,
or equivalent to the strand thickness. Consequently, more than 6500 spheres would be
required to represent each 6 inch long by 1 inch wide strand. Because the software is limited
to approximately 100 000 to 200 000 spheres, using 0.030 inch spheres would significantly
reduce that amount of strands that could be simulated. The key assumption is that the motion
of actual wood strands in a blender does not differ significantly from the sticks.
The simulator settings have been included below in Table 15. For each simulation the first 2
revolutions (approximately 6 seconds) were discarded. Visual interpretation of the bulk
strand flow revealed that the strands behaved erratically during this time, and this period was
not representative of the actual blending dynamics.
Table 15. Simulation settings.
Fixed simulator settings Value
Time step 40% of T
R
Write-out every frequency 0.01 sec
Simulation time
24 sec (8 revs)
-34-
Further, the sticks were generated inside the drum throughout the first revolution. Gradually
creating the sticks during a complete revolution facilitated the dispersion of sticks around the
drum and resembled the feeding of strands into an industrial blender.
4.2.2 Strand representation in EDEM
The wood strands were represented using a series of six, 1 inch diameter spheres. The
spheres were rigidly connected at their points of contact (Figure 15). Within EDEM, the six
spheres are treated as an individual body with measures, such as its location, being related to
its center of mass. In most cases a 6 inch by 1 inch by 1 inch stick template was placed over
each of the sphere groupings. This helped to distinguish between the sticks. It is important
to recognize that the template is not the interaction surface of the particles; it is merely
applied during post-processing to aid in identifying the individual strands. As a result, the
sticks can overlap at their edges when the maximum diameter of a sphere protrudes into the
valley between adjacent spheres. The stick template is best thought of as a virtual surface.
Figure 15. Schematic showing the representation of sticks using a series of six spheres (left)
and a schematic showing the placement of a template over top of the six spheres to aid in the
visual analysis process (right).
4.2.3 Characterization of resination potential
A subgroup of 150 strands of the 1 027 in the blender were tracked as they passed through the
resination region (Figure 16). The resination region is based on an atomizer spray pattern
provided by Coil Manufacturing Ltd (Appendix C) and includes an 11-inch tall region
located at the center of the drum. The width of the resination region is 1840 mm and it
covers the entire drum length. While in this region within an industrial blender equipped
with atomizers, strands have the best opportunity to make contact with resin directly leaving
the atomizers. Ideally, all of the strands in the system would have been tracked; however,
-35-
because of computing, software, and time constraints, tracking all 1 027 strands was not
practical.
Figure 16. Blender schematic showing the resination region outlined in blue.
Three parameters were recorded for each strand while in the resination region: simulation
time, x-location (across the diameter of the blender), and vertical velocity. The vertical
velocity was used solely for determining which strands were being lifted by the flights and
which strands were in free-fall. These parameters were recorded at a set time-interval of
every 0.01 seconds. This interval ensured that at least 91% of the time a strand was within
the region it was recorded. The complete details of this analysis are given in Appendix D.
These data were then used for computing a set of response variables.
Three response variables were selected for characterizing the strand flow through the
resination region: skewness, kurtosis, and count. All three of these measures were applied to
the x-location data. In this analysis the skewness (Equation 8 and Figure 17) and kurtosis
(Equation 9) characterize the distribution of the strands across the diameter of the drum as
they descend. Skewness is an indicator of the central tendency of the strand distribution and
kurtosis is an indicator of the uniformity of the strand distribution. Ideally, the strands
should be dispersed evenly, or uniformly across the diameter in order to maximize the
opportunity for an even resin distribution (Figure 17). A uniform distribution is described by
a skewness of 0.0 and a kurtosis of -1.2 (Snedecor and Cochran 1980).
Resination region
z
x
y
-36-
( )( )
=
3
2 1 s
x x
n n
n
skewness
i
[8]
( )
( )( )( )
( )
( )( ) 3 2
1 3
3 2 1
1
2
4
+
=
n n
n
s
x x
n n n
n n
kurtosis
i
[9]
where:
n is the sample size,
x
i
is the value of the i
th
sample,
x is the average x value, and
s is the sample standard deviation.
-37-
Skewness = -0.3983
Skewness = -0.3024
Skewness = -0.0451
Figure 17. Simulation and photographed examples of increasing skewness caused by
increasing rotational speeds from 15.5 RPM to 25.5 RPM. Note that the skewness results are
based on entire simulation, not the individual still image. The illustrated blenders have 8-4"
flights and are 1/8
th
full.
15.5 RPM
25.5 RPM
20.5 RPM
-38-
The count is an indicator of the average total time the strands, or sticks, spent in the
resination region. When any of the 150 strands were within the resination region a
timestamp was recorded every 0.01 seconds for each strand. These timestamps were then
accumulated to determine the total time that the overall subset of strands was within the
resination region. The count is significant because it measures the opportunity the wood
strands have to come into contact with the resin, and therefore should be maximized.
In addition to determining the total time spent in the resination region, a histogram of the
count data was also generated to visually interpret the x-position results. The histogram
consisted of 32 intervals, or bins, where each bin was 57.5 mm wide (Figure 18).
Cumulatively, the bins form the width of the resination region, 1840 mm. In order to post-
process the data files produced by the RDBM, a macro was written in VBA to parse out the
needed data and compute the required statistics. A listing of the VBA code for the macro,
called Histogram_And_Commulative_Graph, is given in Appendix E.
Figure 18. Sample histogram with a respective skewness, kurtosis, and count of -0.3024, -
0.2794, and 22 453.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Bin
C
o
u
n
t
1 27 29 31 21 23 25 15 17 19 9 11 13 5 7 3
-39-
4.3 Validation process selection of appropriate input parameters
Validation of the discrete element model was completed using three techniques. These
techniques were performed in the order listed below. The first technique acted as a screening
test because of its relative speed and simplicity in performing. The second and third
techniques were only performed if the previous test was successful.
The first technique is a visual comparison between a one minute video recording of the lab
blender and an animation created from the simulation results. Validation by means of a
visual comparison has been the most common approach taken for discrete element modeling
because of its inherent simplicity (Rajamani et al. 2000; Yang et al. 2006). While these
previous papers used still images for comparison, a video recording was used in this study
because it resulted in a better understanding of the bulk strand dynamics; in particular strand
surging, a common phenomenon in rotary drum blending. It is important to recognize that
one of the shortcomings of this approach is that it is a purely qualitative measure and is
therefore subjective.
In order to observe and record the strand dynamics in a rotary drum blender, a custom built, 6
foot diameter by 3 foot deep Coil laboratory-scale blender was used. This blender is unique
in that it is outfitted with a tempered glass front that enables the motion of the strands inside
the blender to be easily observed, photographed, or videotaped.
The bulk dynamics of the strands was recorded using a Sony Handycam, model DCR-
DVD108, mounted on a tripod in line with the axis of rotation of the drum and 156 inches
back from the front of the glass blender face. The blender was illuminated with two pairs of
tripod mounted, 500 watt halogen lights positioned to minimize dark regions inside the
blender drum and to avoid reflections (Figures 19 and 20). Black tarpaulins were draped
behind and around the video camera to reduce any reflections on the tempered glass front.
Five minutes of strand tumbling was recorded for 16 different combinations of fill level and
drum speed (Table 16). This video footage was transferred from the video camera to the
computer using Picture Motion Browser Disc Importer Version 1.1.01.01170. Once
downloaded, a 1 minute interval beginning at the 3 minute mark was extracted and saved to
be used for the validation process. This time interval was selected because visually it
appeared that steady state had been reached in the blender.
-40-
Figure 19. Schematic showing the placement of the lights and camera/video camera relative
to the laboratory blender, with the axis indicated in blue.
Figure 20. Photograph showing the placement of the lights and camera/video camera relative
to the laboratory blender.
Still camera /
video camera
Halogen
lights
6 Laboratory
Blender
y
x
z
Halogen
lights
156"
51"
67"
67"
51
72"
-41-
Table 16. Blender rotational speed and fill level combinations for laboratory video
recordings.
Fill level (%) Drum speed (RPM)
1/64
th
15.5 20.5 25.5 30.5
1/32
nd
15.5 20.5 25.5 30.5
1/16
th
15.5 20.5 25.5 30.5
1/8
th
15.5 20.5 25.5 30.5
The simulated strand flow footage from the RDBM was converted into GIF animations. The
GIF was created by first exporting still images every 0.1 seconds from EDEM under the
Analyst tab. A detailed description on how to perform this task is presented in the EDEM
1.3 User Guide (DEM Solutions 2008). The still images were then strung together as frames
using the Animation Wizard in Jasc Animation Shop 3 and saved as a GIF. The RDBM GIF
and the video footage of the blender drum were put side by side in a Microsoft PowerPoint
slide and their strand flows compared by visual inspection (Figure 21). At this stage of the
validation, the objective was to determine whether or not the strand flows appear to be
similar based on the strands approximate point of detachment from the drum and their
ultimate point of collision. In addition, the patterns of strand detachment should have been
similar. Subsequent validation stages compared the simulated and laboratory results more
thoroughly using quantitative techniques.
Figure 21. Example of (left) a screen shot taken of an animated GIF illustrating the
simulation results and (right) a screen shot taken of the video footage taken in the laboratory.
The second technique, and less often employed, compares the shoulder and toe angles from a
series of still images taken of the laboratory blender with the graphical simulated results. As
Cleary (2003) stated, the shoulder and toe locations are the primary quantitative information
available from [an experiment] for comparison with the DEM results. The principle
-42-
advantage of this approach over the visual comparison is the fact that this is a quantitative
measure, and as a result, reduces the degree of subjectivity and bias. The definition of the
shoulder and toe angle and the measurement approach is described in detail by Cleary
(2003), and therefore, is only briefly summarized here.
The shoulder angle is the maximum vertical height reached by the bulk of the strands after
detaching from the drum liner. Conversely, the toe angle is the impact point of the bulk of
the strands that move through the shoulder and land on the drum (Figure 22). The term
bulk is used here to differentiate between the mass flow of the majority of strands and the
sporadic flow of individual, rogue strands. Because this research is focused on the overall
bulk strand dynamics, the movement of individual strands is of little interest.
Figure 22. Schematic showing the shoulder, , and toe, , angles for two points of
detachment. The 0
o
and 90
o
reference angles are shown in blue.
The strand volume and drum rotational speed have a significant effect on the ability to
accurately determine the shoulder and toe angles through visual inspection. For instance,
with volumes less than 1/8
th
full and with speeds greater than 25.5 RPM it is very difficult to
locate the shoulder and toe angles and to identify them both on the same image. As a result,
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x-position (m)
y
-
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
(
m
)
(a)
drum
liner
direction
of rotation
0
o
90
o
A
Shoulder
Toe
-43-
for this analysis only three speeds were chosen: 15.5 RPM, 20.5 RPM, and 25.5 RPM. All of
the experiments were conducted at a 1/8
th
fill level.
The still images were taken using a tripod mounted, Nikon Coolpix S3 digital camera. The
lighting and camera to blender configuration was the same as for the previous analysis
(Figure 19). With the blender running at steady state, forty to fifty pictures were taken in the
standard camera mode over approximately two minutes. As described by Cleary (2003), by
leaving the shutter open for a prolonged period a streaking effect is obtained, making it easier
to identify the relevant angles (Figure 23). However, because this particular camera model
does not allow for the shutter speed to be set directly, leaving the camera in the default
standard mode, instead of using a high speed or sports mode, it was possible to achieve the
desired outcome. In this case the shutter speed, as recorded in the image file, varied between
1/10
th
and 1/11
th
of a second.
The shoulder and toe location were then determined for each image. The first 30 images that
clearly showed both the shoulder and toe location were selected for analysis. As one can
imagine from viewing the still image of the blender in Figure 23, determining the precise
location of these locations is not without some error. Because of this, 30 images were
included in the analysis to reduce the significance of any erroneous measurements. In
measuring the shoulder and toe locations, the angles were measured to the nearest degree.
-44-
Figure 23. Illustration showing the identification of the shoulder and toe angle from the
laboratory video footage.
A similar approach was taken with the graphical simulation to facilitate the location of the
shoulder and toe angles. Instead of representing the strands using the stick template,
EDEMs streaming effect was used (DEM Solutions 2008). The streaming effect draws a
straight line between the respective strands last positions. For this analysis the software was
set to connect the last two positions (Figure 24). As with the visual validation, still images
were exported every 0.1 seconds from EDEM. The first two blender revolutions were not
included because steady state had not been reached. 35 random images were then selected
and the shoulder and toe angles determined. Again, the first 30 images that clearly showed
the shoulder and toe location in the same picture were selected for analysis.
Shoulder
Toe
-45-
Figure 24. Illustration showing the identification of the shoulder () and toe () angle from
the simulation results using the streaming effect.
Once the shoulder and toe angles were compiled from the pictures and simulation results they
were compared using a student t-test to determine if the mean shoulder and toe values were
similar.
The third technique relied on grayscale, or light intensity measures to determine the presence
of wood strands in the laboratory drum. This is a relatively new technique and has only been
found once in the literature as a model validation tool (Nakamura et al. 2007). This method
is based on the premise that the back of the blender drum is black, or low intensity and
grayscale values, and that the strands are relatively light, or higher intensity and grayscale
values. As a result, as the strands travel through the line of sight in front of the drum back
they are recorded as relatively high intensity regions. This approach removes nearly all
subjectivity, which is its primary advantage over the previous two methods. However, there
are several inherent challenges associated with its use. First, although it is simple to
determine the presence of at least one strand in any y-z plane (Figure 25) it is unable to
determine the degree of strand saturation. For instance, it is unable to decipher between a
-46-
single strand blocking the sight of the blender back or multiple strands blocking the sight of
the blender back. In addition, this technique is unable to account for parallax, and because
the drum is 3 feet deep this can be significant at the outer edges of the drum.
Figure 25. Schematic of the x, y, z coordinate system relative to the blender.
The laboratory images used for this analysis were extracted from the one minute video clip
used for the visual validation. The video was converted from an MPG format to an AVI
format using Cyberlink PowerDirector v6 (Anonymous 2007). The AVI version was then
imported into Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 and exported as individual still images (Adobe
Systems Incorporated 2007). This step was completed with the Export Frame Settings shown
in Table 17.
Table 17. Frame export settings used in Adobe Premiere Pro CS3.
General:
File Type TIFF
Video:
Frame Size 640 x 480
Frame Rate 29.97
Pixel Aspect Ratio 1.0
Keyframe and Rendering:
Deinterlace video footage select
Note: with the exception of the above listed
settings, all other parameters were left at their
respective default settings.
x
z
y
-47-
Using Image Pro Plus v6 (IPP), the still images were converted into 8-bit grayscale images.
With 8-bit grayscale, 0 corresponds to black and 255 corresponds white. The intensity, or
grayscale value, was determined for each column of pixels across the width of the resination
region. This is done using the Line Profile command in IPP, selecting Thick Horz under the
report options, and then positioning the boundaries of the resination region (Figure 26). This
was performed for every third image of the 1 800 that were extracted. The average grayscale
value and associated variance was determined for each column of pixels. A macro was
written in VBA to perform this operation and is listed in Appendix F.
-48-
Figure 26. Screen shot taken in Image Pro Plus v6 showing the placement of the thick, line
profile and the cooresponding grayscale values. The indicated grayscale values are an
average of each column of pixels across the width of the resination region.
The histogram data from the RDBM simulations were then overlaid on top of the light
intensity data to determine the degree of similarity (Figure 27). To facilitate the direct
comparison of the RDBM histograms with the light intensity data, the light intensity data was
grouped and averaged according to the same 51 mm bin size as the histograms. A critical
assumption in this analysis is that the light intensity values are directly related to the count
values from the simulation results.
Resination
region
-49-
Figure 27. Example of simulation results overlaid on top of grayscale results. The bin ids
are shown on the x-axis.
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Screening design material properties
After completing the full factorial simulation design the respective factor levels and response
variables were compiled (Table 18) to be analyzed in SAS version 9.1 using an analysis of
variance (ANOVA). In addition to the three response variables previously mentioned:
skewness, kurtosis, and count; the required processing time was also included. The
processing time was included because one of the objectives of this initial study was to
determine a suitable combination of material properties that would minimize the required
processing time without compromising the quality of the simulation results. Therefore, the
results for the processing time will only be used for determining, if appropriate, where
assumptions could be made to reduce the time required to run subsequent simulations.
20.5 RPM - 1/32
nd
Full
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Bin
C
o
u
n
t
(
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
G
r
a
y
s
c
a
l
e
(
I
m
a
g
i
n
g
)
1 27 29 31 21 23 25 15 17 19 9 11 13 5 7 3
Simulation Imaging
-50-
Table 18. Factors and response variables for simulations investigating the impact of the
material properties.
Factors Response variables
Run Shear
modulus (psi)
Poissons
ratio
Density
(kg/m
3
)
Skewness Kurtosis Count
Proc. Time
(hrs)
1 1 x 10
8
0.038 62.208 -0.0744 -1.0043 14267 11.10
2 1 x 10
8
0.038 380.000 -0.1921 -1.1023 15027 4.73
3 1 x 10
8
0.453 62.208 -0.1704 -1.0837 15063 11.70
4 1 x 10
9
0.038 62.208 -0.0544 -1.0776 14305 34.30
5 1 x 10
9
0.453 62.208 -0.2613 -1.1146 15352 37.00
6 1 x 10
9
0.038 380.000 -0.2429 -1.0365 15160 14.20
7 1 x 10
8
0.453 380.000 -0.1068 -1.0940 14902 5.03
8 1 x 10
9
0.453 380.000 -0.1537 -1.0274 14772 15.10
The ANOVA results showed that none of the material properties: shear modulus, Poissons
ratio, or density; had a significant impact on the skewness, kurtosis, or count at a 95%
confidence level ( = 0.05) (Appendix G). This is demonstrated by the p-values consistently
being greater than 0.05. As expected from Equation 7, the processing time was significantly
affected by the material properties, specifically by the shear modulus and density.
4.4.2 Screening design interaction properties
The results from the simulations investigating the impact of the interaction properties were
also analyzed using an ANOVA in SAS version 9.1 (Table 19).
Table 19. Factors and response variables for simulations investigating the impact of the
interaction properties.
Factors Response variables
Run Coef. of
restitution
Coef. of
rolling friction
Coef. of
static friction
Skewness Kurtosis Count
Proc. Time
(hrs)
1 0.01 0.01 0.24 -0.5587 -0.8274 16863 5.24
2 0.01 0.01 0.64 -0.2302 -1.0118 15260 4.79
3 0.01 1.00 0.24 0.3976 -0.8940 13569 5.18
4 0.10 0.01 0.24 -0.4195 -0.9959 15671 5.18
5 0.10 1.00 0.24 0.4187 -0.7253 13429 5.25
6 0.10 0.01 0.64 -0.1145 -0.9241 14487 4.72
7 0.01 1.00 0.64 1.2969 0.9665 12855 4.4
8 0.10 1.00 0.64 1.2521 0.8854 12749 4.35
The ANOVA results (Appendix H) showed that the coefficient of rolling friction and the
coefficient of static friction had a significant effect on the skewness of the data at a 95%
confidence level, while only the coefficient of rolling friction had a significant effect on the
count. None of the factors significantly impacted the kurtosis. Based on these results, it was
necessary to complete additional simulations and research to determine appropriate
coefficients of rolling and static friction.
-51-
4.4.3 Coefficient of rolling friction
An appropriate coefficient of rolling friction value for this project was determined by
completing a series of simulations at both the upper and lower static friction coefficient
values measured in the laboratory for seven different values of rolling friction (Table 20 and
Figure 28). This provided insight into the affect of rolling friction on the bulk dynamics of
the strands. Common sense suggested that because strands do not roll, but instead slide
along the liner, flights, or adjacent strands in an actual rotary drum blender, the coefficient of
rolling friction should be set as high as possible to prevent the strands from rolling.
However, the impact of the rolling friction on the strand dynamics was not completely
known and therefore these simulations were necessary. For these studies the coefficient of
static friction was set independently for wood to wood and wood to PE (Table 20).
Table 20. Rolling and static friction coefficients for the simulations aimed at determining a
suitable coefficient of rolling friction.
Static friction
Run
Wood to Wood Wood to PE
Rolling friction
x-position
skewness
1 0.66 0.3 0.010 -0.22873
2 0.66 0.3 0.175 1.18975
3 0.66 0.3 0.340 1.49009
4 0.66 0.3 0.505 1.06571
5 0.66 0.3 0.670 0.71122
6 0.66 0.3 0.835 0.51079
7 0.66 0.3 1.000 0.59923
8 0.54 0.26 0.010 0.03421
9 0.54 0.26 0.175 1.22647
10 0.54 0.26 0.340 1.31727
11 0.54 0.26 0.505 0.83199
12 0.54 0.26 0.670 0.57810
13 0.54 0.26 0.835 0.53392
14 0.54 0.26 1.000 0.51188
-52-
Figure 28. Skewness as a function of the coefficient of rolling friction (CRF).
In both cases the simulation results showed that the rate of change of skewness with rolling
friction is smallest above 0.7. It would therefore be ideal to operate in this range. However,
in order for the simulation to remain stable the rolling friction coefficient should not be more
than 0.7 (Cook 2008). Thus for the purposes of this research a value of 0.67 was used to
ensure model stability. A disadvantage of this approach is that it removes some of the
control we have over the bulk dynamics of the strands, only leaving the coefficient of static
friction for controlling the simulated strand flow.
4.4.4 Validation - coefficient of static friction
Once a suitable coefficient of rolling friction was determined, attention was focused on the
coefficient of static friction. As previously indicated, the static friction coefficients used in
the model may not be necessarily the same as those values found in the laboratory
experiments. This is largely because of assumptions that were made in the model. For
instance, the bulk flow of strands in an actual blender is much more complicated than
individual specimen tests. There are many factors that impact specimen interactions, such as
air flow or the presence of fine particles acting as lubricant on the material surfaces. As a
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
CRF
S
k
e
w
n
e
s
s
wood/wood
= 0.66
wood/PE
= 0.30
wood/wood
= 0.54
wood/PE
= 0.26
-53-
result, a series of simulations were carried out in a systematic manner to narrow in on a pair
of static friction coefficients that best produces realistic strand flow. The validation
techniques outlined in the Methodology section were used to understand whether or not the
simulation results were improving with each successive simulation.
Six static friction levels were required to narrow in on a suitable combination of values
(Table 21). Runs 1 and 2 used the upper and lower laboratory determined values. Neither of
these runs agreed using visual validation. The strands were lifted too high up on the drum
wall before detaching and impacted the drum at too small an angle on their decent.
Table 21. Pairs of static friction coefficients used to identify a suitable set of values.
Static coefficient of friction Run
Wood to wood Wood to HDPE
1 0.66 0.30
2 0.54 0.26
3 0.02 0.01
4 0.14 0.07
5 0.10 0.05
6 0.12 0.06
Runs 3 to 6 used values that were considerably less than the laboratory determined
coefficients, however were necessary to correct for the disparity between runs 1 and 2 and
the video footage taken in the laboratory. Throughout these runs a ratio of approximately 2:1
was maintained between the wood to wood and the wood to PE coefficient values. This ratio
was found to be reasonably accurate from the laboratory results in Section 3.4.
Run 3 was an extreme case. This simulation tested the lowest levels possible while
maintaining a 2:1 ratio. The visual results of this run showed that the point of detachment
and collision were both too low on the drum, indicating that the optimal static friction
coefficients were between the levels used in runs 2 and 3.
The visual results of run 4 were promising. The point of detachment and collision both
appeared to be similar to the laboratory video footage; as a result, validation using the
shoulder and toe angle measurements was also completed (Table 22). The results of the
student t-test suggested that there was not a significant difference between the shoulder angle
-54-
in the simulated and laboratory results assuming a 95% confidence level. The toe angles
were however significantly different, with the simulated toe angle being lower.
Table 22. Student t-test for two sample means assuming unequal variance for the shoulder
and toe angles in Run 4 and the laboratory results.
Shoulder angle Toe angle
Simulation Laboratory Simulation Laboratory
Mean 55.8 53.9 247.7 256.2
Variance 38.90 20.53 44.42 29.98
Observations 30 30 30 30
Hypothesized mean dif. 0 0
Degrees of freedom 53 56
t-statistic 1.397 -5.419
P(T t) two-tail 0.168 1.313 E-6
t-critical two-tail 2.006 2.003
Runs 5 and 6 were completed to determine if the results of run 4 could be improved upon.
Again, visually both of these runs were promising, warranting validation by means of the
shoulder and toe angles (Tables 23 and 24). With run 5 the toe angle was closer to the
laboratory results; however, the simulation shoulder was again lower. In run 6, the shoulder
and toe angles were both significantly lower than the laboratory results.
Table 23. Student t-test for two sample means assuming unequal variance for the shoulder
and toe angles in Run 5 and the laboratory results.
Shoulder angle Toe angle
Simulation Laboratory Simulation Laboratory
Mean 45.2 53.9 255.6 256.2
Variance 20.39 20.53 34.79 29.98
Observations 30 30 30 30
Hypothesized mean dif. 0 0
Degrees of freedom 58 58
t-statistic -7.392 -.408
P(T t) two-tail 6.438 E-10 0.685
t-critical two-tail 2.002 2.002
-55-
Table 24. Student t-test for two sample means assuming unequal variance for the shoulder
and toe angles in Run 6 and the laboratory results.
Shoulder angle Toe angle
Simulation Laboratory Simulation Laboratory
Mean 47.7 53.9 251.4 256.2
Variance 44.98 20.53 53.90 29.98
Observations 30 30 30 30
Hypothesized mean dif. 0 0
Degrees of freedom 51 54
t-statistic -4.173 -2.911
P(T t) two-tail 0.001 0.005
t-critical two-tail 2.008 2.005
A summary of the shoulder and toe angle results from runs 4 to 6 and the results from the
images taken of the laboratory blender is shown in Table 25. The italicized values indicate
those angles that are significantly different from the laboratory results at the 95% confidence
level ( = 0.05). These results show a decline in the shoulder angle with a decreasing
coefficient of static friction. At the same time, the toe angle steadily increased with
decreasing friction values.
Table 25. Summary of runs 4 to 6 and the laboratory taken shoulder and toe angle results.
Italicized values indicate those angles that are significantly different ( = 0.05) from the
image results.
Shoulder Toe
Lab images 53.9 256.2
Coefficient of static friction
1
:
Run 4 (0.14/0.07) 55.8 247.7
Run 5 (0.10/0.05) 45.2 255.6
Run 6 (0.12/0.06) 47.7 251.4
1
The values are shown as the wood to wood and the wood to PE
coefficient of static friction respectively.
Of these three runs, it was determined that run 4 resulted in simulation results that most
closely resembled the laboratory results. This decision was based on the close resemblance
of the shoulder angles obtained in run 4 and the laboratory images. Although the toe angle
was significantly different from the laboratory results, it was ultimately decided that an
accurate shoulder angle was more important than an accurate toe angle. If the shoulder angle
was incorrect it would more negatively impact subsequent simulations that included an
atomizer boom in the middle of the blender, the which the strands would ultimately interact.
The results of runs 4 to 6 were expected based on previous work by Smith and Davis (Davis
1919; Smith and Gutiu 2002). As the coefficient of friction increases so does the angle of
-56-
detachment from the drum wall. In the simplest case, with a flight of zero height, this angle
is predicted by (Smith and Gutiu 2002):
2
2 2
2
1
4
arcsin
1
1
arcsin
s s
g
rn
+
=
[10]
where:
is the detachment angle relative to the vertical axis,
s
is the static friction coefficient,
r is the radius of the drum, and
n is the rotational speed.
To further verify these results, run 4 was re-run at 15.5 RPM and 25.5 RPM. Using a higher
and lower speed was expected to show a clear movement in the shoulder and toe angles. The
results of these additional simulations showed that the shoulder and toe angles had a clear
dependency on the rotational speed. A summary of the results for run 4 at the various speeds
is shown below (Table 26). The detailed t-test results for 15.5 and 25.5 RPM are shown in
Appendix I.
Table 26. Summary of shoulder and toe angles obtained at 15.5 to 25.5 RPM with the
coefficients of static friction set at 0.14 and 0.07. Italicized values indicate those angles that
are significantly different ( = 0.05) from the image results.
Shoulder angle Toe Angle
RPM
Simulation Laboratory Simulation Laboratory
15.5 40.4 38.9 258.0 259.0
20.5 55.8 53.9 247.7 256.2
25.5 67.0 63.1 217.9 227.4
Although both the simulated shoulder and toe angle were significantly different from the
laboratory results at 25.5 RPM, the values were close enough to be satisfied with using 0.14
and 0.07 as the coefficient of static friction for wood to wood and wood to PE respectively.
As a final confirmation, the third validation technique relying on light intensity was also
completed for 0.14 and 0.07 static friction values. This validation was completed for a
blender fill level of 1/8
th
at speeds of 15.5 RPM, 20.5 RPM, and 25.5 RPM. Before
completing this analysis a baseline test was completed to determine the light intensity of the
blender without the presence of strands.
-57-
For the baseline test the light intensity was measured across the resination region with the
blender empty (Figure 29). The adjusted average grayscale value was then calculated and
subtracted from subsequent analyses. Because of the occurrence of parallax the region of
interest was narrowed to avoid inclusion of the drum liner for this validation technique. The
drum liner is nearly white and would have caused the results to be false near the left- and
right-hand extents of the resination region. The thatched regions, or first and last 4 bins, in
the following graphs were not included in the analysis.
The average grayscale value for the region between the two cut-off points was found to be
66.2.
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Bin
G
r
a
y
-
s
c
a
l
e
Cut-off Cut-off
Average =66.2
Figure 29. Baseline grayscale results for the laboratory blender running empty. The cut-off
points are indicated by the solid, vertical red lines. The drum liner is contained in the
thatched region. Note that the width of each bin is 57.5 mm.
The light intensity analyses showed close correspondence with the simulation results
(Figures 30 to 32). In particular, the initial points of inclination (middle to left side of
graphs) and the peaks appear to be reasonably aligned. This is especially true at 20.5 RPM
and 25.5 RPM. At 15.5 RPM the laboratory data are skewed slightly further to the right, or
negatively skewed. This disparity is difficult to interpret however. Because the peak of the
-58-
laboratory data are contained within the cut-off region it is likely impacted by the lightness of
the drum liner and therefore the precise location of the peak is not known.
Although the graphs of the simulation results appear to resemble the laboratory images for
the entire region between the cut-off points, the region to the right of the graphs peak is less
capable of accounting for changes in strand volume. This is because at a 1/8
th
fill level the
drum tends to become saturated with strands fluttering beneath the cascading stream of
strands. This blocks the view of the drum back, inhibiting the Image Pro Plus software from
observing differences in the grayscale level. The simulation and laboratory results contained
here are for a blender running counter-clockwise; and therefore, the this region is to the right
of the peak in these graphs.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Bin
C
o
u
n
t
(
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
66.0
86.0
106.0
126.0
146.0
166.0
186.0
206.0
G
r
a
y
-
s
c
a
l
e
(
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
)
Laboratory results
Simulation results
Figure 30. Grayscale results for the blender running at 15.5 RPM and 1/8
th
full.
-59-
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Bin
C
o
u
n
t
(
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
66.0
86.0
106.0
126.0
146.0
166.0
186.0
G
r
a
y
-
s
c
a
l
e
(
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
)
Laboratory results
Simulation results
Figure 31. Grayscale results for the blender running at 20.5 RPM and 1/8
th
full.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Bin
C
o
u
n
t
(
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
66.0
76.0
86.0
96.0
106.0
116.0
126.0
136.0
146.0
156.0
166.0
G
r
a
y
-
s
c
a
l
e
(
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
)
Laboratory results
Simulation results
Figure 32. Grayscale results for the blender running at 25.5 RPM and 1/8
th
full.
Based on the validation results the coefficients of static friction were similarly determined to
be 0.14 and 0.07 for wood to wood and wood to PE respectively. Using this combination of
-60-
coefficients produced simulation results that closely mimicked those obtained in the
laboratory blender.
The final coefficient of static friction values for use in EDEM are considerably lower than
the 0.66 and 0.30 values obtained through the bench-top laboratory experiments. Much of
this difference is likely a result of the choice in strand representation. Because the sticks are
composed of a series of spheres the contact surfaces between sticks have ridges that the
adjacent surfaces must slide over. This results in mechanical interlocking between the sticks.
Reducing the friction coefficient acts as a lubricant for the surfaces, allowing them to more
easily slide along each other or separate if necessary.
A second explanation for this disparity is the lack of fine particles in the model. In an actual
rotary drum blender, including the one used for validating this model, fine particles are
generated within the process. These fine particles coat the surfaces of the strands, flights,
and drum liner and ultimately behave similar to very small ball bearings and effectively
reduce the friction between surfaces.
4.5 Conclusions
The selection of suitable material and interaction parameters has been shown to be critical to
the successful implementation of a discrete element model for two principal reasons. First,
the accuracy of the simulation results is largely determined by the input parameters. The
adage garbage in, garbage out has been shown to be particularly relevant here (Hirsch et al.
2002). The findings of this study show that many of the parameters listed in Table 8 have no
significant impact on the bulk dynamics of wood strands in the RDBM. The only parameters
that did have a significant impact were the coefficients of rolling friction and static friction.
Second, the combination of parameters may significantly impact the processing time required
for an individual run. During this project, processing times for a 24 second simulation
ranged from as low as 4.7 hours to as high as 34.3 hours. Accuracy of the simulation results
being equal, shorter processing times are preferred. Shorter processing times are achieved by
using relatively high material densities or low shear moduli.
-61-
Based on the findings of these simulations and analyses the complete set of material and
interaction properties for this particular project is shown below in Table 27. By using these
input parameters the RDBM accurately, and processor efficiently, predicts the bulk dynamics
of wood strands in a 6 foot rotary drum blender.
Table 27. Summary of material and interaction properties for use with EDEM.
Material Properties
Shear modulus 1x10
8
psi
Poissons ratio 0.453
Density 380 kg/m
3
Interaction Properties
Coefficient of rolling friction 0.67
Coefficient of static friction:
Wood on wood 0.14
Wood on HDPE 0.07
Coefficient of restitution 0.01
-62-
CHAPTER 5
MEASURING THE EFFECT OF ROTARY DRUM BLENDER DESIGN AND
OPERATING PARAMETERS ON THE BULK STRAND FLOW USING A
RESPONSE SURFACE DESIGN
5.1 Introduction
Until this point the research project was largely focused on calibrating the RDBM with
laboratory results. This was necessary before exploratory studies could be completed using
the model. This next portion of the research therefore relies on these calibration results for
conducting an exploratory study aimed at understanding the design and operation of rotary
drum blenders.
This work utilizes the quantification techniques used in Chapter 4, together with a response
surface design, to determine the relationship between four operating and blender design
parameters and the distribution of strands across the blender diameter as well as the average
time a strand spends in the resination region. The four factors of interest are specific to the
Coil Manufacturing, long-retention blenders, and include: the flight height, number of flights,
blender fill level, and blender rotational speed. This is not an exhaustive list of factors;
however, they are the few parameters that do not require fundamental or significant changes
to the current blending process. It is hypothesized that there are ideal combinations of
blender design and operating parameters that results in the optimal blending environment.
Objective:
1. To understand the impact of blender design and operating parameters on the strand
distribution across the drum diameter and the average time a strand spends in the
resination region.
5.2 Methodology
A response surface design was selected for determining the impact several of the rotary drum
blender design and operating parameters have on the distribution of strands across the drum
diameter, as described by the skewness and kurtosis, as well as the average time a strand
spends in the resination region. Response surface methodology (RSM) was followed
-63-
because it provides an efficient means of determining the relationship between several factors
and response variables. For this reason, RSM has been used extensively for product and
process optimization (Myers and Montgomery 2002).
A modified four factor, Box-Behnken response surface design was followed for these
simulations (Tables 28 and 29). How this design differs from a traditional Box-Behnken
design is that the number of flights and fill level increase geometrically. Consequently, the
median value, or factor level, is not equal to the mean value, as is the case with traditional
Box-Behnken designs (SAS Institute Inc.). The design scheme was altered in response to
limitations with the design of the laboratory blender. In particular, additional flights could
only be positioned at set locations. The laboratory blender was pre-drilled for 16 flights;
therefore, in order to maintain a symmetric flight placement along the blender circumference,
the number of flights was increased from 4 to 8 to 16. Although it was ultimately decided
that the laboratory blender was not required for further validation of the RDBM, at the onset
of this analysis it was desired to maintain that option.
-64-
Table 28. Response surface design matrix.
Run Number of
flights
Flight
height
Fill level Rotational
speed
1 -1 -1 -0.33 0
2 -1 1 -0.33 0
3 1 -1 -0.33 0
4 1 1 -0.33 0
5 -0.33 0 -1 -1
6 -0.33 0 -1 1
7 -0.33 0 1 -1
8 -0.33 0 1 1
9 -1 0 -0.33 -1
10 -1 0 -0.33 1
11 1 0 -0.33 -1
12 1 0 -0.33 1
13 -0.33 -1 -1 0
14 -0.33 -1 1 0
15 -0.33 1 -1 0
16 -0.33 1 1 0
17 -1 0 -1 0
18 -1 0 1 0
19 1 0 -1 0
20 1 0 1 0
21 -0.33 -1 -0.33 -1
22 -0.33 -1 -0.33 1
23 -0.33 1 -0.33 -1
24 -0.33 1 -0.33 1
25 -0.33 0 -0.33 0
26 -0.33 0 -0.33 0
27 -0.33 0 -0.33 0
Table 29. Response surface design factor levels.
Factor Units
Low level
(-1)
Mid level
(0 or -0.33)
High level
(1)
Number of flights - 4 8 16
Flight height inches 2 4 6
Fill level
1
% 6.25 12.50 25.00
Rotational speed rpm 18.71 23.39 28.07
1
Fill level is represented as the fraction of blender volume occupied by strands if
the blender drum was stopped during operation and the strands settled on the
base of the drum.
The factor levels were selected based on discussions with Coil Manufacturing (Coil 2007b;
Coil 2008) and by balancing computational and physical limitations, as previously
mentioned. For instance, the fill level of an industrial blender is typically 25% to 50%. This
level is based on the fraction of the blender volume occupied by strands when the blender is
not rotating and the strands are resting on the bottom of the blender drum under self-weight.
-65-
Because of computing limitations, which include both the speed in which the software can
solve a simulation and the speed in which the computer can run the software, the maximum
fill level simulated was 25%. The results show distinct trends however, which may be useful
for extrapolating towards the higher fill levels. In addition, the simulated blender diameter
was limited to 1.84 meters (6.04 feet). This corresponds to the laboratory blender and
minimizes the computational requirements. Industrial blenders are as large as 11 feet in
diameter; however, it is anticipated that results from the 6 foot blender will provide valuable
insight into the strand dynamics. Further, it is assumed that many of the effects caused by
the design and operational parameters will be relevant regardless of the blender diameter. As
will be outlined in the Future Work section, it is recommended that future experiments be
conducted that investigate the validity of scaling the model results for an industrial blender.
The selected blender rotational speeds were 60, 75, and 90% of the calculated critical speed
(Smith and Gutiu 2002).
It is important to note that instead of reporting the total number of 0.1 second time steps that
the 150 tracked strands spent in the resination region, as was the case with the sensitivity
study (Chapter 4), the average time an individual strand spent in the resination region was
reported in this study. The reason for this slight change in the reporting format is because of
the varying blender fill levels investigated in this study. Reporting the average time helps
avoid misinterpretation of the results and relates directly to the overall objective, which is to
maximize the time spent in the resination region. Throughout this study, a tracked sample
size of 150 strands was maintained. For all of the simulations, the number of recorded
revolutions was maintained at 10; however, the first 2 revolutions were discarded to allow
the model to reach steady state. Consequently, 8 complete revolutions were included in the
analysis for each simulation.
The response surface design was completed twice, once without an atomizer boom and once
with a single atomizer boom (Figure 33). The location of the boom was selected based on
drawings provided by Coil Manufacturing (Coil 2007b). As an initial investigation of the
dynamics and the role design and operational parameters have on it, most of the attention was
focused on the scenario without an atomizer boom. This would allow for an optimal boom
location to be selected based on the strand flow, while still providing some insight into the
impact the boom will have on the resulting strand flow.
-66-
Figure 33. Schematic of a blender fitted with an atomizer boom, shaded grey. The upward
and downward rotating sides of the blender are also indicated.
All of the simulations were run using EDEM version 1.3.1 and post processed and sorted in
Microsoft Excel using the VBA script listed in Appendix E. The results were subsequently
analyzed using SAS version 9.1s response surface design tools.
Quadratic models were fit in SAS using the ANOVA selection method at a 95% confidence
level ( = 0.05). For the skewness and kurtosis it was necessary to include several of the
insignificant effects to maintain the model hierarchy. These effects are indicated in the
Results and Discussion section.
5.3 Results and discussion
5.3.1 Overall predictive trends
The results of the study using a 6 foot RDBM (Appendix J) show that all three response
variables were significantly affected by at least two of the four factors, either as a main effect
or as an interaction effect. The skewness was impacted most, being affected by all four
factors. Kurtosis was affected by the number of flights and flight height, while the average
time spent in the resination region was affected by the flight height and rotational speed. The
relationships between the response variables and the significant factors are presented in the
following sections.
Atomizer boom
CCW Rotation
Downward rotating side Upward rotating side
-67-
These relationships are shown in the prediction profile graphs that were generated in SAS
(Figures 34, 40, 43, and 44 to 47). The factors are shown on the x-axes and the response
variables on the y-axes. These relationships are unique to the factor levels employed and
may change accordingly if the factor levels were to change. For the graphs included in this
study, factor levels representative of industry norms were used for the skewness and average
time spent in resination region analyses (Table 30) (Coil 2008; Smith 2005).
Table 30. Factor levels used in the skewness and average time spent in resination region
analyses.
Factor Factor level
Number of flights 14
Flight height (inches) 4
Fill level (fraction) 0.25
Rotational speed (rpm) 24.0
The factor levels used for the kurtosis analyses are described in Section 5.3.1.3. The factor
levels are indicated by a vertical line and accompanying x-axis label on the respective
graphs. In order to facilitate comparison of the simulation means, 95% confidence intervals
are included on each of the following graphs.
5.3.1.1 Skewness
All four factors had a significant effect on the skewness (Table 31 and Figure 34). The
skewness increased with an increasing rotational speed and number of flights and a
decreasing fill level. The skewness increased with an increasing flight height from 2 to 4
inches and then began to decrease. The model for predicting the skewness is shown in
Equation 11. This model yields an F-value of 27.1357 (p-value < 0.0001), which is
significant at a 95% confidence level ( = 0.05).
-68-
Table 31. List of effects for the skewness showing (left) the significant effects and (right) the
significant effects as well as those that were included to maintain the model hierarchy.
Factor p-value
Number of flights 0.0093
Flight height 0.0092
Fill level 0.0232
Rotational speed 0.0032
Number of flights x Flight height 0.0121
Flight height x Fill level 0.0051
Rotational speed
2
0.0237
Flight height
2
x Rotational speed 0.0410
Factor p-value
Number of flights 0.0093
Flight height 0.0092
Fill level 0.0232
Rotational speed 0.0032
Number of flights x Flight height 0.0121
Flight height
2
0.1106
Flight height x Fill level 0.0051
Flight height x Rotational speed 0.0516
Rotational speed
2
0.0237
Flight height
2
x Rotational speed 0.0410
4
2
2
2
4 4 2 3 2
2
2
2 1 4 3 2 1
0144 . 0 01145 . 0 1409 . 0 4520 . 2 2652 . 0
0282 . 0 7499 . 0 4648 . 6 6325 . 1 2006 . 0 3128 . 5
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X Sk
+ + +
+ + =
[11]
where:
Sk is the predicted skewness,
X
1
is the number of flights,
X
2
is the flight height in inches,
X
3
is the blender fill level as a fraction of the total blender volume, and
X
4
is the blender rotational speed in rpms.
Figure 34. Prediction profiles generated in SAS showing the relationship between the
skewness and the (top-left) number of flights, (top-right) flight height, (bottom-left) fill level,
and (bottom-right) blender rotational speed. The vertical lines and x-axes labels indicate the
factor levels used for the creation of these specific graphs.
fr
-69-
Skewness was shown to increase with an increasing number of flights and decrease with an
increasing blender fill level. Recall that a positive skewness implies that the majority of the
strands passed through the resination region on the downward rotating side of the drum,
while a negative skewness implies that the majority of the strands passed through the
resination region on the upward rotating side of the drum as they descended (Figure 33).
Ideally the strands would be symmetrically distributed, which would be identified by a
skewness of 0.
The impact of flight height and fill level is best described by considering the angle of repose.
Although this measure is most applicable for granular material, it is also relevant for wood
strands. The angle of repose refers to the internal angle formed between a horizontal surface
and a pile of granular material (Figure 35). This angle is largely influenced by the coefficient
of static friction and determines the height and width of the resulting pile for a given volume
of material (Smith 2006).
Figure 35. Schematic showing the angle of repose, , for a pile of wood strands on a
horizontal surface.
With fewer flights the loading per flight was relatively high, causing the strands to pile
higher atop of each flight. This is easily seen for the flight identified by the arrow in Figure
36a. In this case, where there are only 4 flights, the amount of strands that the flight is able
to carry is determined by the angle of repose. As the flight moves along the drum
circumference the angle of the flight relative to the horizontal axis increases. This causes
some of the strands to detach and slough off of the flight because the angle of repose has
been exceeded, as shown in Figure 36b. This is particularly relevant for the strands furthest
away from the flight where the angle is greatest and the strands are less supported. Once the
flight reaches the location shown in Figure 36e the strands begin to slough off of the flight in
a continuous flow. With only 4 flights the strands slough off of the flight while the flight
passed through the entire right half of the blender.
furnish
furnish
furnish
-70-
Figure 36. Simulation images showing the charge level per flight and the discharge pattern
when a relatively small number of flights are employed. The simulated blender has 4-6 inch
flights and is rotating at 23.39 RPM and is 1/8
th
full. The arrow indicates the position of a
specific flight as the drum rotates.
As the number of flights increased the loading of strands per flight diminished, reducing the
height of the strand pile atop of each flight. This is seen in Figure 37a. As a result, the
distance between the strands nearest to the flight and the strands furthest from the flight has
decreased. In this case, the flights need to travel further along the drum circumference before
the angle of repose is overcome. This is illustrated in the following example where the
strands do not begin detaching until the flight reaches the location shown in Figure 37d.
Consequently, the strand piles sloughed off of their respective flight within a narrow
timeframe. With 16 flights, most of the strands detached as the flight passed through the
upper-right drum quadrant. A smaller loading per flight would be the preferred scenario for
an industrial operation as it results in better control over the moment of detachment from the
flight and the strand trajectory.
(a)
(b) (c) (d)
(h)
(g)
(f) (e)
-71-
Figure 37. Simulation images showing the charge level per flight and the discharge pattern
when a relatively large number of flights are employed. The simulated blender has 16-6 inch
flights and is rotating at 23.39 RPM and is 1/8
th
full. The arrow indicates the position of a
specific flight as the drum rotates.
As anticipated, increasing the fill level caused the skewness to decrease. As more strands
were loaded into the blender the flights tended to become overloaded, causing the strands to
slough off the flights relatively early. This placed downward pressure on the skewness.
Similar to the effect of the number of the flights, increasing the rotational speed also caused
the skewness to increase. At less than approximately 21 RPM however, the speed appeared
to have only a minimal impact on the skewness. One explanation for this is that as the speed
decreased the strands became less dispersed across the drum diameter. This consolidation of
strands continued until the strands were packed in the lower-right drum quadrant, rolling
amongst themselves (Figure 38). 21 RPM could be the speed at which point there is only
minimal free fall of strands and the majority of strands are rolling in this region.
Figure 38. Simulation image showing strands rolling in the corner of the drum, where there
are 8-4 inch flights and the blender is rotating at 18.71 RPM and is 1/4 full.
(a)
(b) (c) (d)
(h)
(g)
(f) (e)
-72-
A positive relationship between the skewness and rotational speed was expected based on
previous work (Davis 1919; Smith and Gutiu 2002). As the rotational speed, n, increased so
to did the centrifugal force, F
C
(Equation 12). This caused the strands to stay in contact with
the flights or drum wall longer as the centrifugal force caused detachment to occur at a higher
angle.
g r
F
F
g
C
2
= [12]
n r 2 = [13]
where:
is the angular velocity,
r is the distance from the center of the drum,
g is gravitational acceleration, and
n is the rotational speed in rpm.
This effect is magnified by the fact that as the flow of strands moves further across the drum
the falling strands are dispersed amongst a larger number of flights. This reduces the
likelihood of strands piling in the lower-right drum quadrant waiting to be collected by a
passing flight. Figure 39 shows an example of flight utilization. At 18.71 RPM the strands
are dispersed across only 9 flights, compared to 14 at 28.07 RPM.
Figure 39. (Left) Simulation image showing the dispersion of strands across relatively few
flights when the blender is rotating at 18.71 RPM and (right) across many flights when the
blender is rotating at 28.07 RPM. In both cases the blender has 16-4 inch flights and is 1/8
th
full.
The piling of strands in the blender and the movement of the passing flights through the pile
is a possible contributor to strand attrition caused by the grinding of strands. It may also
result in poorly aligned strands on the flights as the strands become interlocked. Poor
alignment creates challenges for predicting when the strands will detach from their respective
-73-
flight. Generally, the results show that poorly aligned strands detach prematurely, placing
downward pressure on the skewness.
Flight height had an interesting effect on the skewness. Between 2 and 4 inches a positive
relationship was anticipated. This is because as the flight height increased each flight was
capable of carrying a larger number of strands, resulting in an increased overall system
capacity. As seen prior, with a fixed volume of strands, the capacity had a direct impact on
the skewness. Beyond 4 inches however, the relationship between the flight height and
skewness became negative. This was not foreseen but can be explained by examining the
forces acting on the strands.
As the flight height increased the edge of the flights were closer to the center of rotation of
the blender, resulting in a lower centrifugal force acting on those strands located nearer the
edge of the flights. This caused the strands to begin detaching and descending sooner than
with shorter flights that were further from the center of rotation. This same trend may not
have been seen with flights between 2 and 4 inches because the shorter flights were incapable
of lifting an adequate amount of strands. As a result, the quantity of strands that prematurely
fell from the shorter flights had less impact on the overall strand flow statistics. Based on
these findings, it appears that flights that are between 4 and 5 inches in height strike a good
balance between capacity and control over the strand detachment point for this particular
1.840 meter (6.04 feet) diameter blender. It is important to recognize however that the
difference in the predicted skewness for flights that are 4 inches and larger in height in not
significant.
5.3.1.2 Effect of an atomizer boom on the skewness results
The significant main effects that were determined according to the ANOVA selection
method, using a 95% confidence level, was reduced from all four factors to only two factors
when the atomizer boom was included. These factors were the fill level and the blender
rotational speed. All four factors were ultimately included however in order to maintain the
skewness model hierarchy.
The inclusion of an atomizer boom in the simulations had a slight impact on the overall
relationship between two of the main effects and the skewness (Table 32). While in general
-74-
these relationships did not drastically change over the tested ranges (Figures 34 and 40), they
are worth evaluating in order to better understand the bulk strand dynamics and the impact
the atomizer boom placement has on it. The model for predicting the skewness is shown in
Equation 14. This model yields an F-value of 18.3728 (p-value < 0.0001), which is
significant at a 95% confidence level ( = 0.05).
Table 32. List of effects for the skewness when an atomizer boom is present, showing (left)
the significant effects and (right) the significant effects as well as those that were included to
maintain the model hierarchy.
Factor p-value
Fill level 0.0126
Rotational speed 0.0023
Number of flights x Rotational speed 0.0127
Flight height x Fill level 0.0463
Flight height x Rotational speed 0.0046
Fill level
2
0.0070
Rotational speed
2
0.0443
Number of flights
2
x
Rotational speed
0.0419
Factor p-value
Number of flights 0.1720
Flight height 0.1517
Fill level 0.0126
Rotational speed 0.0023
Number of flights
2
0.6020
Number of flights x Rotational speed 0.0127
Flight height x Fill level 0.0463
Flight height x Rotational speed 0.0046
Fill level
2
0.0070
Rotational speed
2
0.0443
Number of flights
2
x
Rotational speed
0.0419
4 2 1
2
4
2
3 4 2 3 2 4 1
2
1 4 3 2 1
0024 . 0
0149 . 0 4595 . 76 0764 . 0 6584 . 1 0664 . 0
0536 . 0 2556 . 1 0559 . 22 1450 . 1 4394 . 1 1295 . 19
X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X Sk
+ + + +
+ =
[14]
where:
Sk is the predicted skewness,
X
1
is the number of flights,
X
2
is the flight height in inches,
X
3
is the blender fill level as a fraction of the total blender volume, and
X
4
is the blender rotational speed in rpms.
-75-
Figure 40. Prediction profiles generated in SAS showing the relationship between the
skewness and the (top-left) number of flights, (top-right) flight height, (bottom-left) fill level,
and (bottom-right) blender rotational speed when an atomizer boom is included in the
simulation. The vertical lines and x-axes labels indicate the factor levels used for the
creation of these specific graphs.
The main effect and skewness relationships that changed involve the flight height and
blender fill level. In both cases it was in the upper portion of the tested ranges where a
deviation in the results was observed. When the atomizer boom was not included in the
simulations the skewness was not significantly affected by flights greater than 4 inches.
With the atomizer boom in place however skewness increased with flight height across the
entire tested range. Recall that an increasing skewness is an indicator of more strands being
concentrated on the downward rotating half of the drum. A possible explanation for this
discrepancy is that the strands that detached prematurely from the longer flights tended to
contact the top of the atomizer boom. These strands then traveled over the boom and
descended on the downward rotating half of the drum, instead of the upward rotating half or
near the drum center. This had a positive impact on the skewness. Conversely, when the
flights were relatively short and the strands were not carried as far up the blender wall before
detaching, many of the strands collided with the side of the atomizer boom during their
decent. These strands were unable to travel as far across the blender drum, resulting in a
lower, or more negative, strand distribution (Figure 41).
fr
-76-
2-inch flights
6-inch flights
Figure 41. Simulation images showing the dispersion of strands across the blender diameter
when there is (top-left) no atomizer boom and there are 2 inch flights, (top-right) no atomizer
boom and there are 6 inch flights, (bottom-left) an atomizer and there are 2 inch flights, and
(bottom-right) an atomizer boom and there are 6 inch flights. In all cases there were 16
flights and the blender rotated at 23.39 RPM.
The skewness decreased consistently with an increasing fill level when the atomizer boom
was not present. This was a result of the fixed blender capacity and the inability of the
blender to lift, carry, and disperse the increasing amount of strands across the blender
diameter. With the atomizer boom in place this same trend was not observed across the
tested range. In fact at a 20% fill level the relationship between the predicted skewness and
fill level became positive. This change in behavior is a result of strands becoming wedged
between the atomizer boom and the blender wall. When the fill level reaches a particular
point, in this case around 20%, there is a chance that collections of strands will become
wedged in this region (Figure 42). The collection of strands is then carried over the atomizer
boom and deposited on the opposite side of the drum, positively affecting the skewness.
Because these strands are forced together between the boom and blender wall, there is also a
greater chance that they will become interlocked and move as a clump through the drum,
No
atomizer
boom
Atomizer
boom
-77-
causing the phenomenon to repeat itself. This strand behavior may be a contributing factor to
surging in blenders.
Figure 42. Simulation image showing strands as they become wedged between the atomizer
boom and blender wall when operating at elevated fill levels, indicated by the dashed oval.
In this case the blender is full and is equipped with 8, 4 inch flights and is rotating at 28.07
RPM.
Surging occurs when a large number of strands become mechanically interlocked and a
portion of these strands are lifted by the flights. Those strands that are not supported by the
flights, but instead are being lifted because they are mechanical interlocked with those
strands that are supported, eventually break free and descend as a clump of strands. This
clump of strands overwhelms the flights that they fall upon and the process continues. Once
this process begins it will typically perpetuate until there is a disruption, for example when
the affected strands are discharged from the blender. Unfortunately, the resin distribution
amongst those strands will be generally poor.
5.3.1.3 Kurtosis
In addition to skewness, kurtosis was also used to describe the distribution of strands across
the drum diameter. While skewness is an indicator of how symmetric the strand distribution
is between the upward rotating and downward rotating half of the blender, kurtosis is an
indicator of the uniformity of the strand distribution across the blender diameter. If the
strands were normally distributed the kurtosis would be 0. For these simulations however, a
uniform distribution is sought and is obtained for a kurtosis value of 1.2.
Wedge region
-78-
Using an ANOVA to determine the significant effects it was found that none of the main
effects were significant; however, three of the interactions were (Table 33). The most
notable interaction was between the number of flights and the flight height. This
combination is present in all three of the significant interactions shown in Table 33. The
model for predicting the kurtosis is shown in Equation 15 and yields an F-value of 17.8156
(p-value < 0.0001), which is significant at a 95% confidence level ( = 0.05).
Table 33. List of effects for the kurtosis showing (left) the significant effects and (right) the
significant effects as well as those that were included to maintain the model hierarchy.
Factor p-value
Number of flights x Flight height 0.0056
Number of flights
2
x Flight height 0.0243
Number of flights x Flight height
2
0.0442
Factor p-value
Number of flights 0.7843
Flight height 0.5681
Number of flights
2
0.1128
Number of flights x Flight height 0.0056
Flight height
2
0.1041
Number of flights
2
x Flight height 0.0243
Number of flights x Flight height
2
0.0442
2
2 1 2
2
1
2
2
2 1
2
1 2 1
0770 . 0 04115 . 0 1599 . 1
6924 . 1 1999 . 0 8225 . 15 3111 . 6 8071 . 47
X X X X X
X X X X X K
+ + + =
[15]
where:
K is the predicted kurtosis,
X
1
is the number of flights, and
X
2
is the flight height in inches.
In order to facilitate the interpretation of these results the graphs shown in Figures 43 and 44
were generated in SAS. These graphs present four combinations of the number of flights and
the flight height. Figure 43 shows kurtosis with the flight height fixed at 4 inches and the
number of flights at 4 and 16, while Figure 44 shows kurtosis with the number of flights
fixed at 14 and the flight height at 2 and 6 inches. As shown in the graphs, the combination
of effects had a considerable impact on the kurtosis trends. Note that the y-axis scale is not
the same for the top and bottom sets of graphs in both figures; however, the graphs showing
the relationship between the kurtosis and number of flights (left) in Figure 43 are in fact the
same except for the 95% confidence interval, which is unique to the chosen factor level. This
is also true for the graphs showing the relationship between the kurtosis and the flight height
(right) in Figure 44.
-79-
Figure 43. Prediction profiles generated in SAS showing the impact of the (left) number of
flights on the relationship between (right) the kurtosis and the flight height. The vertical
lines and x-axes labels indicate the factor levels used for the creation of these specific graphs.
Figure 44. Prediction profiles generated in SAS showing the impact of the (right) flight
height on the relationship between (left) the kurtosis and the number of flights. The vertical
lines and x-axes labels indicate the factor levels used for the creation of these specific graphs.
-80-
As the number of flights increased from 4 to 16 the significance of flight height quickly
diminished. With only 4 flights, the kurtosis decreased quickly with increasing flight height.
With 16 flights however, kurtosis increased slowly with increasing flight height, but overall
the trend was insignificant. Building upon the skewness discussion and interpretation, these
results were likely caused by the combination of the blender fill level and the capacity of the
blender to lift and disperse strands. With only a few relatively short flights, the blender
capacity was low. As a result, the majority of the strands remained in the lower-right
quadrant of the drum and the quantity of strands that were lifted out of this quadrant and
dispersed was insignificant. With only 4 flights, increasing the length of the flight had a
large impact on the capacity and the resulting kurtosis. As one might expect, increasing the
number of flights diminished the impact of increasing flight height due to the strands being
spread across more flights.
Focusing now on the scenario where the number of flights was fixed at 14, as the flight
height increased from 2 to 6 inches the impact of the number of flights on the kurtosis
changed considerably. With 2 inch flights, increasing the number of flights caused the
kurtosis to decrease. This was true up until 13 flights, after which the kurtosis stabilized at
around 1.4. With 6 inch flights the kurtosis increased when there were 4 to 10 flights and
then decreased when there were 13 to 16 flights; however, the difference was only minimally
significant across this latter range. This was consistent with the previous scenario and the
skewness findings. With 2 inch flights, increasing the amount of flights had a significant
impact on the capacity of the blender to lift and disperse strands. With 6 inch flights the
relationship between kurtosis and the number of flights became considerably less significant
as the demand for additional capacity decreased.
5.3.1.4 Effect of an atomizer boom on the kurtosis results
The presence of an atomizer boom in the simulations did not impact those effects that were
found to be significant according to the ANOVA selection method. It did however impact the
significance of the number of flights flight height interaction on the kurtosis (Table 34,
Figures 45 and 46). With 16 flights the relationship between the flight height and kurtosis
went from marginally positive to significantly negative (Figure 45). One explanation for this
occurrence is that the atomizer boom helps disperse strands more evenly on either side of the
drum. This is because as the strands fall on top of the boom they slide off on both sides.
-81-
However, in order for this to occur, the detachment point of the strands must be higher than
the boom so that they may fall on top of it. This is why the kurtosis became highly positive
with shorter flights. As discussed previously, with shorter flights the strands collide with the
side of the boom and then fall in a near perfect vertical direction to the bottom of the drum.
This caused a spike in the frequency of strands falling within a narrow region on the upward
rotating side of the atomizer boom.
The relationship between the number of flights and kurtosis remained relatively unchanged
with the inclusion of the atomizer boom when the flight height was set at 2 and 6 inches. The
model for predicting the kurtosis is shown in Equation 16 and yields an F-value of 11.0681
(p-value < 0.0001), which is significant at a 95% confidence level ( = 0.05).
Table 34. List of effects for the kurtosis when an atomizer boom is present, showing (left)
the significant effects and (right) the significant effects as well as those that were included to
maintain the model hierarchy.
Factor p-value
Number of flights x Flight height 0.0106
Flight height
2
0.0279
Number of flights
2
x Flight height 0.0070
Number of flights x Flight height
2
0.0438
Factor p-value
Number of flights 0.6595
Flight height 0.6766
Number of flights
2
0.0880
Number of flights x Flight height 0.0106
Flight height
2
0.0279
Number of flights
2
x Flight height 0.0070
Number of flights x Flight height
2
0.0438
2
2 1 2
2
1
2
2 2 1
2
1 2 1
0503 . 0 0413 . 0
9161 . 0 3854 . 1 1921 . 0 3962 . 13 3881 . 5 3048 . 42
X X X X
X X X X X X K
+ + + =
[16]
where:
K is the predicted kurtosis,
X
1
is the number of flights, and
X
2
is the flight height in inches.
-82-
Figure 45. Prediction profiles generated in SAS showing the impact of the (left) number of
flights on the relationship between (right) the kurtosis and the flight height when an atomizer
boom is present.
Figure 46. Prediction profiles generated in SAS showing the impact of the (right) flight
height on the relationship between (left) the kurtosis and the number of flights when an
atomizer boom is present.
-83-
5.3.1.5 Average time a strand spent in the resination region
The average time a strand spent in the resination region for a fixed number of revolutions
was shown to be strongly related to the flight height and the blender rotational speed (Figure
47). The average time decreased with both increasing flight height and rotational speed. The
model for predicting the average time a strand spends in the resination region is shown in
Equation 17 and yields an F-value of 33.8102 (p-value < 0.0001), which is significant at a
95% confidence level ( = 0.05).
4 2
0794 . 0 1124 . 0 5407 . 3 X X t = [17]
where:
t is the predicted average time in seconds,
X
2
is the flight height in inches, and
X
4
is the blender rotational speed in rpms.
Figure 47. Prediction profiles generated in SAS showing the relationship between the
average time spent in the resination region and the (left) flight height and (right) blender
rotational speed. The vertical lines and x-axes labels indicate the factor levels used for the
creation of these specific graphs.
As demonstrated in Figure 48, the negative relationship between the flight height and the
average time spent in the resination region as well as the rotational speed and the average
time was caused by similar phenomena. With relatively small flights and/or low rotational
speeds the strands tended to cluster and roll amongst themselves in the lower-right drum
quadrant. These strands fell slowly through the resination region as they moved within the
cluster. In addition, because they were clustered within a small area the strands did not have
to travel far before making a complete revolution. The strands therefore passed more
frequently through the resination area. As the flight height and/or rotational speed increased
the rolling motion decreased as a greater fraction of the strands were lifted by the flights and
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
t
i
m
e
i
n
r
e
s
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
i
o
n
(
s
e
c
)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
t
i
m
e
i
n
r
e
s
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
i
o
n
(
s
e
c
)
-84-
dispersed across the blender. These strands passed relatively quickly through the resination
region on their descent and made fewer revolutions.
Low speed
High speed
Figure 48. Simulation images showing (top-left) the clustering of strands at relatively low
speeds with 2-inch flights, (top-right) the dispersion of strands at relatively high speeds with
2-inch flights, (bottom-left) the clustering of strands at relatively low speeds with 6-inch
flights, (bottom-right) the dispersion of strands at relatively high speeds with 6-inch flights.
Note that strands cluster more with shorter flights and/or slower blender rotational speeds.
The blender rotational speeds were 18.71 RPM and 28.07 RPM respectively.
Although the overall objective of an operation is to devise a set of operating and design
parameters that results in the strands spending the maximum time possible in the resination
region, there are other criteria that must first be met. For instance, the strands should be well
dispersed across the blender diameter. Scenarios where there is clustering and rolling of
strands (Figure 48) is not desirable because only the strands on the surface of the cluster
would become resinated. As reported by Smith (2006), PF-resin does not spread well after
its initial contact with the wood substrate. Therefore, blending operations cannot rely on the
smearing and transfer of resin between strands for resination purposes, as is the case with
particleboard blending (Maloney 1993). PMDI-resin is able to transfer; however, this
2-inch
flights
6-inch
flights
-85-
scenario is still not desirable as it is not an efficient use of resin and the blender (Smith
2006).
5.3.1.6 Effect of an atomizer boom on the average time a strand spent in the resination
region
The inclusion of an atomizer boom in the simulations had an effect on the selection of
significant factors, ultimately reducing the number of factors that impacted the predicted
average total time a strand spends in the resination region from two to one. The model for
predicting the average time a strand spends in the resination region is shown in Equation 18
and yields an F-value of 33.4386 (p-value < 0.0001), which is significant at a 95%
confidence level ( = 0.05).
4
0772 . 0 0912 . 3 X t = [18]
where:
t is the predicted average time in seconds, and
X
4
is the blender rotational speed in rpms.
With the atomizer boom present only the blender rotational speed was significant. It is not
surprising that the flight height was no longer significant. As was shown before, the
principal difference between the flow pattern of the strands when the blender is equipped
with long flights versus short flights is which side of the atomizer boom the majority of
strands fall on. With longer flights the strands are more likely to fall on top of the atomizer
boom and slide off on either or both sides of the blender. With shorter flights the strands
tend to collide with the side of the boom and fall almost entirely on the upward rotating side
of the blender. In either case the strands fall near vertically to the bottom of the drum after
collision with the boom. This near vertical drop of the strands through the resination region
for both scenarios resulted in a relatively short period of time spent in that region. This is
compared to the case where there is no atomizer boom and the associated longer parabolic
trajectory of a strand that detaches from the drum and does not collide with a boom.
5.3.1.7 Discussion
The results showing the general relationship between the factors and response variables
confirmed many of the previous speculations regarding the operation of rotary drum
blenders. In particular, the results show that the skewness increased with an increasing
-86-
number of flights, flight height, and blender rotational speed within the tested ranges. The
impact of flight height on the skewness diminished as the flight height increased, likely due
to early detachment that is a result of the strands being closer to the axis of rotation of the
drum. Increasing the blender fill level had the opposite effect on the skewness, causing it to
decrease. These interactions are largely related to the overall capacity of the blender to lift,
carry, and finally disperse a fraction of the total strands across the blender diameter. The
capacity is broadly determined by two factors, the size of the individual flight and the
number of flights that the strands are spread across.
In addition to confirming some previous thoughts regarding blending dynamics, the results
also presented several interesting findings. Most notable was the significance of the
interaction between the flight height and the number of flights on the kurtosis. This suggests
that during the manufacturing of blenders it is vital that care and attention be focused on the
selection and placement of flights. Once the blender is in operation it is very difficult to
change either of these parameters. Further, it was shown that the average time a strand spent
in the resination region was negatively related to the flight height and the rotational speed.
Upon visual inspection of the results it was determined that, although strands spent more
time in the resination region with smaller flights and/or at lower speeds, the additional time
spent in the region was not beneficial because a considerably smaller percentage of the
strands were actually exposed to the atomized resin.
The impact of the atomizer boom on the strand dynamics was largely dependent on whether
or not the strands were carried high enough by the flights to cascade over top of the atomizer
boom. In either case the strands tended to stream off of the respective side(s) of the boom.
In several extreme cases where the blender was filled full the strands became wedged
between the atomizer boom and the drum wall, resulting in a surging effect.
5.3.2 Research applications
These results were further analyzed based on two perspectives: the wood strand-based
product manufacturers (end-users), and the blender manufacturers. This work focused on the
opportunities both groups have for optimizing their blenders given the available resources,
such as the ability for an operation to make changes within a short timeframe. The goal is to
-87-
gain unique insight into the impact each of the aforementioned segments may have on the
bulk strand dynamics by making changes to the blender design and/or operating parameters.
5.3.2.1 Wood strand-based product manufacturers
For existing operations it may not be possible or practical to change the number of flights or
flight height. While the flight height can be changed by purchasing new flights and installing
them during an extended downtime, the number of flights is determined by the drilled hole
pattern in the blender drum and would require considerable time to change. Generally
however, neither alteration is desirable. In addition, the blender fill level is largely
determined by the demand from the proceeding process and the feed rate from the dry strand
bins. While there is a target fill level, this level can fluctuate during disturbances in the
manufacturing process. This leaves the blender rotational speed as the only factor that can be
changed accordingly while the process is running.
Figure 49 shows the contour graph for the skewness based on the fill level and simulated
blender rotational speed for four common flight heights: 3, 4, 5, and 6 inch with no boom
present. The number of flights was fixed at 14, or approximately every 16 inches along the
circumference, which is typical for an industrial blender (Coil 2007b; Coil 2008). In
addition to the skewness, the predicted average time a strand spends in the resination was
also included in the graphs. The aim is to select operating parameters that result in a
skewness of 0 while maximizing the average time spent in the resination region. All of the
contour graphs are for a 6 foot simulated blender. Although this diameter is smaller than that
of typical industrial blenders, as outlined in Section 5.2 it is anticipated that the results of this
study can be scaled for use on an industrial blender.
-88-
Figure 49. Contour graphs for the skewness based on the fill level and blender rotational
speed using 3, 4, 5, and 6-inch flights. The number of flights has been fixed at 14.
The graphs suggest that as the fill level decreases the rotational speed must also decrease to
maintain a skewness of 0. This relationship becomes more apparent as the flight height
increases. For example, with 3 inch flights, a drop in the fill level from 25% to 7% only
requires a slight reduction in speed from 25.5 RPM to 24 RPM. However, with 6 inch
flights, a drop in the fill level from merely 25% to 19% requires a reduction in speed from 25
(sec) (sec)
(sec) (sec)
-89-
RPM to 18.9 RPM. Throughout the wood strand-based product industry, the growing trend
has been to use higher flights in conjunction with larger diameter blenders to increase
capacity. Consequently, if it is assumed that this relationship between the blender fill level
and rotational speed remains true as the drum diameter increases, operations run the risk of
operating their blenders sub-optimally with only slight fluctuations in the blender feed rate.
Therefore, it is imperative that operations link the blender rotational speed with the blender
feed rate. This way the process could adapt accordingly to changes in the strand flow and the
resulting blender fill level. Alternatively, shorter flights could be employed if blender
capacity is not a concern. This would reduce the impact strand flow fluctuations have on the
blending environment.
5.3.2.2 Effect of the atomizer boom for wood strand-based product manufacturers
The contour graphs indicate a sizeable shift in the required rotational speed given a specific
fill level when an atomizer boom is present (Figure 50). In addition to this, the relationship
between the blender fill level and the blender rotational speed was no longer strictly positive,
instead all four of the flight heights included exhibit a negative relationship above a
particular fill level.
-90-
Figure 50. Contour graphs for the skewness based on the fill level and blender rotational
speed using 3, 4, 5, and 6-inch flights when an atomizer boom is present. The number of
flights has been fixed at 14.
Until the point of inflection where the required rotational speed begins to decrease for an
increasing fill level, the required rotational speed to achieve and maintain a skewness of 0 is
considerably higher when the atomizer boom is present. As an example, with 14-4 inch
flights, and operating at 18% full, the required rotational speed when an atomizer boom is
present is 27 RPM, versus less that 22 RPM when the atomizer boom is not present. The
(sec)
(sec) (sec)
(sec)
-91-
reason for this necessary increase in rotational speed is because the boom impedes on the
trajectory of strands. When the atomizer boom is not present the strands can travel
unobstructed through the center of the blender after detaching from the flights. When the
atomizer boom is included however, many of those strands collide with the side of the boom.
As a result, the blender must rotate faster to increase the centrifugal force acting on the
strands so that they detach at a later point and fall on top of the atomizer boom, or at least so
that the strands are dispersed more evenly on either side of the boom.
Interestingly, above a certain fill level the required rotational speed begins to decrease. This
was not observed when the atomizer boom was not present. This change in behavior is due
to the phenomenon first discussed when investigating the impact of the atomizer boom on the
skewness, where it was found that strands became wedged between the atomizer boom and
blender wall at elevated fill levels. As the cluster of strands travels over top of the atomizer
boom they eventually descend on the downward rotating side of the blender, increasing the
skewness. The easiest way to avoid this from occurring is to reduce the blender rotational
speed. Unfortunately, this results in considerably fewer strands being lifted and dispersed by
the flights, instead the strands cluster in the lower-right drum quadrant (Figure 38). As
shown in the contour graphs presented in Figure 50, an alternative solution is to use higher
flights. Higher flights reduce the dependency of the fill level on the required rotational
speed.
5.3.2.3 Blender manufacturers
Unlike the end users of rotary drum blenders, blender manufacturers have nearly complete
flexibility on the blender design. Given a specific set of operating parameters, they can
prescribe a specific flight design and drill the holes for a particular number flights that would
result in the optimal strand distribution. As a result, blender manufacturers should be most
interested in knowing the relationship between flight height and the required number of
flights and its impact on the strand distribution. This interaction was shown previously to
have a significant impact on the strand distribution.
Blenders are designed and sourced based on the required maximum throughput (Coil 2008).
The combination of the required throughput and the design and operating parameters will
ultimately determine the blender fill level. Once the blender design and operating parameters
-92-
have been established for this maximum fill level, it was shown that the strand distribution
can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed accordingly as the fill level fluctuates
below this maximum point. During the initial sourcing stage however, it is necessary to first
establish the maximum fill level and rotational speed so that the flight height and placement
can be determined accordingly.
The graphs shown in Figure 51 were generated assuming the maximum fill level was 25%.
They illustrate the impact various rotational speeds and combinations of flight height and
number of flights have on the predicted skewness and kurtosis of the strand distribution and
the predicted average time a strand spends in the resination region. While blender
manufacturers should strive to achieve a kurtosis of -1.2 and to maximize the average time a
strand spends in the resination region, balancing the distribution of strands on either side of
the blender is perhaps the most important characteristic to accomplish as an initial step. A
balanced distribution is identified by a skewness of 0.
Figure 51 suggests that the required number of flights and flight height are largely dependent
upon each other as well as the rotational speed. Generally, as the number of flights increases
the flight height that maintains a skewness of 0 decreases. Further, the required number of
flights and/or flight height also decreases with increasing rotational speeds. From previous
work it has been shown that flights between 4 and 5 inches in height appear to strike the
optimal balance between capacity and control over strand placement. Based on this target
flight height, the required number of flights ranges from approximately 15 at 23 RPM to 4 at
28 RPM. When the kurtosis is included in this analysis however, it is shown that there must
be at least 11 flights present to achieve a kurtosis of -1.2. This creates an upper bound for the
rotational speed of between 25 and 26 RPM. Note that the average total time that a strand
spends in the resination region has not been included in these graphs to improve legibility. In
all cases, the average total time increases from right to left on the graphs.
-93-
Figure 51. Contour graphs based on number of flights and flight height. The rotational
speed ranged from 23 to 28 RPM and the fill level was fixed at 25%.
fr fr
fr fr
fr fr
-94-
5.3.2.4 Effect of the atomizer boom for blender manufacturers
The atomizer boom had a significant effect on the resulting contour graphs. Given the
specified boom location it is virtually impossible to achieve a kurtosis of -1.2, or at least a
relatively even strand distribution, without using either 4 or 16, 6 inch flights. This is
consistent with the findings of the Overall Predictive Trends. However, with 4 flights the
strands are not well positioned to come into contact with the resin discharging from the
atomizers (Figure 38).
The general relationship between the number of flights and the flight height that maintained a
skewness of 0 remained similar with and without the atomizer boom. However, the required
flight height that corresponds to a particular number of flights increased across all of the
tested rotational speeds when the fill level was fixed at 25%. For example, at 26 RPM and
with 11 flights, the required flight height increased from approximately 3.8 inches to 4.6
inches when the boom was included. This increase was necessary because the strands
needed to be lifted higher, or to a larger angle, before detaching from the flights. This caused
more of the strands to fall on top of the atomizer boom and disperse into the downward
rotating half of the blender.
-95-
Figure 52. Contour graphs for the inclusion of an atomizer boom based on number of flights
and flight height. The rotational speed ranged from 23 to 28 RPM and the fill level was fixed
at 25%.
fr fr
fr fr
fr fr
-96-
In addition to an increased required flight height, the results also show opportunity for
optimizing the configuration of the atomizer mounts. The alignment of the mounts
ultimately determines the alignment of the atomizers, whether they be vertical or at an angle.
Most existing operations have their atomizer mounts oriented vertically. While the option is
now available for a staggered mount design (Appendix C), it is still relatively uncommon for
atomizer mounts to be positioned at an angle. The simulation images show however that the
angle in which the strands stream off of the atomizer boom, or in front of the atomizer itself,
is largely dependent on the rotational speed (Figure 53). In fact, this angle ranged from 14
at 18.71 RPM to 7 at 28.07 RPM. This suggests that the angle of the atomizer mount should
be adaptable to changes in the rotational speed of the blender. If the strands collide with the
atomizer, or come within close proximity, individual strands will collect a disproportionate
amount of resin, starving other strands of resin.
Figure 53. Simulation images showing the streaming of strands off of the atomizer boom at
(a) 18.71 RPM, (b) 23.39 RPM, and (c) 28.07 RPM. The simulated blenders were each
equipped with 8-4 inch flights and filled 1/4 full. The angles that the strands stream off of
the boom are approximately 14, 12, and 7 from vertical respectively.
14
12 7
(a)
(b) (c)
18.71 RPM
23.39 RPM 28.07 RPM
-97-
5.3.2.5 Discussion
The analyses focused on the end users of rotary drum blenders and the blender manufacturers
presented several considerable implications and opportunities. First, these findings reveal
whether or not an operation is even capable of achieving the desirable strand distribution. For
instance, with 14-4 inch flights and operating with fill levels much less than 14%, it is
unlikely that a skewness of 0 can ever be achieved, and the minimum fill level whereby this
target can still be reached only increases with increasing flight heights. Fortunately, most
operations tend to run their blenders between 25% and 50% full anyways, so this may only
be an issue during severe disruptions in the process.
Second, these findings suggest that operations should link the blender rotational speed with
the factors that impact the blender fill level, such as the feed rate and blender tilt angle. As
the fill level increases the rotational speed should also increase to maintain the optimal
blending dynamics. Because of the extent of automation that is present in most operations,
linking these processes would not be an insurmountable challenge. The challenge is knowing
the relationship between the factors; however, based on the results with 5 and 6 inch flights,
this challenge is certainly worth overcoming because of the significant impact changes to the
fill level have on the skewness when the rotational speed remains unchanged.
Third, this modeling approach could be used for determining when blender maintenance is
required. During normal operation the inside of a blender drum becomes coated with strands,
effectively reducing the inside drum diameter and changing the flight profile. By modeling
the strand dynamics with different drum diameters and flight shapes, it would be possible to
develop a threshold for an acceptable amount of strand build up before it will begin
significantly affecting the strand dynamics.
Fourth, as was seen in the Overall Predictive Trends, the interaction between the flight height
and the number of flights had a significant impact on the strand dynamics. This is where
considerable implications lie for the blender manufacturers. The optimal combination of
flight height and number of flights is dependant on the maximum fill level and rotational
speed. The results show that if the blender is sourced and designed using these expected
maximum values, then the rotational speed alone can be used for counteracting any
downward fluctuations in the fill level during operation.
-98-
Finally, the inclusion of an atomizer boom proved to have a significant impact on the strand
dynamics. Diligence must be practiced when selecting the position for the atomizer boom(s)
and selecting a maximum fill level. As was demonstrated, when the fill level exceeds a
particular point there is an increased risk that the strands will begin traveling as clusters over
top of the atomizer boom, resulting in surging. Also, the angle that the strands stream off of
the boom, or immediately in front of the atomizers, should be taken into consideration when
the orientation of the atomizer mounts is decided. The results suggest that this angle should
be adjustable to cope with changes to the blending conditions.
5.4 Conclusions
Response surface methodology proved to be an effective method for reviewing the impact
multiple blender design and operating parameters have on the wood strand dynamics, as
described by the skewness and kurtosis of the strand distribution and the average time a
strand spent in the resination region. This technique was used for evaluating the results on
three levels: an overview of the general relationship between the factors and response
variables, the implications this research has for end users of rotary drum blenders, and finally
the implications this research has for blender manufacturers. The findings of this research
are summarized below:
General
All four blender design and operating parameters significantly affected the skewness,
o With increasing the number of flights or blender rotational speed the skewness
increased,
o With increasing the fill level the skewness decreased, and
o With increasing the flight height between 2 and 3 inches the skewness
increased, otherwise the skewness stabilized for flights 4 inches or more in
height.
Only the interaction between flight height and the number of flights had a significant
effect on the kurtosis,
Increasing the flight height and blender rotational speed both caused the average time
a strand spent in the resination region to decrease, and
-99-
The inclusion of an atomizer boom had a significant effect on the bulk strand
dynamics, particularly at elevated fill levels.
Specific
The blender rotational speed and tilt angle should be linked to the blender feed rate to
autocorrect for disruptions in the process,
Considerable attention should be made during the initial sourcing and design of a
blender to find the optimal combination of flight height and number of flights for a
specific maximum rotational speed and fill level, and
An adjustable atomizer mount angle would create a significant benefit when/if
changes in the blending conditions occur. This angle should be linked to the blender
rotational speed.
-100-
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK.
This research project was divided into three distinct phases. The first phase laid the
groundwork before work could begin using the RDBM. Perhaps the most critical input
parameter for a model that simulates the rotary drum blending process is the static friction
coefficients. Because of the challenges associated with systems of material surfaces where at
least one wood surface is present (as discussed in Section 2.3), specific static coefficient of
friction values are not readily available in the published literature. As a result, a series of
laboratory experiments were conducted. The objectives were to first determine the impact of
contact pressure and grain alignment on the coefficient. And second, to determine the
relationship between the static coefficients of friction for systems involving two wood strand
surfaces versus systems involving a single wood strand surface and a HDPE surface. The
findings of this work suggested that the contact pressure has a significant effect on the
coefficient of static friction. It also found that the two systems were related by a ratio of
approximately 2:1 respectively. Although the absolute coefficient of friction values were
ultimately adjusted for the final RDBM, this 2:1 ratio remained in effect.
During the second phase of the project it was determined which of the six material and
interaction input parameters were significant to the bulk strand dynamics in the RDBM.
Together with software literature (DEM Solutions 2008), it was shown that the optimal
combination of input parameters will not only result in representative strand flow dynamics,
but will also minimize the overall required processing time for a simulation. A series of
simulations were conducted in a systematic manner to find the combination of those
significant parameters where the simulated results closely resembled those obtained using a 6
foot laboratory blender. It was also during this phase that three quantification techniques
were decided upon for measuring the strand flow. Skewness and kurtosis were used for
quantifying the strand distribution across the drum diameter, and the average time a strand
spent in the resination region was used for quantifying the opportunity a strand had to
become resinated.
-101-
After the RDBM had been calibrated for this particular model setup (including the strand size
and shape and blender diameter) and the effectiveness of the quantification techniques had
been tested, an exploratory study was designed to investigate the significance of several
blender design and operating parameters on the bulk strand flow. These parameters included:
the flight height, number of flights, blender rotational speed, and blender fill level on the bulk
strand flow. In general the impact of these properties on the bulk strand flow, as described
by the skewness and kurtosis of the strand distribution across the drum diameter, could be
explained by focusing on their influence on the blending system capacity, or the ability of the
blending system to lift, carry, and disperse strands across the blender. As the capacity
increased the strands detached from the drum circumference later and traveled further across
the diameter on their decent. As the capacity decreased, or the strand volume increased, the
strand loading per flight increased resulting in a relatively early detachment point for a large
quantity of strands. Increasing the flight height, number of flights, and/or rotational speed all
resulted in an increased blender capacity.
6.1 Future Work
The exploratory component of this research was relatively limited, only focusing on two
blender design and two operational parameters. A more thorough investigation of a broader
range of parameters would be a significant contribution to both industry and academia. The
range of possible factors to consider has increased substantially since the beginning of this
project. This is because of advancements in both the software and computing capabilities.
The most obvious and probably worthwhile factors to consider are the flight shape and
blender diameter. This research only focused on flights that were 90
o
to the drum wall. In
reality, flights are typically purchased bull-nosed or become bull-nosed while in service due
to the buildup of strands along the surfaces. The effect of flight shape is likely significant to
the strand flow. The angle of the leading face of the flight would effectively cause the
strands to detach earlier.
Examining the effect of the drum diameter would also be worthwhile. This research only
focused on a 6 foot diameter blender. This was partially due to software and computing
limitations, but mostly because it coincided with the size of the laboratory blender.
Simulating a 6 foot blender therefore allowed for validation experiments to be carried out as
-102-
required. Industrial blenders range in size from 8 to 11 feet however. As a result, focusing
on larger diameter blenders would certainly be worthwhile from an industrial perspective.
Fortunately, software and computing capabilities will now permit simulating larger diameter
blenders in a timely manner.
Because of these software and computing advancements it is also now possible to extend the
length of the simulated blender. This research relied on a 1 foot section of blender.
Extending the length to even 6 feet would enable one to examine the effect of blender tilt
angle on the residence time. Residence time, or the time that a strand spends in the blender,
ultimately affects the opportunity strands have to become resinated. If the residence time
must be increased the blender tilt may be either decreased or the drum lengthened.
In addition to scaling the model towards a full sized, industrial blender, it would also be
worthwhile to examine the impact the atomizer boom location has on the strand flow. For
the study presented in Chapter 5 the atomizer boom was placed in a position typical of
todays industrial blenders. This location may not be the optimal solution however.
Ultimately, future research should focus first on determining the validity of scaling the 6 foot
by 1 foot RDBM to an industrial blender. Additional research can then be pursued to
investigate the effect of flight shape and atomizer boom location on the strand flow.
-103-
LITERATURE CITED
Adobe Systems Incorporated. 2007. Adobe premiere pro CS3 user guide for windows
and mac OS. California, USA.
American Standards for Testing and Materials. 2002a. Standard guide for measuring and
reporting friction coefficients. ASTM G 115-04. In . West Conschohocken, Pa: ASTM.
. 2002b. Standard test method for coefficient of static friction of uncoated writing and
printing paper by use of the inclined plane method. ASTM D 4918-97. In. West
Conschohocken, Pa: ASTM.
Anonymous. 2007. Convert MOD files to MPG or AVI - JVC Everio HDD camcorder. [cited
March 5 2008]. Available from http://i.nconspicuo.us/2007/01/26/convert-mod-files-to-
mpg-or-avi-jvc-everio-hdd-camcorder/
Beattie, N. W. 1984. The lignex spinning disc blender. Paper presented at Proceedings of the
Eighteenth Washington State University International Particleboard/Composite Materials
Series Symposium, Pullman, WA.
. 1981. Improved blending capabilities for waferboard. Paper presented at 1980
Canadian Waferboard Symposium Proceedings - Special Publication SP505E.
Bejo, Laszlo, Elemer M. Lang, and Tamas Fodor. 2000. Friction coefficients of wood-based
structural composites. Forest Products Journal 50, (3): 39-43.
Bertrand, F., L. -A Leclaire, and G. Levecque. 2005. DEM-based models for the mixing of
granular materials. Chemical Engineering Science 60, (8-9): 2517-31.
Bicanic, Nenad. 2004. Discrete element method. In Encyclopedia of computational
mechanics., eds. Erwin Stein, Rene de Borst and Thomas J. R. Hughs. Vol. 1. Chichester,
West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Chiu, S. T., and W. B. Scott. 1981. A liquid phenolic resin for waferboard manufacture.
Paper presented at 1980 Canadian Waferboard Symposium Proceedings - Special
Publication SP505E.
Cleary, Paul W. 2006. Axial transport in dry ball mills. Applied Mathematical Modelling 30,
(11): 1343.
. 1998. Predicting charge motion, power draw, segregation and wear in ball mills
using discrete element methods. Minerals Engineering 11, (11): 1061.
Cleary, Paul W., Rob Morrisson, and Steve Morrell. 2003. Comparison of DEM and
experiment for a scale model SAG mill. International Journal of Mineral Processing 68,
(1-4) (1): 129-65.
-104-
Coil, G. K., and J. B. Kasper. 1984. A liquid blending system developed by Mainland
Manufacturing. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Eighteenth Washington State
University International Particleboard/Composite Materials Series Symposium, Pullman,
WA.
Coil, Gerald K. 2002. Advantages of precision atomization. Paper presented at Washington
State University Thirty-Sixth International Wood Composite Materials Symposium
Proceedings, Pullman, WA.
Coil, Mike. 2008. Typical blender volume and drum speeds. Personal communication.
April 17.
. 2007a. Mechanical properties of UHMW and HDPE. Personal communication.
July 29.
. 2007b. Schematic of atomizer spray pattern. Personal communication.
September 20.
Collop, Andrew C., Glenn R. McDowell, and York Lee. 2004. Use of the distinct element
method to model the deformation behavior of an idealized asphalt mixture. International
Journal of Pavement Engineering 5, (1).
Cook, Mark. 2008. Case 00001154: Rolling friction.
Cundall, P. A. 1989. Numerical experiments on localization in frictional materials. Archive of
Applied Mechanics 59, (2): 148-59.
. 1971. A computer model for simulating progressive large scale movements in
blocky rock systems. Nancy, France.
Cundall, P. A., and O. D. L. strack. 1979. A discrete numerical model for granular
assemblies. Geotechnique 29, (1): 47-65.
Davis, E. W. 1919. Mechanics of the ball-mill. AIME Transactions 61: 250-96.
DEM Solutions. 2008. EDEM 1.3 user guide, revision 12B. [cited March 5 2008]. Available
from http://www.dem-
solutions.com/downloads/manuals/edem131/EDEM1.3.1_user_guide.pdf.
Dixon, Audrey. 2008. Focus on OSB north america. Wood Based Panels International.
February/March 2008.
Djordjevic, N., F. N. Shi, and R. Morrison. 2004. Determination of lifter design, speed and
filling effects in AG mills by 3D DEM. Minerals Engineering 17, (11-12): 1135.
Domenech, A., T. Domenech, and J. Cebrian. 1987. Introduction to the study of rolling
friction. American Journal of Physics 55, (3): 231-5.
-105-
Gunn, John M. 1972. New developments in waferboard. Paper presented at Proceeding of the
Sixth Washington State University Symposium on Particleboard, Pullman, WA.
Higgs, Richard. 2008. Focus on OSB rest of the world. Wood Based Panels International.
February/March 2008.
Hirsch, E. D., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. 2002. The new dictionary of cultural literacy.
3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Industry Canada. 2007. Wood-based panel products: Technology roadmap - oriented strand
board. [cited March 26 2007]. Available from http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/fi-
if.nsf/en/oc01511e.html.
International Wood Markets Group. 2006. 2006 edition wood markets: The solid wood
products outlook 2006 to 2010. Vancouver, Canada: International Wood Markets Group
Inc.
Kaneko, Yasunobu, Takeo Shiojima, and Masayuki Horio. 2000. Numerical analysis of
particle mixing characteristics in a single helical ribbon agitator using DEM simulation.
Powder Technology 108, (1) (3/1): 55-64.
Kleinbaum, David G. 1988. Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods.
Duxbury series in statistics and decision sciences. 2nd ed. Boston, Mass.: PWS-Kent Pub.
Co.
Lin, F. S. 1984. The globe blending system. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Eighteenth
Washington State University International Particleboard/Composite Materials Series
Symposium, Pullman, WA.
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation. Investor presentation spring 2008. [cited July 23 2008].
Available from http://library.corporate-
ir.net/library/73/730/73030/items/296211/InvestorPresentationSpring2008.pdf.
Maloney, Thomas M., and E. M. Huffaker. 1984. Blending fundamentals and an analysis of a
short-retention-time blender. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Eighteenth Washington
State University International Particleboard/Composite Materials Series Symposium,
Pullman, WA.
Maloney, Thomas M. 1993. Modern particleboard & dry-process fiberboard manufacturing.
Updated ed. San Francisco: Miller Freeman.
McIvor, R. E. 1983. Effects of speed and liner configuration on ball mill performance.
Mining Engineering 35, (6): 617-22.
Mishra, B. K., and R. K. Rajamani. 1992. Discrete element method for the simulation of ball
mills. Applied Mathematical Modelling 16, (11): 598.
-106-
Moakher, Maher, Troy Shinbrot, and Fernando J. Muzzio. 2000. Experimentally validated
computations of flow, mixing and segregation of non-cohesive grains in 3D tumbling
blenders. Powder Technology, 109, (1-3) (4/3): 58-71.
Moeltner, Helmut G. 1980. Structural boards for the 1980's. Paper presented at Proceeding of
the Fourteenth Washington State University International Symposium on Particleboard,
Pullman, WA.
Montgomery, Douglas C. 2005. Introduction to statistical quality control. 5th ed. United
States: John Wiley & Sons.
Mustoe, G. G. W. 2001. Material flow analyses of noncircular-shaped granular media using
discrete element methods. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 127, (10): 1017-26.
Myers, Raymond H., and Douglas C. Montgomery. 2002. Response surface methodology:
Process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley series in probability
and statistics. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley.
Nakamura, Hideya, Takayuki Tokuda, Tomohiro Iwasaki, and Satoru Watano. 2007.
Numerical analysis of particle mixing in a rotating fluidized bed. Chemical Engineering
Science 62, (11) (6): 3043-56.
Powell, M. S. 1991. The effect of the liner desgin on the motion of the outer grinding
elements in a rotary mill. International Journal of Mineral Processing 31, (3): 163.
Pyzdek, Thomas. 2003. The six sigma handbook, revised and expanded. United States: The
McGraw-Hill Companies.
Rajamani, R. K., B. K. Mishra, R. Venugopal, and A. Datta. 2000. Discrete element analysis
of tumbling mills. Powder Technology 109, (1-3) (4/3): 105-12.
SAS Institute Inc. SAS OnlineDoc 9.1.3. [cited March 23 2007]. Available from
http://support.sas.com/onlinedoc/913/docMainpage.jsp.
Schafer, Benjamin Carrion, Steven F. Quigley, and Andrew H. C. Chan. 2001. Evaluation of
an FPGA implementation of the discrete element method. Paper presented at 11th
International Conference, FPL, Belfast, Ireland.
Serway, Raymond A. 2000. Physics for scientists and engineers, with modern physics. 5th
ed. Fort Worth: Saunders College Publishing.
Smith, G. D. 2006. Wood 487 glued wood products, course handout.
. 2005. Direct observation of the tumbling of OSB strands in an industrial scale coil
blender. Wood and Fiber Science 37, (1): 147-59.
-107-
Smith, G. D., and Catalin Gutiu. 2002. Mechanics of OSB rotary drum blender I. no flight vs.
one flight at 'zero height'. Internal report.
Snedecor, George Waddel, and William Gemmell Cochran. 1980. Statistical methods. 7th ed.
Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
Spelter, Henry, David McKeever, and Matthew Alderman. 2006. Status and trends: Profile
of structural panels in the United States and Canada. USDA, FPL-RP-636.
Stewart, R. L., J. Bridgwater, Y. C. Zhou, and A. B. Yu. 2001. Simulated and measured flow
of granules in a bladed mixera detailed comparison. Chemical Engineering Science 56,
(19) (10): 5457-71.
Thibault, Scott. 2008. Telephone discussion related to EDEM renewal and similar
applications where EDEM has been successful. May 18.
USDA, Forest Products Laboratory. 1999. Wood handbook: Wood as an engineering
material.
Watkins, W. L. 1981. Some early headaches of the first waferboard plant in Canada. Paper
presented at 1980 Canadian Waferboard Symposium Proceedings - Special Publication
SP505E.
Winchester, Guy. 2005. Cost of goods sold: An analysis of marketplace mechanics affecting
resin costs and supply. APA/Engineered Wood Journal. [cited June 11 2008]. Available
from http://www.apawood.org/level_b.cfm?content=pub_ewj_arch_f05_resin.
World Forest Institute. Wood products trade: Europe. [cited March 25 2007]. Available from
http://wfi.worldforestrycenter.org/trade-3.htm.
Yang, R. Y., C. T. Jayasundara, A. B. Yu, and D. Curry. 2006. DEM simulation of the flow
of grinding media in IsaMill. Minerals Engineering 19, (10) (8): 984-94.
-108-
APPENDIX A
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION - SAS ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The GLM Procedure
Class Level Information
Class Levels Values
Orientation 3 1 2 3
Material_Combination 2 1 2
Number of Observations Read 210
Number of Observations Used 210
The GLM Procedure
Dependent Variable: y3
Sum of
Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value
Model 10 6.17918736 0.61791874 134.36
Error 199 0.91518322 0.00459891
Corrected Total 209 7.09437058
Source Pr > F
Model <.0001
Error
Corrected Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE y3 Mean
0.870999 -16.88059 0.067815 -0.401735
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value
Orientation 2 0.53410516 0.26705258 58.07
Material_Combination 1 4.31967482 4.31967482 939.28
x3 1 0.78723955 0.78723955 171.18
x 1 0.08728987 0.08728987 18.98
x3*Orientat*Material 5 0.45087795 0.09017559 19.61
Source Pr > F
Orientation <.0001
Material_Combination <.0001
x3 <.0001
x <.0001
x3*Orientat*Material <.0001
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value
Orientation 2 0.09711957 0.04855979 10.56
Material_Combination 1 0.52906674 0.52906674 115.04
x3 1 0.45125425 0.45125425 98.12
x 1 0.08342778 0.08342778 18.14
x3*Orientat*Material 5 0.45087795 0.09017559 19.61
Source Pr > F
Orientation <.0001
Material_Combination <.0001
x3 <.0001
x <.0001
x3*Orientat*Material <.0001
-109-
Standard
Parameter Estimate Error t Value
Intercept -.1499945172 B 0.04380096 -3.42
Orientation 1 -.1342523657 B 0.04501753 -2.98
Orientation 2 -.2029989310 B 0.04501753 -4.51
Orientation 3 0.0000000000 B . .
Material_Combination 1 0.3954160209 B 0.03686604 10.73
Material_Combination 2 0.0000000000 B . .
x3 -.1792096345 B 0.02150605 -8.33
x 0.0000883487 0.00002074 4.26
x3*Orientat*Material 1 1 0.0501600042 B 0.02505086 2.00
x3*Orientat*Material 1 2 0.0576087429 B 0.01987184 2.90
Parameter Pr > |t|
Intercept 0.0007
Orientation 1 0.0032
Orientation 2 <.0001
Orientation 3 .
Material_Combination 1 <.0001
Material_Combination 2 .
x3 <.0001
x <.0001
x3*Orientat*Material 1 1 0.0466
x3*Orientat*Material 1 2 0.0042
The GLM Procedure
Standard
Parameter Estimate Error t Value
x3*Orientat*Material 2 1 0.0043934394 B 0.02505086 0.18
x3*Orientat*Material 2 2 0.0569813680 B 0.01987184 2.87
x3*Orientat*Material 3 1 -.0841658662 B 0.01678230 -5.02
x3*Orientat*Material 3 2 0.0000000000 B . .
Parameter Pr > |t|
x3*Orientat*Material 2 1 0.8610
x3*Orientat*Material 2 2 0.0046
x3*Orientat*Material 3 1 <.0001
x3*Orientat*Material 3 2 .
NOTE: The X'X matrix has been found to be singular, and a generalized
inverse was used to solve the normal equations. Terms whose
estimates are followed by the letter 'B' are not uniquely
estimable.
-110-
Plot of resid8*yhat8. Legend: A = 1 obs, B = 2 obs, etc.
resid8
0.20
A
A
0.15 A AA
A
A
A A A A
A A
0.10 A AA A
B A A A A
A A
A A A A A A A A
A B A
0.05 D B A BC A A A
A AA A AA A A A A
A CAA A A CAA A
A AA B A A A ABA A
A D A A B A
0.00 A AAA C A
D A A A B A A
A AAA BAA AA B B
A A A BA AA A
C AB A AAB A A A
-0.05 ABB AA A B A A A A
A A A A AA A A
A AA A A A A
B A A A A A A
A A A
-0.10 A A A A
A A A A
A
B A
A
-0.15 A A
-0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0
yhat8
-111-
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: resid8
Moments
N 210 Sum Weights 210
Mean 0 Sum Observations 0
Std Deviation 0.06617301 Variance 0.00437887
Skewness 0.22525581 Kurtosis -0.1163466
Uncorrected SS 0.91518322 Corrected SS 0.91518322
Coeff Variation . Std Error Mean 0.00456637
Basic Statistical Measures
Location Variability
Mean 0.00000 Std Deviation 0.06617
Median -0.00250 Variance 0.00438
Mode -0.02963 Range 0.34095
Interquartile Range 0.09199
Tests for Location: Mu0=0
Test -Statistic- -----p Value------
Student's t t 0 Pr > |t| 1.0000
Sign M -3 Pr >= |M| 0.7302
Signed Rank S -275.5 Pr >= |S| 0.7555
Tests for Normality
Test --Statistic--- -----p Value------
Shapiro-Wilk W 0.993373 Pr < W 0.4714
Kolmogorov-Smirnov D 0.042515 Pr > D >0.1500
Cramer-von Mises W-Sq 0.057665 Pr > W-Sq >0.2500
Anderson-Darling A-Sq 0.337946 Pr > A-Sq >0.2500
Quantiles (Definition 5)
Quantile Estimate
100% Max 0.18973526
99% 0.15372204
95% 0.11689399
90% 0.08794163
75% Q3 0.04498097
50% Median -0.00249597
25% Q1 -0.04701096
10% -0.08154204
5% -0.10513642
1% -0.13710322
0% Min -0.15121120
Extreme Observations
------Lowest------ ------Highest-----
Value Obs Value Obs
-0.151211 105 0.147689 18
-0.148265 49 0.149581 185
-0.137103 178 0.153722 19
-0.133042 210 0.180071 118
-0.129082 4 0.189735 91
-112-
The UNIVARIATE Procedure
Variable: resid8
Stem Leaf # Boxplot
18 00 2 0
16 |
14 3804 4 |
12 142 3 |
10 1338477 7 |
8 036782458 9 |
6 00078012235 11 |
4 000455566788991111456 21 +-----+
2 002247788890011223469999 24 | |
0 113689111233466777899 21 | + |
-0 997665443300009733210 21 *-----*
-2 98866542110007444431000 23 | |
-4 76655211000088765443322100 26 +-----+
-6 9876542886642200 16 |
-8 3293321 7 |
-10 42652210 8 |
-12 73990 5 |
-14 18 2 |
----+----+----+----+----+-
Multiply Stem.Leaf by 10**-2
Normal Probability Plot
0.19+ **
| +
| ****++
| ***++
| ****+
| ***+
| ***
| *****
| ****
| ****
| +***
| +****
| *****
| ****
| +**
| ****
| ****
-0.15+**++
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
-113-
APPENDIX B
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF UHMW AND HDPE
Poisson's ratio (Coil 2007a):
UHMW - 0.46
HDPE - 0.38.
Table B1: Mechanical properties of UHMW(Coil 2007a).
English Units SI Units
Mechanical
1
Tensile Strength @ Yield D638 3 600 psi 25Mpa
Elongation @ break D638 700% 700%
Flexural modulus D790 155 000 psi 1070 Mpa
Tensile impact strength D1822 120 ft-lb/in2 25 J /cm2
Tensile impact @ -40C D1822 110 ft-lb/in2 25 J /cm2
ESCR, F50 (a) D1693 >800 hr >800 hr
Brittleness temperature D746 <-76C <-105F
Hardness shore D D2240 68 68
Thermal
Vicat softening temperature D1525 123C 254F
Heat deflection temp., 66psi D746 <69C <157F
1
23 degrees C, 50% relative humidity unless noted
**Product properties represent average laboratory values and are intended as a guide line. Final testing is the responsibility of the end
user.
Typical Values
ASTM (1) UHMW Product Properties:
Table B2: Mechanical properties of HDPE(Coil 2007a).
English Units SI Units
Mechanical
1
Density D792
0.930 - 0.940 g/cm
3
Tensile Strength @ Yield D638 2 900 - 3 400 psi 20 - 23 Mpa
Elongation @ break D638 300 - 450 % 300 - 450 %
Flexural modulus D790 100 000 - 150 000 psi 689 - 1 033 Mpa
Hardness shore D D2240 64 - 66 64 - 66
1
23 degrees C, 50% relative humidity unless noted
HDPE Product Properties: ASTM (1)
Typical Values
**Product properties represent average laboratory values and are intended as a guide line. Final testing is the responsibility of the end
user.
-114-
APPENDIX C
BLENDER DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY COIL MANUFACTURING
Figure C1: Schematic of blender layout and atomizer spray patter (Coil 2007b).
R
e
s
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
g
i
o
n
b
e
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
-115-
For the purposes of this project only the horizontal spray pattern will be considered. The
diagonal spray pattern is a relatively recent option and is not currently present in many
existing industrial operations. In addition, the EDEM software package is unable to restrict
particle tracking to a diagonal region. As a result, computing and software constraints would
quickly be reached if the diagonal spray pattern was considered.
-116-
APPENDIX D
WRITE-OUT EVERY TIME INTERVAL CALCULATION
In discrete element modeling the frequency that the particle position and velocity are
calculated is referred to as the time-step, t. Because these values are extremely small, for
example in the neighborhood of 4x10
-5
seconds, data is typically recorded for future analysis
using a considerably larger interval. This interval is referred to as the write-out every
interval, t
w
, in the software package.
The write-out every interval refers to how frequently the simulator records data for analysis
purposes. This is not related to the time-step used in the simulator in any way except for that
it must be equal to or larger than the time-step used in the simulator. The write-out every
interval begins when the simulation starts; however, only the write-out every intervals that
occur within the resination region are considered. The selected interval may directly affect
the simulation time; therefore, it is important to select a reasonable value.
When selecting the write-out every time interval one must be aware of the process and the
desired information. For instance, in this particular problem, where the objective is to record
the x-position, velocity, and ID of the particles as they pass through the resinating region, the
write-out every time interval must be small enough to capture this information while the
particles are in the resinating region.
Figure D1 shows an example of a situation where a particle passes through the resinating
region but the write-out every interval is set too large, resulting in the exported data
suggesting that the particle did not spend any time in the resinating region.
-117-
Figure D1: Schematic of an example where the write-out time interval is set too large.
An appropriate write-out every time interval was determined for this problem based on
kinematic equations for motion in a straight line under constant acceleration (Equation D2)
(Serway 2000, 1551). Assuming an object is dropped from the highest point in the blender,
A, and allowed to fall through the diameter of the blender until is collides with the bottom of
the drum, D, under constant acceleration, an extreme scenario, is shown in Figure D2.
2
2
1
t a t v x x
x xi i f
+ = [D1]
( ) t x x x
a
t
xi i f
=
2
[D2]
where:
x is the position in meters,
t is the time in seconds,
v
xi
is the initial velocity, and
a is the acceleration, assumed to be 9.81m/s
2
.
Measurement at t
Measurement at
t + t
w
Resinating region
Blender drum
Path of object
Measurement at t = 0
-118-
Figure D2: Schematic of the extreme case scenario where an object falls from the top of the
blender, A, through the resination region, B to C, and collides with the bottom of the blender,
D.
In this case, the total time spent in the resinating region is 0.066 seconds. Therefore, the
write-out every time interval must be less than 0.066 seconds. However, because the time
spent in the region will be estimated based partly on the write-out every time interval
(Equation D3), its impact on the accuracy of the estimated time must also be considered. As a
result the range in accuracy was tested for a proposed write-out every time interval of 0.01
seconds.
w t RR
t x t =
[D3]
where:
RR
t