THE MECHANICS OF DRY, COHESIVE POWDERS

1

Jrgen Tomas
Mechanical Process Engineering, The Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg
Universittsplatz 2, D 39 106 Magdeburg, Germany
Phone: ++49 391 67 18 783, Fax: ++49 391 67 11 160
e-mail: juergen.tomas@vst.uni-magdeburg.de



Abstract
The fundamentals of cohesive powder consolidation and flow behaviour using a reasonable
combination of particle and continuum mechanics are explained. By means of the model stiff
particles with soft contacts the influence of elastic-plastic repulsion in particle contacts is
demonstrated. With this as the physical basis, universal models are presented which include the
elastic-plastic and viscoplastic particle contact behaviours with adhesion, load-unload hysteresis
and thus energy dissipation, a history dependent, non-linear adhesion force model, easy to
handle constitutive equations for powder elasticity, incipient powder consolidation, yield and
cohesive steady-state flow, consolidation and compression functions, compression and preshear
work. Exemplary, the flow properties of a cohesive limestone powder (d
50
= 1.2 m) are shown.
These models are also used to evaluate shear cell test results as constitutive functions for
computer aided apparatus design for reliable powder flow. Finally, conclusions are drawn
concerning particle stressing, powder handling behaviours and product quality assessment in
processing industries.




Keywords: Particle mechanics, adhesion forces, van der Waals forces, constitutive models,
powder mechanics, cohesion, powder consolidation, powder flow properties, flow behaviour,
powder compressibility, compression work, shear work, hopper design, limestone powder.

1
Paper at Bulk India 2003, 9 11 Dec. 2003 Mumbai, review version
2

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 3
2. Slow Frictional Flow of Cohesive Powder ............................................................................. 4
2.1 Particle contact constitutive models ..........................................................................................6
2.1.1 Normal force - displacement functions of particle contact ........ 6
2.1.2 Energy absorption in a contact with dissipative behaviour...... 11
2.1.3 Adhesion force - normal force model ...................................... 12
2.1.4 Viscoplastic contact behaviour and time dependency ............. 14
2.1.5 Tangential contact force........................................................... 15
2.2 Biaxial stress states in a sheared particle packing .................................................................16
2.2.1 Shear force - displacement relation.......................................... 16
2.2.2 Shear stress normal stress diagram ....................................... 17
2.3 Cohesive powder flow criteria .................................................................................................20
2.3.1 Elasticity of pre-consolidated powder...................................... 20
2.3.2 Cohesive steady-state flow....................................................... 22
2.3.3 Incipient yield........................................................................... 25
2.3.4 Incipient consolidation............................................................. 26
2.3.5 The three flow parameters........................................................ 26
2.3.6 Consolidation functions ........................................................... 27
2.4 Powder consolidation and compression functions .................................................................28
2.4.1 Powder Flowability .................................................................. 28
2.4.2 Powder Compressibility........................................................... 29
2.4.3 Powder compression and preshear work.................................. 30
3. Design Consequences for Reliable Flow .............................................................................. 33
4. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 35
5. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 36
6. Symbols................................................................................................................................. 37
7. Indices ................................................................................................................................... 38
8. References ............................................................................................................................. 39



3
1. INTRODUCTION
There are many industrial branches at which bulk powders are produced, handled, stored,
processed and used. Particulate solids are manufactured or used as raw or auxiliary materials,
by-products or final products by mechanical unit operations as separation or mixing, size
reduction or agglomeration, but also by thermal processes as precipitation, crystallisation, drying
or by particle syntheses in process industries (chemical, pharmaceutical, building materials,
food, power, textile, material, environmental protection or waste recycling industries,
biotechnology, metallurgy, agriculture) as well as electronics. The number of particulate
products in high-developed economics can amount to millions and is permanently increasing day
by day because of diversified requirements of various clients and consumers of the global
arket. m

Fig. 1. Storage in containers - mechanical behaviours of solid, liquid, gas and bulk solid according to
Kalman [4].

Solids or parcels and fluid products are comparatively easy to handle. But the mechanical behav-
iours of powders or granulates [1 - 3] depend directly on pre-stressing history. This can be dem-
onstrated by a simple tilting test of storage containers [4]. Depending on how to fill the con-
tainer, tilt and bring it back different shapes of the bulk surface will be generated, Fig. 1. A co-
hesive powder behaves as an imperfect solid, flows sometimes as a liquid or can be compressed
like a gas. Often it shows those properties which are expected at least and creates the most prob-
lems in powder processing and handling equipment. These well-known flow problems of cohe-
sive powders in storage and transportation containers, conveyors or process apparatuses include
bridging, channeling and oscillating mass flow rates. In addition, flow problems are related to
4
particle characteristics associated with feeding and dosing, as well as undesired effects such as
widely spread residence time distribution, time consolidation or caking, chemical conversions
and deterioration of bioparticles. Finally, insufficient apparatus and system reliability of powder
processing plants are also related to these flow problems. The rapid increasing production of
cohesive to very cohesive nanopowders, e.g. very adhering pigment particles, micro-carriers in
biotechnology or medicine, auxiliary materials in catalysis, chromatography or silicon wafer
polishing, make these problems much serious. Taking into account this list of technical problems
and hazards, it is essential to deal with the fundamentals of particle adhesion, powder consolida-
tion and flow, i.e. to develop a reasonable combination of particle and continuum mechanics.
This method appears to be appropriate to derive constitutive functions on physical basis in the
context of micro-macro transition of particle-powder behaviour.
Fig. 1 shows also that the powder has a memory concerning its physical-chemical product prop-
erties. In terms of mineral genesis it can be of global historic periods. These peculiarities of co-
hesive powders connected with its strong individualism to flow or not to flow, we try now to
understand it from a fundamental point of view:
2. SLOW FRICTIONAL FLOW OF COHESIVE POWDER
A comparatively low consolidation in a pressure range of about 0.1 - 100 kPa and slow
frictional flow with shear rates v
S
< 1 m/s - and thus shear s s
kPa 1 2 / v
2
< - of fine, compressible and cohesive powders (particle size d < 10 m)
should be described here. A powder bulk Reynolds number is less than unity for > 1 kPa (h
S
tress contribution
z

height of shear zone,
b
apparent bulk viscosity,
b
bulk density):
1
kPa 1 s
m / kg 1000 m 1 v h v
Re
2
3 2
b
2
S
b
b Sz S
b
=

= (1)
The powder flows laminar and the shear stress contribution by particle particle collisions as
turbulent momentum transfer is negligible. Interactions between particles and fluids, e.g.
interstitial pore flow, are not considered. Generally, this shear resistance of a cohesive powder is
caused by Coulomb friction between preferably adhering particles.
The well-known failure or yield hypotheses of Tresca, Coulomb and Mohr, Drucker and Prager
(in [5, 6]) are the theoretical basis to describe the slow powder flow using plasticity. Next, the
yield locus concept of Jenike [7, 8] and Schwedes [9 - 12], and the Warren-Spring-Equations [13
- 16], Birks [18 - 20], and the approach by Tzn [21] etc., were supplemented by Molerus [23 -
25] to describe the cohesive steady-state flow criterion. Forces acting on particles under stress in
a regular assembly and its dilatancy were considered by Rowe [26] and Horne [27]. Parallel to it,
Nedderman [28, 29], Jenkins [30], Savage [31] and others discussed the rapid and non-rapid par-
ticle flow as well as Tardos [32, 33] the slow and the so-called intermediate, frictional flow of
compressible powders without any cohesion from the fluid mechanics point of view.

5

Fig. 2: Force displacement diagram of constitutive models of contact deformation of smooth spherical
particles in normal direction without (compression +) and with adhesion (tension -). The basic models for
elastic behaviour were derived by Hertz [49], for viscoelasticity by Yang [67], for constant adhesion by
Johnson et al. [58] and for plastic behaviour by Thornton and Ning [66] and Walton and Braun [65] and
for plasticity with variation in adhesion by Molerus [22] and Schubert et al. [63]. This has been expanded
stepwise to include nonlinear plastic contact hardening and softening. Energy dissipation was considered
by Sadd et al. [61] and time dependent viscoplasticity by Rumpf et al. [68]. Considering all these theories,
one obtains a general contact model for time and rate dependent viscoelastic, elastic-plastic, viscoplastic,
adhesion and dissipative behaviours, Tomas [43, 44, 45] which is explained in the next figures.

6
Additionally, the simulation of particle dynamics is increasingly used, see, e.g., Cundall [34],
Campbell [35, 36], Walton [37, 38], Herrmann [39], Thornton [48].
The consolidation and non-rapid flow of fine and cohesive powders was explained by the adhe-
sion forces at particle contacts, Molerus [22, 23]. His advanced theory is the physical basis of
universal models which includes the elastic-plastic and viscoplastic particle contact behaviours
with hysteresis, energy dissipation and adhesion, a history dependent, non-linear adhesion force
model, constitutive equations for powder elasticity, incipient consolidation, yield and cohesive
steady-state flow, consolidation and compression functions, compression and preshear work [40
to 47]:
2.1 Particle contact constitutive models
In principle, there are four essential mechanical deformation effects in particle-surface contacts
and their force-response behaviour can be explained as follows:
(1) elastic contact deformation (Hertz [49], Huber [50], Cattaneo [51], Mindlin [52, 53], Green-
wood [54], Dahneke [55], Derjaguin (DMT theory) [57], Johnson (JKR theory) [58], Thorn-
ton [59] and Sadd [61]) which is reversible, independent of deformation rate and consolida-
tion time effects and valid for all particulate solids;
(2) plastic contact deformation with adhesion (Derjaguin [56], Krupp [62], Schubert [63], Mol-
erus [22, 23], Maugis [64], Walton [65], Thornton [66] and Tomas [43]) which is irreversible,
deformation rate and consolidation time independent, e.g. mineral powders;
(3) viscoelastic contact deformation (Yang [67], Rumpf [68] and Sadd [61]) which is reversible
and dependent on deformation rate and consolidation time, e.g. soft particles as bio-cells;
(4) viscoplastic contact deformation (Rumpf [68] and Tomas [44, 45]) which is irreversible and
dependent on deformation rate and consolidation time, e.g. nanoparticles fusion.
2.1.1 Normal force - displacement functions of particle contact
These normal force - displacement models are shown as characteristic constitutive functions in
Fig. 2. Based on these theories, a general approach for the time and deformation rate dependent
and combined viscoelastic, elastic-plastic, viscoplastic, adhesion and dissipative behaviours of a
spherical particle contact was derived [43, 44] and is briefly explained here - the comprehensive
review [46] comprises all the derivations in detail:
First, two isotropic, stiff, linear elastic, mono-disperse spherical particles may approach with
decreasing separation in nm-scale a a
F=0
to form a direct contact, see Fig. 3 panel a). Conse-
quently, a long-range adhesion force is created because of van der Waals interactions of both
surfaces. This adhesion force F
H0
can be modelled as a single rough sphere-sphere-contact [54],
additionally, with a characteristic hemispherical micro-roughness height or radius

h
r
< d instead
of particle size d [73, 74]:
7
( )
2
0 F
r sls , H
2
0 F r
r
2
0 F
r sls , H
0 H
a 12
h C
a / h 1 2
h / d
1
a 12
h C
F
= = =

+
+

= (2)


Fig. 3: Particle contact approach, elastic, elastic-plastic deformation and detachment. After approaching a
a
F=0
, panel a), the spherical contact is elastically compacted to a partial plate-plate-contact and shows
the Hertz [49] elliptic pressure distribution, panel b). As response of this adhesion force F
H0
and an in-
creasing normal load F
N
, the contact starts at the yield point p
max
= p
f
with plastic yielding, panel c). The
micro-yield surface is reached and this maximum pressure has not been exceeded. A hindered plastic field
is formed at the contact with a circular constant pressure p
max
and an annular elastic pressure distribution
dependent on radius r
K,el
, full lines in panel c). This yield can be intensified by mobile adsorption layers,
panel c) above, If one applies a (negative) pull-off force F
N,Z
then the contact plates fail and detach with
the increasing distance a > a
F=0
, panel d).
After loading with an external compressive normal force F
N
the previous contact point is de-
formed to a small contact area. As the contact deformation response, a non-linear function be-
tween this elastic force and the centre approach (indentation height or overlap) h
K
is obtained
according to Hertz [49], demonstrated in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4
8
3
K 2 , 1 N
h r * E
3
2
F = , (3)
with the averaged radius of particle 1 and 2
2 1
2 , 1
r / 1 r / 1
1
r
+
= (4)
and the averaged modulus of elasticity E* of both particles 1and 2 ( Poissons ratio):
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
E
1
E
1
2 * E

|
|
.
|

\
|
+

= (5)
Due to the parabolic curvature F
N
(h
K
), the particle contact becomes stiffer with increasing
displacement h
K
or contact radius r
K
and particle radius r
1,2
(k
N
is the contact stiffness in normal
direction):
K K 2 , 1
K
N
N
r * E h r * E
dh
dF
k = = = (6)
When one applies an increasing load F
N
the contact starts at p
max
= p
f
with plastic yielding at
partial plate-plate contact. This elastic-plastic contact deformation response, see in Fig. 3 panel
c), results in an additional contribution to adhesion force between these two particles, Krupp
[62], Rumpf et al. [68] and Molerus [22, 23]. The total force can be obtained by the particle con-
tact force equilibrium between attraction (-) and elastic as well as soft plastic repulsion (+) or
force response ( coordinate of annular elastic contact area):
*
K
r

+ + = =
K
pl , K
r
r
*
K
*
K
*
K el
2
pl , K f N
2
K VdW 0 H
dr r ) r ( p 2 r p F r p F 0 F (7)
Superposition provided, this leads to a very useful linear force displacement model (for
A

const.) with the particle centre approach of both particles h
K
[43], shown in Fig. 4 as elastic-
plastic yield boundary (or limit):
( )
K p A f 2 , 1 0 H N
h p r F F = + (8)
Thus, the contact stiffness decreases with smaller particle size
2 , 1
r 4 d = (or micro-roughness
radius h
r
of non-deformed contact) of cohesive powders, predominant plastic yield behaviour
provided [43]:
(
p A f 2 , 1
K
N
pl , N
p r
dh
dF
k = = ) (9)
This size-dependent contact softness contributes essentially to a lot of adhesion effects of
nanoparticles besides its large surface. Consequently, it makes sense to introduce here the model
stiff particles with soft contacts. The particles may have a certain material stiffness so that the
volume deformation is negligible. Any irreversible contact deformation should not have too
large influence on the particle shape which is equivalent to a model of healing contacts.

9

Fig. 4. Force - displacement diagram of recalculated characteristic contact deformation of cohesive lime-
stone particles as spheres, median diameter d
50
= 1.2 m, surface moisture X
W
= 0.5 %. Pressure and
compression are defined as positive but tension and extension are negative, above panel. The origin of
this diagram h
K
= 0 is equivalent to the characteristic adhesion separation for direct contact a
F=0
. After
approaching from an infinite distance - to this minimum separation a
F=0
the sphere-sphere-contact with-
out any contact deformation is formed by the attractive adhesion force F
H0
(the so-called jump in). As
the response, from 0 Y the contact is elastically compacted, forms an approximated circular contact
area, Fig. 3 panel b) and starts at the yield point Y at p
max
= p
f
with plastic yielding, Fig. 3 panel c). This
yield point Y is located below the abscissa, i.e. contact force equilibrium F
N
= 0 includes a certain elastic-
plastic deformation as response of adhesion force F
H0
. The combined elastic-plastic yield boundary or
limit of the partial plate-plate contact is achieved as given in Eq. (8). This displacement is expressed by
annular elastic A
el
(thickness r
K,el
) and circular plastic A
pl
(radius r
K,pl
) contact area, Fig. 3 panel c). After
unloading between the points U A the contact recovers elastically according to Eq. (14) to a displace-
ment h
K,A
. The reloading curve runs from point A to U to the displacement h
K,U
, Eq. (15). If one applies a
certain pull-off force F
N,Z
= - F
H,A
as given in Eq. (16) but here negative, the adhesion boundary line at
failure point A is reached and the contact plates fail and detach with the increasing distance
, Fig. 3 panel d). This actual particle separation is considered for the calculation by
K A , K 0 F
h h a a + =
=
10
a hyperbolic adhesion force curve F
N,Z
= - of the plate-plate model Eq. (18). This hysteresis
behaviour could be shifted along the elastic-plastic boundary and depends on the pre-loading or, in other
words, on pre-consolidation level F
3
A , H
a F

N,U
. Thus, the variation in adhesion forces F
H,A
between particles de-
pend directly on this frozen irreversible deformation, the so-called contact pre-consolidation history
F
H
(F
N
), see next Fig. 5.
rep at
F +

The plastic repulsion coefficient
p
describes a dimensionless ratio of attractive van der Waals
pressure p
VdW
(adhesion force per unit planar surface area) to repulsive particle micro-hardness
p
f
for a plate-plate model (e.g. p
VdW
3 600 MPa):
f 0 F
sls
f
3
0 F
sls , H
f
VdW
p
p a
4
p a 6
C
p
p

=

= =
= =
(10)
This attraction term p
VdW
can also be expressed by surface tension, e.g.
sls
3
.
10
-4
0.06 J/m,
2
0 F
sls , H
a
VdW sls
a 24
C
da ) d ( p
2
1
0 F
=

= =

=
(11)
fist introduced by Bradley [69] and Derjaguin [56]. The characteristic adhesion distance in Eqs.
(2) and (10) lies in a molecular scale a = a
F=0
0.3 - 0.4 nm. It depends mainly on the properties
of liquid-equivalent packed adsorbed layers and can be estimated for a molecular interaction
potential minimum F 0 F da / dU = = = or force equilibrium [72, 87]. Provided that these
molecular contacts are stiff enough compared with the soft particle contact behaviour, this sepa-
ration a
F=0
is assumed to be constant. The particle surface behaviours are influenced by mobile
adsorption layers due to molecular rearrangement. The Hamaker constant C
H,sls
[70] includes
these solid-liquid-solid interactions of continuous media. Thus C
H,sls
can be calculated due to
Lifshitz theory and depends on dielectric constants and refractive indices [71, 72].
The elastic-plastic contact area coefficient
A
represents the ratio of plastic particle contact de-
formation area A
pl
to total contact deformation area
el pl K
A A A + = which includes a certain
elastic displacement [43]
3
K
f , K
K
pl
A
h
h
3
1
1
A
A
3
1
3
2
= + = , (12)
with the centre approach h
K,f
for incipient yielding at point Y in Fig. 4, p
el
(r
K
= 0) = p
max
= p
f
:
2
f
f , K
* E 2
p
d h |
.
|

\
|

= (13)
Constant mechanical bulk properties provided, the finer the particles the smaller is again the
yield point h
K,f
which is shifted towards zero centre approach. Thus, an initial pure elastic con-
tact deformation A
pl
= 0,
A
= 2/3, has no relevance for cohesive nanoparticles and should be
excluded. But after unloading beginning at point U along curve U E, Fig. 4, the contact recov-
11
ers elastically in the compression mode and remains with a perfect plastic displacement h
K,E
. For
this pure plastic contact deformation A
el
= 0 and A
K
= A
pl
,
A
= 1 is obtained.
Below point E left the tension mode begins. Between U E A the contact recovers probably
elastically along a supplemented Hertzian parabolic curvature up to displacement h
K,A
:
( )
A , H
3
A , K K 2 , 1 unload , N
F h h r * E
3
2
F = (14)
Consequently, the reloading runs along the symmetric curve from point A to point U:
( )
U , N
3
K U , K 2 , 1 reload , N
F h h r * E
3
2
F + = (15)
If one applies a certain pull-off force F
N,Z
= - F
H,A
, here negative,
A , K VdW 2 , 1 0 H A , H
h p r F F + = (16)
the adhesion (failure) boundary at point A is reached and the contact plates are failing and de-
taching with the increasing distance
K A , K 0 F
h h a a + =
=
. The displacement h
K,A
at point A of
contact detachment is calculated from Eqs. (8), (14) and (16) as an implied function (index (0)
for the beginning of iterations) of the displacement history point h
K,U
:
( )
3
2
) 0 ( , A , K U , K pl el , f , K U , K ) 1 ( , A , K
h h h h h + =

(17)
The actual particle separation a can be used by a long-range hyperbolic adhesion force curve
with the displacement h
3
Z , N
a F

K,A
for incipient contact detachment by Eq. (17):
3
0 F
K
0 F
A , K
A , K VdW 2 , 1 0 H
K Z , N
a
h
a
h
1
h p r F
) h ( F
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
=
= =
(18)
This hyperbolic force - separation curve is shown in Fig. 4 bottom panel d).
2.1.2 Energy absorption in a contact with dissipative behaviour
Additionally, if one considers a single elastic-plastic particle contact as a conservative mechani-
cal system without heat dissipation, the energy absorption equals the lens-shaped area between
both unloading and reloading curves A - U in Fig. 4:

=
U , K
A , K
U , K
A , K
h
h
K K unload , N
h
h
K K reload , N diss
dh ) h ( F dh ) h ( F W (19)
With Eqs. (14) and (16) for F
H,A
and (15), (8) for F
N,U
, one obtains finally the specific or mass
related energy absorption
P diss diss , m
m / W k W = , which includes the averaged particle mass
. In addition, the resultant Eq. (20) includes a characteristic contact number
in the bulk powder (coordination number k / [22]):
s
3
2 , 1 P
r 3 / 4 m =
12
( )
( | |
A , K U , K p U , K A
s
2
2 , 1
A , K U , K f
2 / 5
2 , 1
A , K U , K
s
diss , m
h h h
r 32
h h p 3
r
h h
20
* E
W


+
|
|
.
|

\
|

= ) (20)
This specific energy of 1.6 to 31 J/g for the limestone powder example mentioned was dissi-
pated during one unloading - reloading - cycle in the bulk powder with an average pressure of
only
M,st
= 3.3 to 25 kPa (or major principal stress
1
= 5.9 to 41 kPa).
2.1.3 Adhesion force - normal force model
The slopes of elastic-plastic yield and adhesion boundaries in Fig. 4 are characteristics of irre-
versible particle contact stiffness or compliance. Consequently, if one eliminates the centre ap-
proach h
K
of the loading and unloading functions, Eqs. (8) and (14), an implied non-linear func-
tion between the contact pull-off force F
H,A
= - F
N,Z
at the detachment point A is obtained for the
normal force at the unloading point F
N
= F
N,U
:
( )
( )
3 / 2
0 H N
0 H ) 0 ( , A , H
2
2 , 1
0 H N
f p
2
2 , 1 0 H N 0 H ) 1 ( , A , H
F F
F F
1
* E r 2
F F 3
p r F F F F
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+

+

+
+ + =
(21)
This unloading point U is stored in the memory of the contact as pre-consolidation history. This
general non-linear adhesion model, dashed curve in Fig. 5, implies the dimensionless, elastic-
plastic contact consolidation coefficient and, additionally, the influence of adhesion, stiffness,
average particle radius r
1,2
, average modulus of elasticity E* in the last term of the equation. It is
worth to note here that the slope of the adhesion force function is reduced with increasing radius
of surface curvature r
1,2
.
Practically, a linear function F
H
= f(F
N
) is used to evaluate the correlation between adhesion and
normal force [43] which is more complex than the ideal plastic model of Molerus [23], Fig. 5:
( )
N 0 H N
p A
p
0 H
p A
A
H
F F 1 F F F + + =


+


= (22)
The dimensionless elastic-plastic contact consolidation coefficient (strain characteristic) is
given by the slope of adhesion force F
H
influenced by predominant plastic contact failure.
p A
p


= (23)
This elastic-plastic contact consolidation coefficient is a measure of irreversible particle con-
tact stiffness or softness as well. A shallow slope implies low adhesion level F
H
F
H0
because of
stiff particle contacts, but a large slope means soft contacts, or i.e., a cohesive powder flow be-
haviour. This model considers, additionally, the flattening of soft particle contacts caused by the
adhesion force F
H0
. Thus, the total adhesion force consists of a stiff contribution F
H0
and a con-
tact strain influenced component (
N 0 H
F F ) + , Fig. 5.
This Eq. (22) can be interpreted as a general linear particle contact constitutive model, i.e. linear
in forces, but non-linear concerning material characteristics. The intersection of function (22)
13
with abscissa (F
H
= 0) in the negative extension range of consolidation force F
N
is surprisingly
independent of the Hamaker constant C
H,sls
, Fig. 5:
( )
f r 0 F 2
0 F r
r
K
pl
f r 0 F Z , N
p h a
2 a / h 1 2
h / d
1
A 3
A
3
2
p h a
2
F

+
+
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
=
=
=
(24)
Considering the model prerequisites for cohesive powders, this minimum normal (tensile) force
limit F
N,Z
combines the opposite influences of a particle stiffness, micro-yield strength p
f
3
f

or resistance against plastic deformation and particle distance distribution. The last-mentioned is
characterised by roughness height h
r
as well as molecular centre distance a
F=0
. It corresponds to
an abscissa intersection
1,Z
of the constitutive consolidation function
c
(
1
), which is shown by
Eq. (53) and Fig. 13 in section 2.3.


Fig. 5. Adhesion force normal force diagram of recalculated particle contact forces of limestone (me-
dian diameter d
50
= 1.2 m, surface moisture X
W
= 0.5 %, specific surface area A
S,m
= 9.2 m/g) according
to the linear model Eq. (22) and non-linear model Eq. (16) for instantaneous consolidation t = 0 as well as
a linear function for time consolidation t = 24 h [45, 46, 104] using data of Fig. 13. The points character-
ise the pressure levels of YL 1 to YL 4 according to Fig. 13. A characteristic line with the slope = 0.3 of
a cohesive powder is included and shows directly the correlation between strength and force enhancement
with pre-consolidation, Eq. (56). The powder surface moisture X
W
= 0.5 % is accurately analysed with
Karl-Fischer titration. This is equivalent to idealised mono- to bimolecular adsorption layers being in
equilibrium with ambient air temperature of 20C and 50% humidity.

Generally, the linearised adhesion force equation (22) is used first to demonstrate comfortably
the correlation between the adhesion forces of microscopic particles and the macroscopic
stresses in powders [44, 47, 94]. Additionally, one can obtain a direct correlation between the
14
micromechanical elastic-plastic particle contact consolidation and the macro-mechanical powder
flowability expressed by the semi-empirical flow function ff
c
according to Jenike [8].
It should be pointed out here that the adhesion force level in Fig. 5 is approximately 10
5
- 10
6

times the particle weight for fine and very cohesive particles. This means, in other words, that
one has to apply these large values as acceleration ratios a/g with respect to gravity to separate
these pre-consolidated contacts or to remove mechanically such adhered particles from surfaces.
2.1.4 Viscoplastic contact behaviour and time dependency
An elastic-plastic contact may be additionally deformed during the indentation time, e.g., by
viscoplastic flow. Thus, the adhesion force increases with interaction time [27, 41, 62, 68]. This
time dependent consolidation behavior (index t) of particle contacts in a powder bulk, see Fig. 5
above line, was previously described by a parallel series (summation) of adhesion forces [40, 41,
42, 44]. This previous method refers more to incipient sintering or contact fusion of a thermally
sensitive particle material [68] without interstitial adsorption layers. This micro-process is very
temperature sensitive [40, 41, 42].

Table 1: Material parameters for characteristic adhesion force functions F
H
(F
N
) in Fig. 5
Instantaneous contact consolidation Time dependent consolidation
Constitutive models
of contact deforma-
tion
plastic viscoplastic
Repulsion coeffi-
cient f
3
0 F
sls , H
f
VdW
p
p a 6
C
p
p

= =
=
t
p
K
VdW
t , p

=
Constitutive models
of combined contact
deformation
elastic-plastic elastic-plastic and viscoplastic
Contact area ratio
( )
el pl
pl
A
A A 3
A
3
2
+
+ =
( )
el vis pl
vis pl
t , A
A A A 3
A A
3
2
+ +
+
+ =
Contact
consolidation
coefficient
p A
p


=
t , p p t , A
t , p p
vis

+
=
Intersection with F
N
-
axis (abscissa)
( )
sls , H f 2 , 1 r 0 F Z , N
C f p h a F
=

( )
sls , H
K f
f 2 , 1 r 0 F
tot , Z , N
C f
/ t p 1
p h a
F
+


=

Additionally, the increasing adhesion may be considered in terms of a sequence of rheological
models as the sum of resistances due to plastic and viscoplastic repulsion
p
+
p,t
, 5
th
line in
Table 1. These are characterized by the micro-yield strength p
f
, apparent contact viscosity and
time
K
/t. Hence the repulsion effect of cold viscous flow of comparatively strongly-bonded
adsorption layers on the particle surface is taken into consideration [45, 46, 104]. Hence with the
15
total viscoplastic contact consolidation coefficient
vis
, which includes both the elastic-plastic
and the viscoplastic repulsion, the linear correlation between adhesion and normal force F
H
(F
N
)
from Eq. (22) can be written as:
( )
N vis 0 H vis N
t , p p t , A
t , p p
0 H
t , p p t , A
t , A
tot , H
F F 1 F F F + + =

+
+


= (25)
This rheological model is only valid for a short term indentation of , here ap-
proximately t < 60 h for the high-disperse (ultra-fine), cohesive limestone powder with a certain
water adsorption capacity (specific surface area A
(
f K
p / t < )
S,m
= 9.2 m/g). All the essential material pa-
rameters are collected in Table 1 and the total adhesion force F
H,tot
is demonstrated in Fig. 5
above line.
2.1.5 Tangential contact force
The influence of a tangential force in a normal loaded spherical contact was considered by Cat-
taneo [51] and Mindlin [52, 53]. About this and complementary theories as well as loading,
unloading and reloading hysteresis effects, one can find a detailed discussion by Thornton [59].
He has expressed this tangential contact force as [59, 60]:
( )
N i K 2 , 1 T
F tan 1 h r * G 4 F = (26)
Here is the tangential contact displacement, the loading parameter dependent on loading,
unloading and reloading,
i
the angle of internal friction, ( ) + = 1 2 E G the shear modulus, and
the averaged shear modulus is given as:
1
2
2
1
1
G
2
G
2
2 * G

|
|
.
|

\
|
+

= (27)
Thus, with = 1 the ratio of the initial tangential stiffness
K
T
T
r * G 4
d
dF
k =

= (28)
to the initial normal stiffness according to Eq. (6) is:
( )


=
2
1 2
k
k
N
T
(29)
Hence this ratio ranges from unity, for = 0, to 2/3, for = 0.5 [53], which is different from the
common linear elastic behaviour of a cylindrical rod.
The force displacement behaviours during stressing and the breakage probability, especially at
conveying and handling, are useful constitutive functions to describe the mechanics of primary
particles [75, 76, 77] and, additionally, particle compounds [78] and granules to assess their
physical product quality [79, 80, 81].
16
2.2 Biaxial stress states in a sheared particle packing
After this introduction into the fundamentals we have to look at what a volume element of parti-
cles used to do during its flow. In contrast to another engineering fields, in process engineering
we are strongly interested in reliable flow and do not be so happy about stable arches, domes or
wall adhesion effects in our apparatuses. Obviously, we have to know exactly this flow limit.
2.2.1 Shear force - displacement relation
At a shear test after a certain elastic shear displacement, we can distinguish between
(1) incipient consolidation,
(2) incipient yield and
(3) steady-state flow
of a particle packing. This is demonstrated in a shear force - displacement diagram F
S
(s), Fig. 6.
If we apply a certain shear force F
S
then the powder shows an elastic distortion with reversible
displacement s
elastic
after unloading, Fig. 6.


Fig. 6. Shear force - displacement diagram of incipient consolidation and yield of a particle packing at
direct shear test. When the sample is critically consolidated steady-state flow is measured. The partial
expansion of the shear zone is also known as dilatancy h = h(s) h
0
.

17
Using increasing shear stress beyond the elastic displacement s
elastic
the packing generates a
shear zone, which can be ellipsoidal for a Jenike-type shear cell [9, 11]. The powder flow or ir-
reversible shear effect correlates directly with the dislocations of particles in a comparatively
narrow shear zone, drawn in the middle panel of Fig. 6. Simultaneously, this results in a certain
compression (-) or expansion (+) of the shear zone which can be expressed by the so-called
volumetric strain
0 V
h / ) s ( h = . This dependent variable is measured by the cover height h(s)
and related to the initial height h
0
.
2.2.2 Shear stress normal stress diagram
Now the essential parameters of cohesive powder flow are explained in a shear stress normal
stress diagram for a biaxial stress state, Fig. 7. Only positive values of the stress pairs () are
taken into consideration, the negatives mean opposite directions. Mainly, compressive stresses
(pressures) occur and are defined here as positive. Tensile stresses are negative.


Fig. 7. Shear stress normal stress diagram of biaxial stress states of sheared particle packing (1) shear
and dilatancy (expansion) of the shear zone, cohesion, uniaxial pressure and tension, isostatic tension.
18
First we turn to incipient yield. This state can be measured point by point with an overconsoli-
dated sample which reduces the shear resistance after obtaining a peak stress . During this shear
the shear zone expands dV > 0, Fig. 6 bottom panel. This dilatancy h
r
can be microscopically
explained by both contact unloading, by particle rearrangement and structural expansion of the
shear zone. During yield, the macroscopic shear plane do not coincide with the tangential direc-
tions of shear forces of particle contacts, Fig. 7 above. A downhill particle sliding effect into
packing voids can be responsible for this dilatancy. This can be expressed by a positive, i.e.
counter-clockwise, direction of the angle of dilatancy .
If we connect all stress pairs () we may obtain a straight line which is called as yield locus.
The slope of this line is the angle of internal friction
i
. The intersection with the ordinate = 0
represents the cohesion
c
a shear resistance caused solely by particle adhesion effects without
any external normal stress . These adhesion forces in the particle contacts are drawn as arrows
for the normal components F
N
. To avoid too much confusion we have cut out to draw the tangen-
tial force components F
T
for every contact. The black colour at all contacts shall demonstrate the
irreversible deformation. The shear resistance
c
is directly caused by this internal contribution
of adhesion forces F
H
(F
N
) and depends on the stressing pre-history as discussed in section 2.1.
The intersections of Mohr (semi-)circle with abscissa are the so-called principal stresses
1
and

2
, i.e. the largest (major) and the smallest (minor) normal stress without applying any shear
stress = 0. The Mohr circle which intersects the origin, i.e. minor principle stress
2
= 0, gives
us the uniaxial compressive strength
c
as the cohesive strength characteristic of the powder, see
Fig. 7 middle. As mentioned before, the negative intersection of Mohr circle with abscissa gives
us the uniaxial tensile strength
Z,1
for
2
= 0, see left in Fig. 7 below. The intersection of the
yield locus with abscissa, the isostatic tensile strength
Z
represents the internal contribution of
adhesion forces F
H
(F
N
) to the total stress, i.e. the sum of external normal stress plus
Z
. Thus,
this characteristic
Z
depends directly on the stressing or pre-consolidation history, see section
2.1. For higher pre-consolidation or packing density we obtain a group of yield loci (not drawn
here).
For all yield effects in a shear zone one may reach an equilibrium state after a certain irreversible
displacement. This steady-state flow is also observed here for no volume change dV = 0 and is
characterised by a dynamic equilibrium of simultaneous contact shearing, unloading and failing,
creating new contacts, loading, reloading, unloading and shearing again, Fig. 8 above. It is char-
acterised by an endpoint and the largest Mohr circle with the major and minor principle stresses

1
and
2
and equivalent to these the radius and centre stresses
R,st
and
M,st
, Fig. 8 (and Fig.
11). For higher pre-consolidation and various yield loci we obtain a group of Mohr-circles for
steady-state flow. The envelope of all the Mohr-circles is defined as the stationary yield locus
and may also approximated by a straight line. The slope of this line is defined as the stationary
angle of internal friction
st
. To extrapolate the stationary yield locus, the isostatic tensile
strength
0
of very loose packing density is obtained, Fig. 8. This is typically for an unconsoli-
dated powder, i.e. direct particle contacts but without any contact deformation. Thus, the funda-
19
mental characteristic
0
does not depend on pre-consolidation. This is equivalent to the adhesion
F
H0
without any contact deformation. The black colour is missed between these virgin contacts.


Fig. 8. Shear stress normal stress diagram of biaxial stress states of sheared particle packing (2) sta-
tionary shear (steady-state flow), (3) shear and compression (negative dilatancy) of the shear zone,
isostatic pressure and tension. In general, the steady-state flow of a cohesive powder is cohesive. Hence,
the total normal stress consists of an external contribution , e.g. by weight of powder layers, plus (by
absolute value) an internal contribution by the pre-consolidation dependent adhesion, the isostatic tensile
stress
Z
.

The incipient consolidation is described by the so-called consolidation locus which lies at the
right hand side of Fig. 8 (and Fig. 11) represents the envelope of all stress states with plastic
failure which leads to a consolidation of the particle packing dV < 0. This line may have the
20
same inclination as the slope of yield locus, the angle of internal friction
i
, and intersects the
abscissa at an isostatic normal stress
iso
. This isostatic stress state means that all principal
stresses have the same value in all three spatial directions
iso
=
1
=
2
=
3
. It is equivalent to
the hydrostatic pressure state in fluid dynamics. Obviously, this characteristic depends also on
the stressing pre-history as discussed before. The dilatancy h
r
is here negative and can be mi-
croscopically explained by both contact loading, particle rearrangement and structural compres-
sion. During yield the macroscopic shear plane do not coincide with the tangential directions of
shear forces of particle contacts, Fig. 8 below. A uphill particle sliding effect into packing
voids may be responsible for this compaction.
2.3 Cohesive powder flow criteria
2.3.1 Elasticity of pre-consolidated powder
Before we turn to the irreversible powder flow, first a tangent bulk modulus of elasticity for a
cohesive powder is derived at the kPa-stress level of powder loading, if a characteristic uniaxial
normal strain h
K
/d is assumed [82 - 84]. For that purpose, the micro/macro-transition [47] with
the normal stress - force relation Eq. (40) and the contact stiffness due to Eq. (6) are applied to a
packing of smooth spheres. We have to consider the total normal force F
N,tot
of a characteristic
particle contact which includes the contribution of pre-consolidation dependent adhesion
F
H
(F
N,V
):
( )
N V , N 0 H N V , N H tot , N
F F F 1 F ) F ( F F + + + = + = (30)
By the first derivative near F
N
0 we can write for the bulk modulus of elasticity (contact ra-
dius according to and E* per Eq. (5))
K 2 , 1
2
K
h r r =
( )
( )
0 F
K
tot , N
0
K
Z
b
N
dh
dF
d
1
d / h d
d
E




=
+
= (31)
Using a micro/macro-transition Eq. (40) we obtain finally:
( )
3 / 1
Z
2
3 / 1
2
2 , 1
V , N 0 H
2
b
* E
6 1
4
* E
r 2
F F ) 1 ( * E 3
4
1
E
(
(

|
.
|

\
|

=
(
(

+ +

= (32)
For a unconsolidated loose packing of a cohesive powder E
b,0
follows [47, 45]:
3 / 1
0
2
0
0
3 / 1
2
2 , 1
0 H
2
0
0
0 , b
* E
6 1
4
* E
r 2
F * E 3
4
1
E
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
(
(

= (33)
A free-flowing powder is unable to sustain a tensile stress F
H
0 and E
b
refers solely to com-
pression in a mould with stiff walls [83].

21

Fig. 9. Bulk shear modulus - centre stress diagram for load and unload of limestone powder (d
50
= 1.2
m). The physical model Eq. (35) was multiplied by a fit factor of 3
.
10
-3
to obtain the full line for unload
after steady-state flow which is now equivalent to test data measured by Medhe [85]. This bulk shear
modulus G
b
is about 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the shear modulus of particle material assumed to
be G = 60 kN/mm and Poisson ratio = 0.28.

Consequently, the initial shear stiffness (shear modulus) for elastic shear displacement can be
derived from Eq. (26), provided that the shear displacements at a characteristic particle contact
and in the bulk are equivalent /d s/h
Sz
(h
Sz
characteristic height of the shear zone):
( )
0 F
T
0
Sz
b
T
d
dF
d
1
h / s d
d
G

= (34)
( )
3 / 1
Z
2
3 / 1
2
2 , 1
V , N 0 H
b
* E
6 1
* G
r * E 2
F F ) 1 ( 3
* G
1
G
(
(

|
.
|

\
|

=
(
(

+ +

= (35)
3 / 1
0
2
0
0
3 / 1
2
2 , 1
0 H
0
0
0 , b
* E
6 1
* G
r * E 2
F 3
* G
1
G
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
(
(

= (36)
This simple model, Eq. (35), overestimates the shear modulus G
b
= 60 - 120 N/mm for lime-
stone (particle size d
50
= 1.2 m) compared to the shear modulus obtained from direct shear tests
G
b,load
= 180 - 270 kN/m for loading and G
b,unload
= 220 - 340 kN/m for unloading [85]. Obvi-
22
ously, the shear modulus G
b
depends on the pre-consolidation of the isostatic tensile strength
Z

= f(
M,st
), see Eq. (48), which is demonstrated in Fig. 9.
It is worth to note here that the ratio of the shear stiffness given in Eq. (35) to the normal stiff-
ness Eq. (32) of the bulk equals the contact stiffness ratio k
T
/k
N
as in Eq. (29):
( )


= = =
2
1 2
k
k
E
G
E
G
N
T
0 , b
0 , b
b
b
(37)
Approximately for cohesive powders, the shear stiffness is equivalent to the normal stiffness,
e.g. G
b
/E
b
= 0.82 for a common Poisson ratio = 0.3 of the particle material.
2.3.2 Cohesive steady-state flow
Using the elastic-plastic particle contact constitutive model Eq. (22) the failure conditions of
particle contacts are formulated [47]. It should be noted here that the stressing pre-history of a
cohesive powder flow is stationary (steady-state) and results significantly in a cohesive station-
ary yield locus in radius stress = f(centre stress) - coordinates
( )
0 st , M st st , R
sin + = (38)
or in the ()-diagram of Fig. 11 [43]:
) ( tan
0 st st st
+ = (39)
This shear zone is characterised by a dynamic equilibrium of simultaneous contact shearing,
unloading and failing, creating new contacts, loading, reloading, unloading and shearing again.
The stationary yield locus is the envelope of all Mohr-circles for steady-state flow (critical state
line) with a certain negative intersection of the abscissa
2
0 H
0
0
0
d
F 1

= . (40)
This isostatic tensile strength
0
of an unconsolidated powder without any particle contact de-
formation is obtained from the adhesion force F
H0
, Eq. (2), with the initial porosity of very loose
packing
s 0 , b 0
/ 1 = and
b,0
according to Eq. (59).
In some cases one may observe cohesionless steady-state flow, i.e.
0
= 0 in Eq. (38), which is
described by the effective yield locus according to Jenike [8] with the effective angle of internal
friction
e
as slope:
st , M e st , R
sin = (41)
Replacing the radius stresses in Eqs. (38) and (41) and we obtain a simple correlation between
the stress-dependent effective angle of internal friction
e
, the stationary angle of internal fric-
tion
st
and the centre stress
M,st
:
|
|
.
|

\
|

+ =
st , M
0
st e
1 sin sin (42)
23

Fig. 10: Friction angle consolidation stress diagram and shear stress - normal stress diagram to show the
correlation between the cohesive stationary yield locus [40] as envelope of all Mohr circles for steady-
state flow and the cohesionless effective yield locus according to Jenike [8]. Using the practical hopper
design method, the latter is necessary for the calculation of flow factor ff ) ), ( (
W 1 e
[8, 24, 90] and
effective wall stress , Eq. (65), with respect to the radial stress field during discharging, see chapter 3.
The termination locus [21, 29] is an auxiliary line to the end point of yield locus, or approximately, to
the centre of end Mohr circle and describes only the cohesionless steady-state flow in agreement with
normality and co-axiality of shear zone and geometrical plane of shear cell. Both effective yield and ter-
mination loci are directly dependent on stress history, Eq. (44).
'
1

The centre stress
M,st
can be replaced by the major principle stress
1
during steady-state flow
st
st 0 1
st , M
sin 1
sin
+

= , (43)
and one obtains
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
= =
0 st 1
0 1
st e
sin
sin tan sin (44)
24
which is in accordance with the daily experimental experience in shear testing, Fig. 10 upper
diagram [43]. If the major principal stress
1
reaches the stationary uniaxial compressive
strength
c,st
, Fig. 10 diagram below,
st
0 st
st , c 1
sin 1
sin 2


= = (45)
the effective angle of internal friction amounts to
e
= 90 and for
1
follows
e

st
.
In soil mechanics [86] an effective angle of friction is used as slope of an auxiliary line which
connects the preshear points of yield loci
pre
, or approximately, the maxima of end Mohr circles
at
M,st
. This so-called termination locus [21, 29] is directly dependent on stress history and
describes only the cohesionless steady-state flow.


Fig. 11: Combination of shear force displacement diagram with shear stress normal stress diagram to
obtain the shear points. The shear cell testing technique with pre-consolidation (twisting), consolidation
by preshear as far as steady-state flow, shear and incipient yield is also included. The testing technique
for any yield locus j is as follows: The cell is filled with a fresh sample, loaded by a comparatively large
normal stress
V
(1) and pre-consolidated by twisting the cover. Than a smaller normal stress
pre
<
V
(2)
for preshear is applied. The cell is presheared as far as the steady-state flow (3) is obtained for a constant
volume dV = 0 of the shear zone. Than the cell is unloaded and loaded by a smaller normal stress <
pre

(4) for preshear is applied on the shear cover. The cell is sheared to the peak stress (5) is obtained for a
expanding volume dV > 0 of the shear zone. The shear zone relaxes to steady-state flow at the given
small normal stress level and unloaded to = 0 (4). The cell is weighed, opened and the shear zone is
observed to evaluate it as a suitable good test. All these steps (1) (5) are repeated n-times (generally 2 x
4) for fresh and identically prepared powder samples.
25
2.3.3 Incipient yield
To combine the angle of internal friction
i
for incipient contact failure (slope of yield locus)
with the stationary angle of internal friction
st
following relation is used [22, 47]:
( )
i st
tan 1 tan + = (46)
The softer the particle contacts, the larger are the differences between these friction angles and
consequently, the more cohesive is the powder response.
The instantaneous yield locus describes the limit of incipient plastic powder deformation or
yield. A linear yield locus, Fig. 11, is obtained from resolution of a general square function [47],
is simply to use (
M,st
,
R,st
centre and radius of Mohr circle for steady-state flow as parameter of
powder pre-consolidation):
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

+ = + =
st , M
i
st , R
i Z i
sin
tan tan (47)
It is worth to note here that only the isostatic tensile strength
Z
for incipient yield depends di-
rectly on the consolidation pre-history and is given by:
0
i
st
st , M
i
st
st , M
i
st , R
Z
sin
sin
1
sin
sin
sin

+
|
|
.
|

\
|

= (48)
The smaller a radius stress for pre-consolidation
VR
<
R,st
, the larger is the centre stress
VM
>

M,st
right of largest Mohr circle for steady-state flow in Fig. 11, and the smaller can be the pow-
der tensile strength
Z
.


Fig. 12: Shear stress - normal stress diagram of yield loci (YL) and stationary yield locus (SYL) of lime-
stone powder, straight line regression fit 0.98, d
50
= 1.2 m, solid density
s
= 2740 kg/m
3
, shear rate v
S

= 2 mm/min, surface moisture X
W
= 0.5 %.
26
2.3.4 Incipient consolidation
The consolidation locus represents the envelope of all Mohr circles for consolidation stresses,
i.e. the radius
VR
and centre
VM
stresses between the Mohr circle for steady-state flow and the
isostatic stress
iso
, Fig. 12. Provided that the particle contact failure is equivalent to that be-
tween incipient powder flow and consolidation, one can write for a linear consolidation locus
with negative slope -sin
i
which is symmetrically with the linear yield locus, Eq. (52):
) ( sin
iso VM i VR
+ = (49)
Due to this symmetry between yield and consolidation locus, one can directly estimate the
isostatic powder compression
1
=
2
=
VM
=
iso
from Fig. 8 for the radius stress
VR
= 0:
0
i
st
st , M
i
st
st , M
i
st , R
Z st , M iso
sin
sin
1
sin
sin
sin
2

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

= +

= + = (50)
2.3.5 The three flow parameters
Generally, when we use these radius
R
and centre stresses
M
, the essential flow parameters are
compiled as one set of linear constitutive equations, i.e. for instantaneous consolidation, the con-
solidation locus (CL),
( )
st , R st , M M i R
sin + + = , (51)
for incipient yield, the yield locus (YL),
( )
st , R st , M M i R
sin + = (52)
and for steady-state flow, the stationary yield locus (SYL):
( )
0 st , M st st , R
sin + = (38)
These yield functions are completely described only with three material parameters plus the
characteristic pre-consolidation stress
M,st
or average pressure influence, see Tomas [47]:
(1)
i
incipient particle friction of failing contacts, i.e. Coulomb friction;
(2)
st
steady-state particle friction of failing contacts, increasing adhesion by means of flat-
tening of contact expressed with the contact consolidation coefficient , or by friction an-
gles (
i st
sin sin ) as shown in the next Eqs. (53) and (54). The softer the particle con-
tacts, the larger are the difference between these friction angles the more cohesive is the
powder;
(3)
0
extrapolated isostatic tensile strength of unconsolidated particle contacts without any
contact deformation, equals a characteristic cohesion force in an unconsolidated powder;
(4)
M,st
previous consolidation influence of an additional normal force at particle contact,
characteristic centre stress of Mohr circle of pre-consolidation state directly related to
powder bulk density. This average pressure influences the increasing isostatic tensile
strength of yield loci via the cohesive steady-state flow as the stress history of the powder.
27
2.3.6 Consolidation functions
These physically based flow parameters are necessary to derive the uniaxial compressive
strength
c
which is simply found from the linear yield locus, Eq. (52) and Fig. 11, for
c
= 2
.

R

(
2
= 0 and
R
=
M
) as a linear function of the major principal stress
1
, Fig. 13, [43]:
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
0 , c 1 1 0
i st
i st
1
i st
i st
c
a
sin 1 sin 1
sin 1 sin 2
sin 1 sin 1
sin sin 2
+ =
+
+
+
+

= (53)
Equivalent to this linear function of the major principal stress
1
and using again Eq. (52), the
absolute value of the uniaxial tensile strength
Z,1
is also found for
Z,1
= 2
.

R
(
1
= 0 and
R
= -

M
):
( )
( ) ( )
0 1 1 ,
sin 1
sin 2
sin 1 sin 1
sin sin 2

+

+
+ +

=
st
st
i st
i st
Z
(54)


Fig. 13. Powder strength - consolidation stress diagram of constitutive consolidation functions of lime-
stone, straight line regression fit = 0.98, median particle size d
50
= 1.2 m, surface moisture X
W
= 0.5 %
accurately analysed by Karl Fischer titration. Additional flow properties according to the basic Eqs. (53)
and (54) are the averaged angle of internal friction
i
= 37, stationary angle of internal friction
i
= 43,
isostatic tensile strength of the unconsolidated powder
0
= 0.65 kPa.
28
Both flow parameters
c
and
Z,1
depend on the pre-consolidation level of the shear zone which
is expressed by the applied consolidation stress for steady-state flow
1
. A considerable time
consolidation under this major principal stress
1
after one day storage at rest is also shown in
Fig. 13. Equivalent linear functions are also used to describe these time consolidation effects
[40-47].
2.4 Powder consolidation and compression functions
These comfortable models of yield surface are easy to handle and to describe the consolidation
and compression behaviours of cohesive and compressible powders on physical basis [45, 104].
2.4.1 Powder Flowability
In order to assess the flow behaviour of a powder, Eq. (53) shows that the flow function due to
Jenike [7, 8] ff
c 1 c
/ = is not constant and depends on the pre-consolidation level
1
. Ap-
proximately, one can write for a small intercept with the ordinate
c,0
, Fig. 13, the stationary
angle of internal friction is equivalent to the effective angle
st

e
and Jenikes [8] formula is
obtained:
( ) (
( )
)
i e
i e
c
sin sin 2
sin 1 sin 1
ff

+
(55)
Thus, the semi-empirical classification by means of the flow function introduced by Jenike [8] is
adopted here with considerations for certain particle behaviour, Table 2:

Table 2: Flowability assessment and elastic-plastic contact consolidation coefficient (
i
= 30)
flow function ff
c
-values
st
in deg evaluation Examples
100 - 10 0.01006 0.107 30.3 - 33 free flowing dry fine sand
4 - 10 0.107 0.3 33 37 easy flowing moist fine sand
2 - 4 0.3 0.77 37 46 cohesive dry powder
1 - 2 0.77 - 46 90 very cohesive moist powder
< 1 - non flowing moist powder

Obviously, the flow behaviour is mainly influenced by the difference between the friction an-
gles, Eq. (55), as a measure for the adhesion force slope in the general linear particle contact
constitutive model, Eq. (22). Thus one can directly correlate with flow function ff
c
[47]:
( )
1
sin 1 ff 2
sin ) 1 ff 2 ( 1
1
1
sin 1 ff 2 tan
sin ) 1 ff 2 ( 1
2
i c
i c
i c i
i c

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+

+
+
= (56)
A characteristic value = 0.3 for
i
= 30 of a cohesive powder is included in the adhesion force
diagram, Fig. 5, and shows directly the correlation between strength and force increasing with
pre-consolidation, Table 2. Due to the consolidation function, a small slope designates a free
29
flowing particulate solid with very low adhesion level because of stiff particle contacts but a
large slope implies a very cohesive powder flow behaviour because of soft particle contacts, Fig.
13. Obviously, the finer the particles the softer are the contacts and the more cohesive is the
powder [40, 43]. Khler [88] has experimentally confirmed this thesis for alumina powders (-
Al
2
O
3
) down to the sub-micron range (
c,0
const.= 2 kPa, d
50
median particle size in m):
62 . 0
50 c
d 2 . 2 ff (57)
2.4.2 Powder Compressibility
A survey of uniaxial compression equations was given by Kawakita [89]. Thus in terms of a
moderate cohesive powder compression, to draw an analogy to the adiabatic gas law
, a differential equation for isentropic compressibility of a powder dS = 0, i.e.
remaining stochastic homogeneous (random) packing without a regular order in the continuum,
is derived, beginning with:
. const V p
ad
=

0 st , M
st , M
b
b
d
n
p
dp
n
d
+

= =

(58)
The total pressure including particle interaction p =
M,st
+
0
should be equivalent to a pressure
term with molecular interaction ( ) ( ) T R b V V / a p
m
2
m VdW
= + in van der Waals equation of
state to be valid near gas condensation point. A condensed loose powder packing is obtained

b
=
b,0
, if only particles are interacting without an external consolidation stress
M,st
= 0, e.g.
particle weight compensation by a fluid drag, and Eq. (58) is solved:
n
0
st , M 0
0 , b
b
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
=

(59)
Therefore, this physically based compressibility index n 1/
ad
lies between n = 0, i.e. incom-
pressible stiff bulk material and n = 1, i.e. ideal gas compressibility. Considering the predomi-
nant plastic particle contact deformation in the stochastic homogeneous packing of a cohesive
powder, following values of compressibility index are recommended in Table 3:

Table 3: Compressibility index of powders, semi-empirical estimation for
1
= 1 100 kPa
index n evaluation examples flowability
0 0.01 incompressible gravel
0.01 0.05 low compressibility fine sand
free flowing
0.05 - 0.1 compressible dry powder cohesive
0.1 - 1 very compressible moist powder very cohesive

Our limestone powder shows a compressible behaviour with the index n = 0.051 (
b,0
= 720
kg/m). Both functions are shown in Fig. 14. Obviously, for the loose packing near the origin

M,st
= -
0
, the compression rate (slope of bulk density) is maximum by particle rearrangement
and incipient contact deformations, Fig. 14 dashed line.
30
2.4.3 Powder compression and preshear work
The mass related or specific compression work W
m,b
of a cohesive powder is obtained by an ad-
ditional integration of the reciprocal compression function Eq. (59) for n 1:
( )
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

=


=

1 1
n 1
n
d
n W
n 1
0
st , M
0 , b
0
0 st , M b
st , M
b , m
st , M
(60)

Fig. 14. Bulk density centre stress diagram of compression function and compression rate of limestone
powder according to Eqs. (58) and (59), curve regression fit = 0.94, median particle size d
50
= 1.2 m,
surface moisture X
W
= 0.5 %.

It describes the correlation between the external work (lower limit
M,st
= 0) as the function of
average pressure for steady-state flow
M,st
only for compression.
The specific compression work starts at the origin, Fig. 15, and comprises only the contribution
of normal and shear stresses for pre-consolidation up to the bulk density for stationary flow
within the shear zone of height h
Sz
. Additionally, the energy input during this steady-state flow
for constant bulk density
b
of shear zone is obtained as (
Sz pre pre
h / s = preshear distortion, s
pre

preshear displacement):
( )
n 1
0
st , M
0 , b
0
Sz
st pre
0
pre pre pre
b
pre , b , m
1
h 2
2 sin s
d
1
W
pre

|
|
.
|

\
|

=

(61)
To compare this energy consumption in handling practice, e.g. W
mb,pre
= 2 J/kg is equivalent to
the specific kinetic energy of a shear rate of v
S,eq
= 2 m/s, see Fig. 15,
s / m 2 kg / J 2 2 W 2 v
pre , b , m eq , S
= = = (62)
31
and to a lift height of bulk powder H
b
= 0.2 m of the equivalent potential energy:
m 2 . 0
s / m 81 . 9
kg / J 2
g
W
H
2
pre , b , m
b
= = (63)
From the specific preshear work, Eq. (61), we can derive the mass related power consumption of
steady-state flow (v
S
= ds
pre
/dt preshear rate):
n 1
0
st , M
0 , b
0
Sz
st S
pre , b , m
pre , b , m
1
h 2
2 sin v
dt
dW
P

|
|
.
|

\
|

= = (64)


Fig. 15: Specific work centre stress diagram of mass related preshear and compression work and mass
related power consumption of limestone powder according to Eqs. (60), (61) and (64), curve fit = 0.97,
median particle size d
50
= 1.2 m, surface moisture X
W
= 0.5 %. The mass related preshear work is essen-
tially larger than the specific work which is necessary to compress the powder.

This work or power input is converted into inelastic contact deformations, lattice dislocations at
surfaces, heat dissipation, particle asperity abrasion or particle-wall abrasion and micro-cracking
up to particle breakage. For example, this should be considered to evaluate problems with fugi-
tive dust during handling.
Generally, the influence of micro-properties as particle contact stiffness on the macro-behaviour
as powder flow properties, i.e. cohesion, flowability and compressibility, is shown in Fig. 16.
Increasing contact compliance determine decreasing slope of the elastic-plastic yield boundary
(limit) and increasing inclination of the adhesion boundary or limit. As the result, the slope of
the normal force-adhesion force function increases. Next, the difference between the stationary
angle and angle of internal friction of the powder becomes larger. Consequently, the slope of the
powder consolidation function increases and the powder is more compressible, Fig. 16.

32

Fig. 16: Characteristic constitutive functions of stiff and compliant particle contact behaviours, free flow-
ing and cohesive powder behaviours, and finally, stiff incompressible and soft compressible powders
[45]:
a) Force - displacement diagram of characteristic contact deformation according to Fig. 4,
b) Adhesion force - normal force diagram of particle contact forces according to Fig. 5,
c) Shear stress normal stress diagram of yield and consolidation loci (YL, CL) and stationary yield
locus (SYL) according to Fig. 12,
d) Powder strength - consolidation stress diagram of consolidation functions acc. to Fig. 13,
e) Radius stress centre stress diagram of yield and consolidation loci (YL, CL) and stationary yield
locus (SYL) according to Eqs. (38), (51) and (52),
f) Bulk density - consolidation stress diagram of compression function according to the following Fig.
17 above panel.
33
3. DESIGN CONSEQUENCES FOR RELIABLE FLOW
Mainly for functional silo design purposes in Mechanical Process Engineering, these funda-
mental models can be applied by means of a characteristic apparatus dimension function, here a
minimum hopper opening width b
min,t
avoiding cohesive powder arches. The effective wall stress
of an arch or bridge is calculated with the dimensionless flow factor ff according to Jenike [8]:
ff
1 '
1

= (65)
The prime () denotes an effective stress. This effective wall stress
1
of the cohesive bridge has
to be larger than the uniaxial compressive strength
c
. Than the desired bridge failure condition
is obtained by Eqs. (53) and (65):
ff a 1
1
0 , c
crit , c
'
1

= , (66)
and finally for the outlet width b b
min
:
( )
( ) ff a 1 g
2 sin ) 1 m (
b
1 b
W 0 , c
min

+ +
= (67)
Inserting the coefficients a
1
and
c,0
, the hopper opening width b
min
is calculated (g gravitational
acceleration, m = 1 conical hopper, m = 0 wedge hopper,
W
angle of wall friction, hopper
angle versus vertical,
b
bulk density):
( ) ( )
( ) ( | )| 1 ff 2 sin sin sin sin 1 g
sin sin 1 2 sin ) 1 m ( 2
b
i st i st b
0 st i W
min

+ + +
= (68)
The essential consolidation functions necessary for reliable design are provided in Fig. 17. For
the cohesive steady-state flow
1
=
c,st
, Fig. 8 and Eq. (45), the flow factor is ff = 1 and a mini-
mum outlet width b
min,st
< b
min
(instantaneous flow) is obtained which prevents bridging during
the stationary hopper operation:
( )
( )
st b
0 st W
st min,
sin 1 g
sin 2 sin ) 1 m ( 2
b

+ +
= (69)
As starting value, b
min,st
should be used for numerical calculation of both functions
e
(
1
) and

b
(
1
) as well as the flow factor ) ), ( ( ff
W 1 e
[7, 8, 24, 90]. However, the hopper angle
has to be properly pre-selected for a cone or wedge [7, 91]: ) ), ( (
W 1 e

(

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|



e
W
w
e
e
cone
sin
sin
arcsin
sin 2
sin 1
arccos 180
2
1
(70)
( )
(

+


(

|
.
|

\
|

+
e
W e
wedge
06 . 0 exp 131 . 0 3 . 42
1
73 . 7
50
arctan
7 . 15
1
5 . 60
2
1
(71)
34

Fig. 17. Consolidation functions of a cohesive powder for the purpose of hopper design for reliable flow.
The compression function
b
(
1
) Eq. (59) with Eq. (43), the effective angle of internal friction
e
(
1
) Eq.
(44) and the uniaxial compressive strength
c
(
1
) Eq. (53) are necessary to calculate numerically the
minimum outlet width b
min
according to Eq. (67).

For the cohesive limestone powder (d
50,3
= 1.2 m,
0
= 0.65 kPa,
b
770 kg/m
3
, friction an-
gles
i
= 37,
st
= 43,
W
= 30, maximum hopper angle 13 and flow factor ff 1.3) prac-
tically reasonable, minimum outlet width b
min,st
= 0.74 m for steady-state flow, Eq. (69), but b
min

35
= 0.81 m for incipient yield, Eq. (68), and incredible b
min,t
= 4.4 m after time consolidation at rest
t = 24 h are determined for a conical hopper to ensure mass flow driven by gravitation without
any flow promotion. This example should express the enormous problems concerning reliable,
gravitational flow of powders which are prone to time consolidation, hardening and caking. Con-
sequently, various discharging aids should be applied in handling practice [12, 40, 96].
This conservative design method using linear consolidation function
c
(
1
), Eq. (53), is practi-
cally preferred when the particle properties of the powder are expected to change gradually dur-
ing a certain processing period. Both, shear test results - accurate measurements provided -
evaluated with these combined particle and continuum mechanical approach, has been used as
constitutive functions for computer aided silo design for reliable flow for more than 20 years
[40].
Also a supplemented slice-element standard method [92] is used for pressure calculations [93,
94]. Considering the reliable physical basis of the
b
(
1
) and
e
(
1
) functions for example, these
can be suitably extrapolated using pressure calculations for large silos with more than 1000 m
3

storage capacity [94].
4. CONCLUSIONS
A complete set of physically based equations for steady-state flow, incipient powder consolida-
tion and yielding, compressibility and flowability has been shown. Using this, the yield surfaces
due to theory of plasticity may be described with very simple linear expressions:
( )
( )
( )

+
+

= =
) CL ( locus ion consolidat
) SYL ( locus yield stationary
) YL ( locus yield
sin
sin
sin
0
st , R st , M M i R
0 st , M st st , R
st , R st , M M i R
CL , SYL , YL
(72)
The consolidation and yield loci and the stationary yield locus are completely described only
with three material parameters, i.e., angle of internal friction
i
, stationary angle of internal fric-
tion
st
, isostatic tensile strength of an unconsolidated powder
0
plus the characteristic pre-con-
solidation (average pressure) influence
M,st
. The compressibility index n as an additional consti-
tutive bulk powder parameter was introduced and the classification 0 n < 1 recommended. A
direct correlation between flow function ff
c
and elastic-plastic contact consolidation coefficient
was derived.
This approach has been used to evaluate the powder flow properties concerning various particle
size distributions (nanoparticles to granules), moisture contents (dry, moist and wet) and material
properties (minerals, chemicals, pigments, waste, plastics, food etc.), which have been tested and
evaluated for more than the last 20 years [40]. Thus, these models are directly applied to evaluate
the test data of a new oscillating shear cell [95, 96, 97] and a press-shear-cell in the high-level
pressure range from 50 to 2000 kPa for liquid saturated, compressible filter cakes [98, 99, 100]
and for dry powders [101]. Additionally, the force displacement behaviour during stressing and
the breakage probability, especially at conveying and handling, are useful constitutive functions
36
to describe the mechanics of granules to assess the physical product quality [80]. These contact
models are also needed to simulate the shear dynamics of cohesive powders using the discrete
element method (DEM) and to calibrate these simulations by shear cell measurements [102].
Detectable mechanoluminescence effects during intensive shear stressing of high-disperse parti-
cles are also related to these fundamentals [103].
The influence of particle surface properties, e.g. as contact stiffness, on the powder flow proper-
ties can be directly interpreted, Fig. 16, and practically used to design stress resistant, dust-free,
free flowing and non-caking particulate products in process industries [1, 2, 3, 104, 105].

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge his co-workers Dr. S. Aman, Dr. T. Grger, Dr. W. Hintz,
Dr. Th. Kollmann and Dr. B. Reichmann for providing relevant information and theoretical tips.
The advises from H.-J. Butt [106] and S. Luding [107] with respect to the fundamentals of parti-
cle and powder mechanics were especially appreciated during the collaboration of the project
shear dynamics of cohesive, fine-disperse particle systems of the joint research program Be-
haviour of Granular Media of German Research Association (DFG).
37
6. SYMBOLS
a nm molecular separation
A m area
A
K
nm particle contact area
b m hopper outlet width to avoid bridging
C
H,sls
J Hamaker constant according to Lifshitz [71]
d m particle size
E kN/mm modulus of elasticity
ff - flow factor according to Jenike [8]
ff
c
- flow function according to Jenike [8]
F N force
G kN/mm shear modulus
h mm height of sample
H
b
m lift height
h
K
nm total contact or indentation height (overlapp of spheres)
K
h
&

nm/h indentation rate
h
Sz
mm characteristic height of shear zone
p kPa pressure
p
f
MPa plastic yield strength of particle contact
P
m
W/kg mass related power input
r nm radius
s mm shear displacement
v
S
m/s preshear rate
W
m
J/kg mass related work
- preshear distortion
nm tangential contact displacement
- porosity

V
- volumetric strain

K
Pa
.
s apparent contact viscosity
deg hopper angle
- elastic-plastic contact consolidation coefficient

A
- elastic-plastic contact area coefficient

p
- plastic contact repulsion coefficient
- Poisson ratio

e
deg effective angle of internal friction according to Jenike [8]

i
deg angle of internal friction

st
deg stationary angle of internal friction

W
deg kinematic angle of wall friction
kg/m density
38
kPa normal stress

iso
kPa isostatic normal stress

M,st
kPa centre stress for steady-state flow

R,st
kPa radius stress for steady-state flow

1
kPa major principal stress for steady-state flow

2
kPa minor principal stress for steady-state flow

0
kPa isostatic tensile strength
kPa shear stress
7. INDICES
b bulk
c compressive
K total contact
e effective
el elastic
eq equivalent
H adhesion
i internal
l liquid
M centre of Mohr circle
N normal
pl plastic
pre preshear
R radius of Mohr circle
s solid
sls solid-liquid-solid
st stationary
Sz shear zone
t time dependent
V pre-consolidation
VdW van der Waals
vis viscoplastic
W wall
Z tensile
0 initial, zero point

39
8. REFERENCES
[1] Rumpf H (1974) Die Wissenschaft des Agglomerierens, Chem.- Ing.- Technik 46 pp 1-
11
[2] Schubert H (1979) Grundlagen des Agglomerierens, Chem.- Ing.- Technik 51 pp 266-
277
[3] Borho K, Polke R, Wintermantel K, Schubert H and Sommer K (1991) Produkteigen-
schaften und Verfahrenstechnik, Chem.- Ing.- Technik 63 pp 792-808
[4] Kalman H (2002) Particle Technology in the Chemical Industry, Verfahrenstechnisches
Kolloquium, Magdeburg
[5] Ziegler F (1885) Technische Mechanik der festen und flssigen Krper, Springer Ver-
lag, Wien
[6] Gldener H (1992) Lehrbuch hhere Festigkeitslehre, Vol. 1 and 2, Fachbuchverlag,
Leipzig
[7] Jenike A W (1961) Gravity flow of solids, Engng. Exp. Station, Bull. No. 108, Univ.
Utah
[8] Jenike A W (1964) Storage and flow of solids, Engng. Exp. Station, Bull. No. 123,
Univ. Utah
[9] Schwedes J (1970) Flieverhalten von Schttgtern in Bunkern, Verlag Chemie, Wein-
heim
[10] Schwedes J and Wilms H (1988) Flieeigenschaften von Schttgtern, pp 39-57, in
Martens P (Ed.) Silo - Handbuch, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin
[11] Schwedes J and Schulze D (1990) Measurement of flow properties of bulk solids, Pow-
der Technology 61 pp 59-68
[12] Schwedes J and Schulze D (2003) Lagern von Schttgtern, pp 1137-1253, in Schubert
H (Ed.) Handbuch der Mechanischen Verfahrenstechnik, Whiley-VCH, Weinheim
[13] Ashton M D, Cheng D C D, Farley R and Valentin F H H (1965) Some investigations
into the strength and flow of powders, Rheolog. Acta 4 pp 206-218
[14] Cheng D C H (1968) The tensile strength of powders, Chem. Engng. Sci. 23 pp 1405-
1420
[15] Stainforth P T and Ashley R C (1973) An analytical hopper design method for cohesive
powders, Powder Technology 7 pp 215-243
[16] Stainforth P T and Berry R E R (1973) A general flowability index for powders, Pow-
der Technology 8 pp 243-251
[17] Stainforth P T, Ashley R C and Morley J N B (1971) Computer analysis of powder flow
characteristics, Powder Technology 4 pp 250-256
[18] Williams J C and Birks A H (1967) The comparison of the failure measurements of
powders with theory, Powder Technology 1 pp 199-206
[19] Birks A H (1990) The definition of two extreme types of bulk solids and their effect of
stress distribution in the vertical section of silos, powder handling & processing 3 pp
141-146
[20] Birks A H, Berry R J and Bradley M S A (2003) Comparison of three analysis proce-
dures on different shear cell data using BCR limestone, part 1: The analyses of Jenike
shear cell data pp 5.37-5.42, in Kalman H and Gyenis J (Eds.) The 4
th
Conference for
Conveying and Handling of Particulate Solids, Budapest
[21] Tzn U (1987) Effects of Consolidation and Yield History on the Measured Angles of
Friction of Particulate Solids, pp 38-62, in Briscoe B J and Adams M J (Eds.) Tribology
in Particulate Technology, Adam Hilger, Bristol and Philadelphia
[22] Molerus O (1975) Theory of yield of cohesive powders, Powder Technology 12 pp 259-
275
[23] Molerus O (1978) Effect of interparticle cohesive forces on the flow behaviour of pow-
40
ders, Powder Technology 20 pp 161-175
[24] Molerus O (1985) Schttgutmechanik - Grundlagen und Anwendungen in der Verfah-
renstechnik, Springer Verlag, Berlin
[25] Molerus O (1993) Principles of Flow in Disperse Systems, Chapman & Hall, London
[26] Rowe P W (1962) The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of
particles in contact, Proc. Royal Soc. A 269 pp 500-527
[27] Horne M R (1969) The behaviour of an assembly of rotund, rigid, cohesionless parti-
cles, Proc. Royal Soc. A 286 part I pp 62-78 and part II pp 79-97; part III 360 pp 21-34
[28] Nedderman R M, Tzn U, Savage S B and Houlsby S T (1982/3) The flow of granular
materials - I Discharge rates from hoppers, Chem. Engng. Sci. 37 pp 1597-1609; - II
Velocity distributions in slow flow, Chem. Engng. Sci. 37 pp 1691-1709; - III Rapid
shear flow, Chem. Engng. Sci. 38 pp 189-195
[29] Nedderman R M (1992) Statics and kinematics of granular materials, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press
[30] Satake M and Jenkins J T (1988) Micromechanics of granular materials, Elsevier Sc.
Publ., Amsterdam
[31] Savage S B (1998) Analyses of slow high-concentration flows of granular materials, J.
Fluid Mech. 377 pp 1-26
[32] Tardos G I (1997) A fluid mechanistic approach to slow, frictional flow of powders,
Powder Technology 92 pp 61-74
[33] Tardos G I (2003) Slow and intermediate flow of a frictional bulk powder in the Couette
geometry, Powder Technology 131 pp 23-39
[34] Cundall P A and Strack O D L (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular assem-
blies, Geotechnique 29 pp 47-65
[35] Campbell C S (1990) Rapid granular flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 22 pp 22-57
[36] Campbell C S (2002) Granular shear flows at the elastic limit, J. Fluid Mech. 465 pp
261-291
[37] Walton O R (1993) Numerical simulation of inclined chute flows of monodisperse, ine-
lastic, frictional spheres, Mech. Mater. 16 pp 239-247
[38] Walton O R (1993) Numerical simulation of inelastic frictional particle-particle interac-
tions, pp 913-950, Butterworth-Heinemann Series in Chem. Engng., Boston
[39] Herrmann H J and Luding S (1998) Modelling granular media on the computer, Contin-
uum Mechanics and Thermodynamics 10 pp 189-231
[40] Tomas J (1991) Modellierung des Flieverhaltens von Schttgtern auf der Grundlage
der Wechselwirkungskrfte zwischen den Partikeln und Anwendung bei der Auslegung
von Bunkeranlagen, Habilitation, Bergakademie Freiberg
[41] Tomas J (1996) Zum Verfestigungsproze von Schttgtern - Mikroprozesse, Kinetik-
modelle und Anwendungen, Schttgut 2 pp 31-51
[42] Tomas J (2000) Particle Adhesion Fundamentals and Bulk Powder Consolidation,
powder handling & processing 12 pp 131-138
[43] Tomas J (2000) Particle Adhesion Fundamentals and Bulk Powder Consolidation,
KONA Powder and Particle 18 pp 157-169
[44] Tomas J (2001) Assessment of mechanical properties of cohesive particulate solids
part 1: particle contact constitutive model, Particulate Sci. & Technology 19 pp 95-110
[45] Tomas J (2002) Zur Mechanik trockener kohsiver Schttgter, Schttgut 8 pp 522-537
[46] Tomas J (2003) Mechanics of Nanoparticle Adhesion a Continuum Approach, in Mit-
tal K L (Ed.) Proceedings of the 8th Intern. Symp. on Particles on Surfaces: Detection,
Adhesion and Removal, Providence 2002, (in print)
[47] Tomas J (2001) Assessment of mechanical properties of cohesive particulate solids
part 2: powder flow criteria, Particulate Science & Technology 19 pp 111-129
[48] Thornton C (1997) Force transmission in granular media, KONA Powder and Particle
15 pp 81-90
41
[49] Hertz H (1882) ber die Berhrung fester elastischer Krper, J. reine u. angew. Math.
92 pp 156-171
[50] Huber M T (1904) Zur Theorie der Berhrung fester elastischer Krper, Annal. Physik
14 pp 153-163
[51] Cattaneo C (1938) Sul contatto di due corpi elastici: distributione locale degli sforci,
Academia Nationale dei Lincei, Rendiconti, Serie 6, pp 342-348, pp 434-436, pp 474-
478, in (53)
[52] Mindlin R D (1949) Compliance of elastic bodies in contact, J. Appl. Mech., Trans.
ASME 16 pp 259-267
[53] Mindlin R D and Deresiewicz H (1953) Elastic spheres in contact under varying oblique
forces, J. Appl. Mech., Trans. ASME 20 pp 327-344
[54] Greenwood J A and Williamson J B P Contact of nominally flat surfaces (1966) Proc.
Roy. Soc. Lond. A 295 pp 300-319
[55] Dahneke B (1972) The influence of flattening on the adhesion of particles, J. Colloid
and Interface Sci. 40 pp 1-13
[56] Derjaguin, B V (1934) Untersuchung ber die Reibung und Adhsion, IV Theorie des
Anhaftens kleiner Teilchen, Kolloid Zeitschr. 69 pp 155-164
[57] Derjaguin B V, Muller V M and Toporov U P (1975) Effect of contact deformations on
the adhesion of particles, J. Colloid and Interface Sci. 53 pp 314-326
[58] Johnson K L (1985) Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press
[59] Thornton C and Yin K K (1991) Impact of elastic spheres with and without adhesion,
Powder Technology 65 pp 153-166
[60] Thornton C (1991) Interparticle sliding in the presence of adhesion, J. Phys. D: Appl.
Phys. 24 pp 1942-1946
[61] Sadd M H, Tai Q and Shukla A (1993) Contact law effects on wave propagation in par-
ticulate materials using distinct element modelling, Int. J. Non-Linear Mechanics 28 pp
251-265
[62] Krupp H (1967) Particle Adhesion Theory and Experiment, Adv. in Colloid Interface
Sci. 1 pp 111-239
[63] Schubert H, Sommer K and Rumpf H (1976) Plastisches Verformen des Kontaktberei-
ches bei der Partikelhaftung, Chem.-Ing.-Technik 48 pp 716
[64] Maugis D and Pollock H M (1984) Surface forces, deformation and adherence at metal
microcontacts, Acta Metall. 32 pp 1323-1334
[65] Walton O R and Braun R L (1986) Viscosity, granular temperature and stress calcula-
tions for shearing assemblies of inelastic, frictional discs, J. Rheol. 30 pp 949-980
[66] Thornton C and Ning Z (1998) A theoretical model for the stick/bounce behaviour of
adhesive, elastic-plastic spheres, Powder Technology 99 pp 154-162
[67] Wei Hsuin Yang (1966) The contact problem for viscoelastic bodies, J. Appl. Mech.,
Trans. ASME 33 pp 395-401
[68] Rumpf H, Sommer K and Steier K (1976) Mechanismen der Haftkraftverstrkung bei
der Partikelhaftung durch plastisches Verformen, Sintern und viskoelastisches Flieen,
Chem.-Ing.-Tech. 48 pp 300-307
[69] Bradley R S (1932) The cohesive force between solid surfaces and the surface energy of
solids Phil. Mag. 13 pp 853-862
[70] Hamaker H C (1937) The London van der Waals attraction between spherical parti-
cles, Physica 4 pp 1058-1072
[71] Lifshitz E M (1956) The theory of molecular attractive forces between solids Soviet.
Phys. JETP 2 pp 73-83
[72] Israelachvili J N (1992) Intermolecular and surface forces, Academic Press London
[73] Schubert H (1982) Kapillaritt in porsen Feststoffsystemen, Springer Verlag Berlin
[74] Rabinovich Y I, Adler J J, Ata A, Moudgil B M and Singh R K (2000) J. Colloid Inter-
face Sci. 232 pp 10-16
42
[75] Rumpf H (1966) Kriterien zur Beurteilung von Zerkleinerungsaufgaben, Zement-Kalk-
Gips 19 pp 343-353
[76] Schnert K (2003) Bruchvorgnge und Mikroprozesse des Zerkleinerns, pp 183-213, in
Schubert H (Ed.) Handbuch der Mechanischen Verfahrenstechnik, Whiley-VCH, Wein-
heim
[77] Tavares L M and King R P (2002) Modeling of particle fracture by repeated impacts
using continuum damage mechanics, Powder Technology 123 pp 138-146
[78] Schubert, W., Khanal, M. and Tomas, J., Impact crushing of particle-particle com-
pounds Experiment and Simulation, Intern. J. of Mineral Processing (2003) submitted
[79] Beekman W J, Meesters G M H, Becker T, Gaertner A, Gebert M and Scarlett B (2003)
Failure mechanism determination for industrial granules using a repeated compression
test, Powder Technology 130 pp 367-376
[80] Antoniuk S, Tomas J, Heinrich S and Mrl L (2003) Bruchprozesse bei der Druckbean-
spruchung von Granulaten, Chem.- Ing.- Technik 75 submitted
[81] Pitchumani R, Strien S A, Meesters G M H, Schaafsma S H and Scarlett B (2003)
Breakage of sodium benzoate granules under repeated impact conditions, pp 4.116-
4.121, in Kalman H and Gyenis J (Eds.) The 4
th
Conference for Conveying and Hand-
ling of Particulate Solids, Budapest
[82] Kendall K, Alford N McN and Birchall J D (1987) Elasticity of particle assemblies as a
measure of the surface energy of solids, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 412 pp 269-283
[83] Abdel-Ghani M, Petrie J G, Seville J P K and Adams M J (1991) Mechanical properties
of cohesive particulate solids, Powder Technology 65 pp 113-123
[84] Adams M J, McKeown R and Whall A A (1997) micromechanical model for the con-
fined uni-axial compression of an assembly of elastically deforming spherical particles,
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 30 pp 912-920
[85] Medhe M (2002) Studies in anisotropic behaviour of powder flow, unpublished report,
Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg
[86] Frster W (1986) Bodenmechanik - Mechanische Eigenschaften der Lockergesteine,
Lehrbriefe, Bergakademie Freiberg
[87] Tomas J (2001) Characterisation of the rheo-mechanical properties of wet-mass pow-
ders, IFPRI Review, Magdeburg
[88] Khler Th and Schubert H (1990) Influence of particle size distribution on the flow be-
haviour of fine powders, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 8 pp 101-104
[89] Kawakita K and Ldde K-H (1970/71) Some considerations on powder compression
equations, Powder Technology 4 pp 61-68
[90] Arnold P C, McLean A G and Roberts A W (1981) Bulk solids: storage, flow and han-
dling, report, Tunra Bulk Solids Handling Research Associates, Newcastle
[91] Ter Borg L (1986) Einflu des Wandmaterials auf das Auslaufverhalten von Schttg-
tern aus Silos, Chem.-Ing.-Technik 58 pp 588-500
[92] TGL 32 274/09 (1987) German standard, Lasten aus Schttgtern in Bunkern, Flachsi-
los und Silos
[93] Tomas J, Graichen K and Schubert H (1990) Influence of Flow Properties of Particulate
Solids on Silo Pressure Calculation, Aufbereitungs-Technik 31 pp 475-481
[94] Schubert S, Reichmann B and Tomas J (2001) Ermittlung der Schttgutbelastung auf
Bunkerabzugsfrderer, Schttgut 7 pp 33-41
[95] Kollmann Th and Tomas J (2001) The Influence of Vibrations on Flow Properties of
Cohesive Powders, pp 417-427, Int. Conf. Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Trans-
portation, Vol 1, Newcastle
[96] Kollmann Th and Tomas J (2002) Effect of Applied Vibrations on Silo Hopper Design,
Particulate Science & Technology 20 pp 15-31
[97] Haack A and Tomas J (2003) Untersuchungen zum Dmpfungsverhalten hochdisperser
kohsiver Pulver, Chem.- Ing.- Technik 75, submitted
43
[98] Reichmann B and Tomas J (2001) Expression behaviour of fine particle suspensions
and the consolidated cake strength, Powder Technology 121 pp 182-189
[99] Tomas J and Reichmann B (2001) Compression, permeation and flow behaviour of wet
nanoparticle cakes, in-situ tested with a press-shear-cell, Filtech Europa, Vol 1, pp 47-
55, Dsseldorf
[100] Mladenchev T and Tomas J (2003) Flow properties of compressed fine filtercakes, In-
tern. Conf. Filtech Europa 2003, Dsseldorf
[101] Grossmann L, Tomas J and Czke B (2003) Compressibility and flow properties of a
cohesive limestone powder in a medium pressure range, pp 4.20-4.25, in Kalman H and
Gyenis J (Eds.) The 4
th
Conference for Conveying and Handling of Particulate Solids,
Budapest
[102] Tykhoniuk R, Luding S and Tomas J (2003) Simulation der Scherdynamik kohsiver
Pulver, Chem.- Ing.- Technik 75 submitted
[103] Aman S and J Tomas (2003) Mechanoluminescence of quartz particles in stirred media
mill, J. Material Sci. submitted
[104] Tomas J (2003) Zur Produktgestaltung kohsiver Pulver mechanische Eigenschaften,
Kompressions- und Flieverhalten, Chem.- Ing.- Technik 75 pp 651 661
[105] Tomas J (1983) Untersuchungen zum Flieverhalten von feuchten und leichtlslichen
Schttgtern, Freiberger Forschungshefte A 677 pp 1 - 133
[106] Ecke S and Butt H-J (2001) friction between individual microcontacts, J. Colloid Inter-
face Sci. 244 pp 432-435
[107] Luding S and Herrmann H J (2001) Micro - macro transition for cohesive granular me-
dia, pp 121-134, in Diebels S (Ed.) Zur Beschreibung komplexen Materialverhaltens,
Institut fr Mechanik, Stuttgart