Solids Processing

Solid Tips for Project Success

Shrikant Dhodapkar The Dow Chemical Company, USA Lyn Bates Ajax Equipment Ltd. George Klinzing University of Pittsburgh

Material characterization, equipment specifications and contracting issues are key

SINGLE PARTICLE PROPERTIES
Chemical composition Contact angle or wettability Interparticle friction Moisture Particle density (true, skeletal, envelope) Particle hardness Particle shape Particle size and size distribution

rocesses incorporating bulk solids handling are ubiquitous in the chemical process industries (CPI), including the chemical, petrochemical, polymer, biochemical, agricultural chemicals, paints/pigments, energy and power, pulp and paper, and pharmaceutical industries, to name a few. Studies conducted during the past two decades have shown that: More than 50% of products are either sold as solids or have been in solid state during production More than 90% of solids plants in general experience major performance problems Projects processing solids are twice as likely to fail as compared to the industry standard.

Physical properties of material (e.g. elastic modulus, melting point, glass transition temperature of polymers, water of hydration, decomposition temperature, specific heat) Porosity Singe particle strength Surface area Surface texture Toxicity

Common culprits

A number of underlying factors are considered responsible for such widespread failure, namely: 1. Lack of sufficient and reliable material characterization information: Unlike the situation with liquids, where property data has been extensively cataloged, the properties of bulk solids must be determined on a case by case basis because of the multiple, interacting factors usually at play. Also, there is a reluctance to expend up-front powder testing costs. 2. Lack of formal training or education in the field of particle technology: The physics of bulk solids is not intuitive and is fundamentally dissimilar to that for liquids. Knowledge propagated by vendors (suppliers) can be biased. 3. Empiricism in design: Equipment design (basis) is often empirical, and relies heavily on experience, experi32

FIGURE 1. Relationship between single and bulk properties

mentation and standard constructions. This poses problems when the new set of conditions fall outside those of previous experience 4. Validated simulation and calculation tools are not commonly available. 5. Scaleup of solids processes is a major challenge: There is a dearth of research on scaleup. 6. Lack of understanding and appreciation of interactions between various unit operations in a process: The equipment for each of these unit operations is often times multisourced. Lack of communication and collaboration between various vendors is a common problem, and the problem can be particularly severe when solids are being processed.

7. Inappropriate equipment design: The proper choice of process equipment and design specifications (for a given unit operation) are critical. 8. Insufficient accommodation of process upsets: Inability to anticipate the nature of unsteady state or transitions during operation will lead to insufficient process capability. 9. Inadequate attention paid to equipment specification: This detail must be attended to at an early stage in a project. 10. Lack of ownership of the complete process: Buyer and equipment vendor sometimes each expect the other party to be responsible for the integrated plant performance problems. Each of these issued must be ad-

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JULY 2006

BULK MATERIAL PROPERTIES

The handling properties of bulk material can not be predicted from single particle properties. The following bulk properties are most relevant from a handling and characterization perspective: Adhesion (to surfaces) Aeration / deaeration characteristics Angle of internal friction of bulk material Angle of repose (poured, drained, spatula) Angle of slide Blocking or caking tendency Bulk density (loose poured, tapped, aerated, compacted, Hausner ratio) Cohesion (material flowability) Compaction (tablettng) Compressibility (relationship between bulk density and stress) Corrosiveness Drying characteristics and kinetics Dustiness Dust explosion characteristics (minimum ignition energy) Electrostatic charging and decay characteristics Floodability / Flushing characteristics Discharge rate (conical hopper and circular outlet) Fluidization characteristics (Geldart classification, minimum fluidization velocity, minimum bubbling velocity, bed expansion, deaeration characteristics) Friability Grindability (e.g. Hardgrove index, Bond Work Index) Lateral stress ratio (as measured using Odeometer) Permeability Porosity of packed bed at various levels of compaction Shear strength / flow function (measured using shear testers) Shock sensitiveness Sintering characteristics Surface and volume resistivity Tensile strength Toxicity Wall friction (measured using Jenike tester) Wettability (liquid on particle, powder on particle)

More information on measurement of these properties can be found in Svarovsky [1], Allen [2], McGlinchey [3], Woodcock & Mason [4] and other international standards (e.g. ASTM, ISO, British, German, French, Japanese).

BULK HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS

These characteristics depend on equipment and process design in addition to the bulk material properties. Abrasiveness Attrition / Friability Caking or compaction Dust generation (dustiness) Flowability (Arching and rathole dimensions, mass / funnel-flow boundary, feeder load) Pneumatic conveying characteristics o Friction factor, saltation velocity (dilute phase) o Dense phase conveyability, slugging characteristics, stability Segregation tendency

FIGURE 2. A simple process with three unit operations

dressed to increase the success rate of solids processing projects. Of these various factors, we focus on material characterization, equipment specifications and contracting in this article. A previous installment of this series focused on storage, feeding and conveying [5]; and an upcoming one will focus on other factors and misconceptions.

GUIDELINES: TESTING AND CHARACTERIZATION Background

With the proliferation of electronics during the past 30 years, the measurement of single particle properties has advanced so that now, accurate and reproducible values of single particle properties are easy to measure. The ease and availability of instrumentation to secure these measurements results in a propensity to generate such data. These data are rarely usable for design purposes, however, since a predictive relationship between single particle data and bulk properties is difficult to establish (see Figure 1). For commonly measured properties, see Single Particle Properties (p. 32), Bulk Material Properties (this page, top), and Bulk Handling

Characteristics (this page, bottom). Projects that involve handling of bulk solids frequently experience unexpected problems due to the equipment not being able to properly cope with the nature of the bulk material it has to handle. This is often due to the properties of the bulk material falling outside those expected. These surprises usually arise from a failure to anticipate process conditions and to secure relevant characterization data for design purposes. Equipment suppliers (vendors) cannot control or guarantee the homogeneity and consistency of the raw material. Neither can they determine the range of operating conditions that may affect the behavior of a bulk material. It is not reasonable to expect multiple vendors that are competitively bidding for a single contract to each bear the cost of independently measuring the same flow-related values of samples provided by the user. Assuming that representative samples are available for the worst condition of the material that must be accommodated, and that the user knows what will constitute the worst handling condition for the situation in question, this initial

testing data should be collected by a single testing vendor for use by all of the bidding equipment vendors. In this context, there is a clear need for a standard code of practice that outlines basic measurements and agreement on key design data on which a specification is based. The following guidelines are good starting points.

1. Understand the process and basic mechanisms

To shortlist relevant single-particle and bulk-material properties, the underlying physics for each process step (unit operation) and that of the equipment must be taken into account. Let us consider a simple process shown in Figure 2. This process consists of a fluid bed dryer, a pneumatic conveying system and silo storage. The analysis is presented in Table 1. Sequential operations must consider stress history and accumulative effects.

2. Establish the testing purpose

Typical reasons for testing include the following: Registration of a specific property for identification, reference or baseline measurement
33

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JULY 2006

TABLE 1. PROCESS ANALYSIS FOR IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE PARTICLE

AND BULK CHARACTERIZATION

Solids Processing
Value evaluation for sale of bulk material Contractual specification for defining bulk material properties for a storage or handling project or the supply of bulk processing equipment with a guaranteed performance Behavioral evaluation for assessment or prediction of some behavioral aspect in a bulk-storage, handling or process operation Comparison of some properties with a similar or different material, or against a reference source to determine if a better or worse scenario exists Categorization so that the prospective behavior in a production or use operation may be assessed relative to known products or predicted within acceptable bounds Equipment manufacture for the design of hoppers, chutes, other handling equipment and process equipment such as pelletizing, tableting, or roll pressing Identification of phenomena to examine a tendencies to arch, flush, settle to differing densities, adhere to contact surfaces, and so on Indication of the effect of product and process variations to allow sensitivity assessments and set bounds of acceptability for the product condition Quality control to establish standards, monitor production processes, set quality limits, form a data bank, and so on Product research and development to determine bulk handling characteristics during shipment and customer handling Equipment research and development to refine design concepts and performance optimization Fundamental research on the development of powder testing devices and procedures Specification of a bulk material for purchase or sale, multisourcing of raw materials, assessing products with natural variations, monitoring multiple production facilities or imparting longterm standards Troubleshooting for the examination of production problems and process variations and failure analysis
34

Unit operation Fluid bed drying

Underlying physics Fluidization, drying, mixing

Relevant Relevant single particle bulk material properties properties Moisture, particle size, size distribution, shape, density Particle size, size distribution, shape, density Particle size, size distribution, moisture Fluidization characteristics, drying kinetics

Relevant bulk material characteristic Segregation, attrition

Pneumatic conveying (Dilute Phase) Storage in silo

Entrainment in air, particlewall impacts, particle-particle interaction Shear flow, consolidation, cohesion, adhesion

Friability

Conveying characteristics, attrition, abrasiveness Flowability (arching dimension), segregation

Shear strength, wall friction, cohesion, compaction, bulk density, compressibility, floodability, lateral stress ratio

3. Identify the type of tests required

Qualitative versus quantitative tests: Qualitative tests (see box, p. 35) are virtually instantaneous, crude, low-cost tests to give an initial feel about the nature of a new material, give guidance as to potential hazards and show whether further testing is required. Unless these tests produce unmistakable evidence of simple behavior, they are no substitute for properly conducted quantitative tests. For important considerations regarding quantitative tests, see the box, p. 36. Single-particle versus bulk-material property versus bulk-material handling characteristics: Single particle tests are often helpful in explaining differences in bulk behavior of two samples, but the current state of knowledge is insufficient to predict bulk behavior based on single particle properties. To design or troubleshoot a process or piece of equipment, quantitative measurement of bulk material properties is essential. Bulk handling characteristics are typically evaluated as a validation of mechanism or phenomena expected from single particle or bulk material properties. Segregation tendency is a classic example.

GUIDELINES: WRITING EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Each process equipment specification requires its own level of detail. The vendor should be allowed to propose its designs within the constraints of process and performance requirements. Since there can be multiple vendors involved in a given project, it is the responsibility of the process/ project engineer to be aware of the ef-

fect of deviation in performance of one piece of equipment on performance of others. See Figure 3 for illustration of the appropriate roles in this context. Consider including the following line items in equipment specification: 1. Description Equipment type and duty. Do not specify a manufacturer or model number if a competitive bid is being sought. 2. Location: Provide geographic location of installation and relevant information (temperature extremes, seismic zone, altitude, atmospheric dust, noise limitations). 3. Upstream and downstream equipment, interfacing, tie points. Clarify space constraints related to installation. 4. Material properties. Be sure to address the following: Include all relevant bulk properties (see previous section) Include nominal values and (minmax) ranges where applicable Identify method of measurement if critical Verify the units (use SI units for orders outside the U.S.) Avoid abbreviations or acronyms 5. Operating conditions: Define minimum and maximum values of all major operational variables flowrates, temperature, pressure and so on. Identify conditions associated with various failure modes, such as loss of utilities and emergency process shutdown. 6. Design conditions: Design conditions may include additional safety factors over and above the operating conditions. 7. Electrical area classification: Class (I, II and III), division (I, II and

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JULY 2006

TYPICAL QUALITATIVE TESTS

ome simple qualitative tests for characterization are listed here and summarized in Table 2. Snowball test: Pickup a handful of the product and squeeze firmly. If the resultant ball hangs together in a firm shape when the material is released, the material will not flow easily when subjected to pressure and further examination is necessary. Should the material feel light and fluffy during the test and squeeze out between the fingers, repeat the test very slowly with material that has been allowed to settle for some time. Similar results will indicate a tendency to flush. Firm compaction shows a tendency to consolidate over time to a poor flow condition. Flaky, fibrous and elastic materials, such as plastic flakes, sawdust, maize meal and ground cork will freely separate, even after firm compaction, but strongly resist shear in a confined, compacted condition due to the mechanical interference of the particles. This effect can be detected in a Snowball test by the feeling generated that the bulk product locks-together when gripped firmly. Such materials can arch over large outlets in storage hoppers. Further testing or experienced design attention is required to avoid or deal with overpressures acting on such products. Wall adhesion for damp of cohesive materials: Form a snowball of the material as above and press against a face of a material that will be used as a contact surface. If some material sticks, be wary of wall adhesion and progressive build up of product on corners and surfaces exposed to high contact pressure. Cliff test for fine, uniform materials: Pour the material gently through a funnel onto a horizontal surface, noting the repose condition. Cut down the center of the pile with a dividing knife and move one section sideways. If the remaining pile holds a cliff face at the division, poor flow conditions can be expected. If the face instead slumps to a repose angle similar to that of the original surface, it should present no serious flow difficulties. Agitated bottle: Vigorously shake a sealed glass jar that is approximately 75% full of the sample material. Observe if the material remains fluid after holding still a few seconds and how quickly the surface falls to a stable level. If it settles very quickly and the surface consistently forms a similar repose angle each time the surface is tilted slowly back and forth, the material is non-cohesive and should flow well in light compact conditions. If the material takes some time to settle and inverting the container quickly shows the material to hold like a piston in the jar or if cracks appear in the bulk, then expect poor flow conditions after a long period of standing. If the material remains soupy for long period, consider the prospects of the material to be flushing or flooding.

TABLE 2. TYPICAL QUALITATIVE TESTS

Tests Snowball test. Wall stiction Cliff formation Agitated bottle Flung bottle Poured repose Tapped test Hausner ratio Indication Shear strength Wall adhesion Cohesion A tendency to flush A tendency to compact Dilate shear strength Compactability Compressibility

Flung bottle: Agitate and settle material in a jar as above. Swing the jar vigorously a few times to cause the contents to be accelerated against the bottom of the container by centrifugal action. Invert the jar to see if the material holds together or collapses freely. The former indicates that poor flow is likely. Poured repose: The prime value of such a test is to determine the form of the surface profile that will be built up during the filling of a hopper. The inclination of the surface shows the allowance that must be made for ullage, which represents the unfilled region of a hopper around a material inlet point. It does not indicate how the surface will drain as the hopper empties because the pouring condition is essentially loose while the emptying condition is invariably settled and compacted by overpressures on the regions below the surface of the original hopper contents. This test can be used to measure the efficiency of flow-aid additives or lubricants. The material is fed through a coarse screen to drop onto the flat end of a 50-mm-dia. bar until a cone is formed. The angle of the surface to the horizontal is taken as a measure of the shear characteristics of the dilated material, hence its flow when not strongly compacted. Tapped density test: Observe the change in level of material poured in a jar after repetitively tapping for a couple of minutes. Materials that significantly alter in density at these stages are likely to be variable in condition from behaving as a fluid when dilated to exhibiting poor flow properties when settled under consolidating conditions. Note that the test must be performed at the temperature at which the material will be processed in service.

III) and group (A G). Make sure that appropriate references to National Electric Code (NEC) and NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) guidelines are made. For enclosures, NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) or equivalent guidelines must be followed. 8. Utilities: Identify the available utilities in the process area along with limits of consumption. 9. Functional design: Include a short paragraph on operation of the equipment and the duty it is supposed to perform. 10. Material of construction: All surfaces in contact with product, non-contact surfaces, mechanical details, gasket materials 11. Construction details: Welding standard, support methods, critical

dimensions, surface finish, flanges (rating, orientation, location and code), inspection ports, guards and ergonomic guidelines. Make sure that relevant government and industry codes are stipulated. 12. Cleanability and cross-contamination: Provide information on access, wash-down, lockout, ease of assembly and disassembly 13. Dust containment and sealing: Define the level of dust containment required. 14. Dust explosion: Provide data on dust and vapor explosion characteristics, if applicable. 15. Noise level and abatement: Define the method or standard used along with type of noise (constant, intermittent, impulse and variable). 16. Insulation and heat tracing:

Provide specification for insulation and guidance on type of heat tracing (electric versus steam). 17. Controls: Specify preferred make of PLC (if applicable), interface protocol, critical parameters for storage, exchange and alarms. 18. Accessories: List the position switches, speed indicators, ladders, handrails, platforms and grounding. 19. Power transmission: List the motor, bearings and transmission, coupler and driver type (belt, chain, gear), shaft rating, sealing method, type of seals. 20. Tests and inspections: Define exact nature of testing and standards associated at each stage 21. Performance expectation: Define metrics and method of evaluation.
35

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JULY 2006

QUANTITATIVE TEST CONSIDERATIONS

uantitative tests can be performed on single particles or the bulk materials. Various standards (British Standard, ASME, ISO, DIN etc.) have been developed. However, these standards are not all-inclusive. So, many measurements remain equipment specific.

Understand the safety, toxicity, hazards, disposal requirements

Selection criteria

Understand the purpose of the test (see main text). The data required for design must be more complete than those of quality control testing during operation Understand and emulate the underlying mechanism in a process / unit operation Consider the requirement for frequency of testing with complexity of test Evaluate product stability, sample size requirements and hazards associated with handling Check if a single test is sufficient or if multiple tests are required Evaluate the need for adherence to international test standards (ISO, ASTM, German, British etc.)

Make sure that you read and understand the material safety data sheet (MSDS) before handling any new chemical. The vendor must discuss specific toxicology data with the manufacturer where there are concerns. Sample traceability and custody of possession are critical.

Conducting tests

Sampling

Highly accurate test data on incorrect samples will result in irrelevant information. Ask yourself the following questions (for more details, refer to Allen [2]): Is the material condition during testing representative of the material in the process? What is the scale of significance for the sample, and will specific locations, sources, times or process variations produce different values? Is the sample uniform, consistent and stable? Take multiple samples (location and time) to understand variability What is the probable (and realistic) worst-case process condition? What is the history of the sample? Document the chain of custody. Have a robust and traceable procedure for the receipt, authorization, identification, recording, storage and disposal of samples Has the sampling procedure been defined? What is the optimal design of the sampler? What is the variability associated with sampling, and how does that compare with variability due to analytical technique? What is the required sample size for analysis? What is the sample size obtained from the process? How will the sample size be reduced for analysis? What are the critical parameters for product quality? Sample accordingly

Select the right instrument or test method (for example, particle size analysis). Match particle size to equipment size (e.g. shear tester) Understand the underlying mechanisms and data output of an automated instrument: what is being measured and what manipulations are being made to the data Understand limitations of the test (accuracy, precision, repeatability, bias and operator dependence) Understand and record all relevant parameters that affect the test results (e.g. moisture, temperature, sample history) Calibrate (and document) the measurement instrument on a periodic basis Run reference samples when possible for reality checks Test for typical and worst-case situations

Consider equipment-specific tests

Some complex process conditions cannot be replicated outside in a single test. Attrition and abrasion are classic examples. Examine sensitivity of equipment performance to variability in product properties.

Documentation

Have full control over, and record, the measured values of the test conditions (e.g. relative humidity, temperature, date and time of testing and the presence of witnesses). Use a standard data sheet that has a prepared form to record the above details with an identifying reference, as well as the test measurements.

Be prepared to invent a test

Not all tests that need to be invented have been invented. Each new product and process poses new challenges. Do not try to fit an existing but inappropriate test to the problem at hand. Make sure that the test replicates the basic physics underlying the unit operation.

22. Comments and feedback: Provide area for vendor comments, notes and feedback.

GUIDELINES: WRITING CONTRACTS

The contractual terms on which purchase orders are based have a strict legal interpretation, so that when problems arise during installation or startup, there is invariably more interest in examining the fine print than there is in addressing the problem. At that stage, it is too late to address the underlying deficiencies of the contract. Buyers, particularly those with prior experience of such situations, are keen to avoid exposure to excess costs. They tend to tighten the contractual terms to place all performance responsibility onto the equipment supplier (vendor).
36

It does not make sense to impose liabilities far in excess of the contract value. Such measures are usually unrealistic and often unenforceable. On the other hand, equipment suppliers generally seek to limit their liabilities and will grasp at any variations in the bulk material condition as rationale for not achieving target performance. The debate is regularly exacerbated by the lack of information contained in the request for proposal (or quote) documents, especially about the relevant flow properties. It is quite common to see design packages that contain numerous details about the painting specification, inspection, welding procedure and packing instruction, yet describe the bulk material to be handled in one or two lines that may only include a value of density and describes

the material as free flowing, or poor flowing, without describing the conditions of material preparation to which these terms apply. This is a common mistake that must be avoided. The following guidelines provide a good starting point for writing a fair and effective contract. 1. Do not let the contract price dominate the buying decision. The cost of inadequate performance and teething troubles can far outweigh superficial initial cost savings. Prepare a Cost/Liability Assessment for production delays, rectification provision and performance shortfall. 2. Do not depend on penalty clauses or litigation for insulation against problems. Work closely with the vendor to get the design right in the first place.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JULY 2006

FIGURE 3. Users and vendors have individual and overlapping responsibilities when it comes to successfully implementing a solids handling project. Outside of these responsibilities, there are optional factors that can improve the success rate if they are adopted in the design and procurement process

No contractor can economically meet realistic consequential damages for almost unlimited liability on a full production facility. The root causes of operating problems are almost invariably due to behavior characteristics of the bulk material as a result of product conditions not accommodated because of inadequate up-front investigation. Disputes consume enormous amounts of unproductive and unrecoverable time. A supplier that stands by its equipment is invaluable should difficulties arise. Value that attribute. 3. Identify and specify the main features relating to the bulk solids that are of interest. Some factors are peculiar to, and known only to the user for example, the significance of particle attrition and segregation to product quality, purity, appearance, solubility, and perhaps the density condition for packing. Draw these features into the specification with an indication of their realistic importance. 4. Base the specification on measured relevant values on the bulk material that are verified, agreed and bounded by realistic limits. These include, for example, wall friction with specific material of contact, bulk density in defined conditions, shear strength in given conditions of compaction, range of ambient conditions, and maximum residence periods to be accommodated. The definition of the operating window along with extreme bounds of operating condi-

tions and material properties should be clearly spelled out. The test methods to be used for product evaluation and eventual performance evaluation must be identified. 5. Outline the tests required for characterization of material (beyond what was provided for bidding purposes), and how these properties will be measured. Be realistic about the costs associated with conducting tests. It is commonly assumed that it is the vendors responsibility to acquire necessary data. But keep in mind that the vendor operates on the necessary data principle. Cutting corners on material characterization can result in significant problems during operation and headaches during litigation. Be sure to document sampling techniques and the definition of representative sample (including handling instructions). 6. Secure prior agreement about the options available and steps to be taken, should the material condition fall outside the agreed specification. Sometimes supply, process or production changes introduce significant variations not included within the original design. In some cases a representative sample, as with some pharmaceutical developments, is not available at the initial contract stage. The name of the bulk material is never enough to be the basis of a contract;neither is particle size distribution adequate to assess material behavior. A description similar to material x, can only be used as a rough guide, not a contract condition. Cooperation, not an arms length

Circle 25 on p. 43 or go to adlinks.che.com/6514-25

Solids Processing
relationship, is essential between parties to secure best results. 7. Investigate the track record of the supplier. Specifics to consider include technical and financial resources, test facilities, design experience and customer list, degree of specialization in the form of equipment to be supplied. 8. Ensure that emphasis is appropriately directed. Year 2000 compliance and ISO 9000 documentation are not relevant to whether flow takes place in a hopper. 9. Establish a realistic timeframe for both the tender (bidding) stage and the contract itself. Allow due diligence on pre-contract investigations, with formal drawing approval as needed. Make crystal clear what authority and responsibility is given by approval. If they are given for information only, then do not delay or jeopardize progress by wide circulation for comment. 10. Agree on process for future changes or modifications to the design upfront in the contract. The procedure for incorporating changes should take into account the fact that design variations incur inevitable delays for consideration, even if the changes are not finally implemented. The cost implications of changes should not be underestimated. 11. Expectations on performance validation and financial terms should be spelled out upfront. 12. Establish the degree of freedom available to the vendor to optimize total cost of the project and share the reduction in cost with the purchaser.

Summary

To improve the success rate of bulk-solids handling projects, greater awareness regarding the unique nature of bulk solids is required among process and project engineers. The guidelines presented in this paper should serve to highlight those and their relevance to project success. Edited by Rebekkah Marshall

Authors
Shrikant V. Dhodapkar is a research leader in the Solids Processing Lab at The Dow Chemical Co. (B-1402, Dow Chemical, Freeport, TX 77541; Phone: 979-238-7940; Fax: 979238-0969 E-mail: sdhodapkar @dow.com). He received his B.Tech. in Chemical Engineering from I.I.T-Delhi (India) and his M.S.Ch.E. and Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh. During the past 18 years, he has published numerous papers in particle technology and contributed chapters to several handbooks. He has extensive industrial experience in pneumatic conveying, silo design, gas-solid separation, mixing, coating and the design of solids processing plants. He is a member of AIChE and Vice-Chair of the Particle Technology Forum. Lyn Bates is managing director of Ajax Equipment Ltd. (Mule St., Bolton, BL2 2AR, U.K.; Phone: +44 1204 386723, Email: lyn@ajax. co.uk), a specialized, bulk-solids-handling company. Bates has also served on numerous U.K., U.S. and European technical committees, and worked alongside many of the pioneers in the technologies related to bulk-solids handling. Bates has presented papers at numerous conferences and seminars, and has published articles in many trade journals. He is the author of User Guide to Segregation (The British Materials Handling Board, 1997) and User Guide to the Design, Selection and Application of Screw Feeders (Professional Engineering Publishing Ltd., 2000), and contribued a chapter to Characterisation of Bulk Solids, edited by D. McGlinchey (Blackwell, 2005). He is a member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and is a recipient of the I.Mech.E.s Solids Handling Award for Professional Excellence in the Technology, and the Australian Institute of Engineers Bulk Solids Handling Award. George E. Klinzing is professor of chemical engineering and vice-provost for research at the University of Pittsburgh (826 CL University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260; Phone: 412-624-0784; Email: Klinzing@engr.pitt. edu). He earned his B.S. degree in chemical engineering from the University of Pittsburgh, and holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. He has been active in the pneumatic conveying research community, and has published numerous papers, books and book chapters on the subject. Presently Klinzing is exploring pressure signatures for flow analysis. He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and a member of the AIChEs Particle Technology Forum, and serves as an accreditation reviewer for ABET.

References
1. Svarovsky, L., Powder Testing Guide Methods of Measuring the Physical Properties of Bulk Powders, Elsevier Applied Science, 1987. 2. Allen, T., Powder Sampling and Particle Size Determination, Elsevier, 2003. 3. McGlinchey, D., editor, Characterisation of Bulk Solids, Blackwell Publishing CRC Press, 2005. 4. Woodcock, C.R. and Mason, J.S., Bulk Solids Handling An Introduction to the Practice and Technology, Chapman & Hall, 1987. 5. Dhodapkar, S., et. al., Guidelines for Solids Storage, Feeding and Conveying, Chem. Eng., pp. 2633, January 2006.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Wu Chen, James Koch and Manjunath Konanur, of Dow Chemical, and Timothy Bell, of DuPont, for their suggestions.

Circle 27 on p. 43 or go to adlinks.che.com/6514-27 39

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM JULY 2006