See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231151106

Measuring the velocities of particles in a shot-blasting chamber

Article  in  Measurement Science and Technology · June 2010

DOI: 10.1088/0957-0233/21/8/085101

CITATION READS

1 209

2 authors:

Gorazd Bombek Aleš Hribernik

University of Maribor University of Maribor
20 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   319 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gorazd Bombek on 22 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Measuring the velocities of particles in a shot-blasting chamber

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2010 Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 085101

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-0233/21/8/085101)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 164.8.20.42
The article was downloaded on 22/06/2010 at 13:36

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101 (10pp) doi:10.1088/0957-0233/21/8/085101

Measuring the velocities of particles in a

shot-blasting chamber
G Bombek and A Hribernik
Laboratory for Heat Engines and Engineering Measurements, University of Maribor,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Smetanova ulica 17, SI 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
E-mail: gorazd.bombek@uni-mb.si

Received 30 October 2009, in final form 4 May 2010

Published 22 June 2010
Online at stacks.iop.org/MST/21/085101

Abstract
This paper presents a method for measuring the velocity of a flow of particles accelerated on a
shot-blasting wheel and then expanding into space at a wide angle of approximately 45◦ . The
method uses the pulsed nature of the flow characteristic for turbo machinery with a finite
number of wheel blades and calculates the velocity from the time shift between the particles
hitting two targets at a known distance. This method does not depend on the material
properties of the particles; however, a large number of particles is required for a successful
measurement. The impacts are detected with a microphone covered by a steel membrane,
making the exposed parts cheap and easily replaceable. This makes the method suitable for
industrial test-and-development purposes, including the efficiencies of acceleration
measurements. A cross-correlation of the signals was used, but the characteristic cycle (one
rotation of the wheel) had to be determined beforehand by overlapping and averaging several
cycles in order to compensate for the fact that different particles would be hitting the targets.
Keywords: shot blasting, wheel, velocity, particle, measurement, efficiency, microphone,
overlapping
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction We were given the challenge of measuring the velocities

Measurements in two-phase flows are often necessary and
usually difficult; however, there is no universal method for
making such measurements, as yet. Most of the current
methods take advantage of certain special properties of the
flow or the transported material. These methods can be divided
into several groups, depending on the type of flow. There
are methods for making measurements in pipelines, such as
capacitive [1], electrodynamic [2], radiometric [3, 4] and laser-
based sensors. Measurements of the velocities of droplets or
particles can also be performed using optical methods, such
as PDA/LDA [5] and PIV [6] or the correlation of signals
[7]. Some measurement methods exist for shot peening and
powder blasting, but they are limited to narrow and more dilute
flows that are close to the nozzle [5, 8]. In situ measurements
[9] are very difficult and are usually indirect, for example,
Almen strips. A direct method for making measurements in a
fluidized bed [10] does exist, but it is limited to lower particle
velocities.
of particles in a shot-blasting chamber. These particles are
accelerated on rotor blades and then ejected into space. The
particles travel in waves, as a result of the finite number
of wheel blades, and the frequency of the waves can be
determined by multiplying the number of blades by the rotor
frequency. The stream of particles expands over a wide angle
(approx. 45◦ ), as presented in figure 1, and the concentration
of particles is the highest at the core of the flow, making it the
most interesting part to study.
The wide angle excludes those measurement methods that
are used for making flow measurements in tubes. The high
concentration of dust and the presence of particles bouncing
off obstacles rules out the use of optical methods and, even
if these obstacles are eliminated (by ejecting the particles
into free space), it is questionable as to whether it would
be possible to measure the velocities at the core of the flow
[5]. Any successful method must also be able cope with
different particle materials, which means we could not design a
sensor that depends on the material properties of the particles.

0957-0233/10/085101+10$30.00 1 © 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101 G Bombek and A Hribernik

Figure 1. The expansion of the waves, the important dimensions (in mm), and the idea behind the measurement method.

Furthermore, the need for measurements at the core of the

flow calls for a mechanical sensor, but the high frequency of
the waves makes this difficult to implement.
The idea behind this new measurement method is to use
the pulsed nature of the flow by determining the time shifts
between the impacts of the particles on two targets placed at
a known distance. This idea is suitable for flows with well-
defined waves, because the quality of the results depends on
how distinct the waves are.
The development of the measurement system can,
therefore, be divided into three subtasks:
• the development of the sensor
• the development of the algorithm for determining the time
shift
• the development of a test-bed/simulator.

Figure 2. The principle of the sensor.

2. Development of the measurement system

2.1. Development of the sensor
The requirements for the sensor are challenging, and
sometimes one requirement excludes another. The sensor must
be able to withstand a harsh environment, detect the impact of
a single particle, have the minimum vibration transfer between
the sensors and must enable a separation of impacts that occur
in 1 ms or less. Similar issues were presented in [11], which
dealt with much smaller particles and a much lower mass
flow of particles. As a result, a special hybrid sensor was
developed. This sensor uses a microphone (costing approx.
€5) for sensing the sound when a particle collides with the
front plate of the sensor. The principle of the sensor is
presented in figure 2.
The development of the sensor was a long process.
Different types of sensors were tested using an impact ball
to replicate the momentum of a 1 mm diameter spherical
particle travelling at 80 m s−1 . The responses were studied
in terms of frontal and side impacts. Here, a frontal impact
refers to every collision between a particle and the head of
the sensor. A side impact, on the other hand, refers to
every collision between a particle and any other part of the
measurement system, including girders and other sensors on
the same girder, generally resulting in noise. The aim was
to obtain the largest-possible response from a frontal impact
and the smallest-possible response from a side impact. The
development process and the test results are presented in
[12–14], but the focus of this paper is on organizing the data,
extracting the results and then validating them (so table 1 only
presents the essential parameters). The ringing time is the
time needed for the signal to return to the base value or to stop
oscillating, as shown in figure 3.
The current, optimized version (type D) is presented in
figure 2; it enables a good separation between the frontal and
side impacts resulting from the impact ball test, the results of
which are presented in figure 3.
The results of the impact-ball test (presented in figure 3)
were acquired while testing the sensors on the same girder

2
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101 G Bombek and A Hribernik

2.5

2.0

Amplitude (V) 1.5

front(M1)
side(M2)
1.0
side(M3)
ringing

0.5

0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
time (ms)

Figure 3. Signal of the type-D sensor (transient response of the optimized sensor to single front and side impacts) [13] in the case of an
impact-ball test.

Figure 4. Three sensors on a common girder (all the dimensions are in mm).

Table 1. Sensor development and the essential parameters. was used, and digital filtering and the threshold method were
Amplitude Ringing Amplitude Sensor necessary in order to obtain the results. However, it was hard
frontal time ratio side/ diameter to estimate the time shift caused by the filtering and to specify
Type impact (V) (ms) frontal (mm) the optimum threshold. These parameters had a great influence
on the results, so a decision was made to avoid filtering (if at
A 0.015 3 0.67 24 all possible) and to make our measurements as representative
B 0.1 3.5 0.33 21
C 0.04 1.5 0.08 22 as they could be, which suggested that some kind of averaging
D 1.7 0.6 0.06 11 would be the most likely solution. The signals detected in the
shot-blasting chamber are presented in figure 5.

2.1.1. Flow parameters. The exact flow parameters in the

(figure 4) as used in the shot-blasting device. The impact
ball acted on sensor 1. The sensors and the common girder are
presented in figure 4. Sensors 1 and 2 are the active sensors for
the shot particle’s velocity measurement and sensor 3 is set as
a reference for the sensor-inclination correction, as presented
in figure 17.
The very good signal-to-noise ratio of the sensor and, at
the same time, the smooth and simple curve at the impact,
seem to be easy to implement in an algorithm for the time-
shift calculation. However, the situation changes drastically
when the sensors are placed inside the shot-blasting chamber.
In this case, several particles hit the target in each wave and
sometimes it is hard—or even impossible—to separate the
individual impacts. Similar problems were reported in [11].
In the early stages of our research, the type-B sensor [14]
shot-blasting chamber are hard to determine and are generally
dependent on the particle material, the particle size, the wheel
size and the operating parameters. A similar method for the
particle acceleration and the flow parameters is described in
[15]. The average mass flow of material during the tests that
are presented in this paper was approximately 2.5 kg s−1 ,
but this was later increased to 5.5 kg s−1 by modifying some
internal parts of the wheel (with the main purpose of the
modification being to reduce internal losses). The cross-
section of the flow is in the shape of an ellipse and the mass
flow is unevenly distributed, as presented in figure 14. The
data presented in figures 5–10 were acquired in the centre of
the flow (one measurement, one data set) and are fully or
partially used or presented in these figures. Spherical steel
particles with diameters of 0.7 to 1.2 mm were used under

3
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101 G Bombek and A Hribernik

1.4

1.2

0.8

sensor1
signal (V)

0.6 sensor2
sensor3
0.4

0.2

-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (ms)

Figure 5. Signals detected in the shot-blasting chamber.

1.4

1.2

0.8
sensor1
Signal (V)

0.6 sensor2
sensor3
0.4

0.2

-0.2
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
time (ms)

Figure 6. Close-up of the first wave in figure 5.

industrial conditions, so contamination with other (smaller)
particles was likely; however, most of the particles smaller than
0.3 mm were removed by a filter. As presented in figures 5
and 14, the mass flow depends on the position of the sensors,
and it varies from wave to wave. The signals from the shot-
blasting chamber show that the particles actually travel in
waves. The problem is that more than one particle hits each
sensor with almost every wave. There is also the possibility
that no impact occurs or is sensed during a wave. The first
wave from figure 5 is shown in detail in figure 6.
As can be seen in figure 6, there are several impacts during
each wave. Any difference in the signal amplitude is mostly
caused by the different gaps between the microphones and
the sensor heads of the individual sensors. The number of
impacts also varies between the sensors, which makes any
determination of the time shift difficult, and so a special
algorithm had to be developed.
2.2. Development of the algorithm for the time-shift
determination
2.2.1. Data-acquisition parameters. The need for a large
number of cycles (averaging) and high rates (short distances
between the targets) resulted in the following parameters for
the data acquisition:
• sampling rate 100 kHz (per channel)
• number of samples 1 M (10 s)
• number of channels 3 (4).
The frequency of the rotor is 50 Hz, so every measurement
covers about 500 rotations of the wheel. Since the wheel

4
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101 G Bombek and A Hribernik

663000
662000
661000
660000
659000
658000 c-correl1-2
c-correl value

657000 c-correl1-3
656000 c-correl2-3
655000
654000
653000
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
measuring point (10-5 s)

Figure 7. Cross-correlation of the raw signals (as presented in figure 5).

0.5

0
signal (V)

-0.5

-1

-1.5
1 201 401 601 801 1001 1201 1401 1601 1801 2001

-2
measuring point (10-5s)

Figure 8. Overlapping of 22 rotations of the wheel (sensor 1).

has six blades, this results in 3000 waves impacting on the
sensor.
2.2.2. Conventional methods for time-shift determination.
The usual method for determining the time shift is cross-
correlation. The results of the cross-correlation are presented
in figure 7.
The peak of the cross-correlation between signals 2 and 3
was, as expected, located in the middle of the signal. However,
the exact locations of these cross-correlation peaks between
signals 1 and 2, and between 1 and 3, were almost impossible
to establish, even though a frequency-domain cross-correlation
was used (a direct method gives even rougher results). This
was due to the poor repeatability of the waves. Generally,
those particles that hit the first sensor do not hit the other
sensors. This means that the number of particles hitting the
second (or third) sensor reduces with the distance between
the sensors, and so some similarities with the propagation
of shockwaves can be expected [16]. This method is based
on a time-of-flight determination, but a non-stationary cross-
correlation function is used to compensate for the noise and
the disturbances. Our main problem with existing methods
lay in the poor repeatability of the waves, and so we had to
find a way of improving this. This is why we developed a new
approach to determining the time shift.
2.2.3. Overlapping and averaging of the signals. In the
case of a constant rotational wheel speed, the impacts occur
at constant time intervals. However, the repeatability of the
signal can be substantially improved by clustering six waves
together (i.e. one rotation of the wheel). It is possible to
calculate the average intensity of a signal by overlapping a
signal interval representing one rotation of the wheel, and then
averaging the amplitudes. The result of this signal overlapping
is presented in figure 8. Accurate overlapping is only possible
if the reference points at which the signals have to be cut for

5
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101
0.6
0.5
0.4
average signal (V) 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
1 201 401
Figure 9. Averaged impact signal derived from the data presented in figure 5 (6 blades ∼1 wheel rotation).
c-correl value
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100
Figure 10. Cross-correlation of the averaged impact signals from figure 9.
overlapping can be correctly obtained. The first overlapping
procedure used frequency analysis, but the frequency of the
wheel’s rotation was not sufficiently constant and a problem
occurred when the frequencies of the impacts were transferred
to the number of samples. In other words, if it is not a whole
number (and generally it is not) it has to be rounded to the
nearest whole. As a result, the error of the interval position
increased with each interval, and so the peaks shifted. The
solution to this problem was to introduce a fourth sensor for
sensing the position of the wheel, and to use this signal as a
reference point. A very good repeatability and stability was
achieved when using this procedure, as can be seen in figure 8,
with only 22 cycles out of 450 being presented (for reasons of
clarity).
In figure 8, the waves are clearly visible. The average
intensity of all three signals is presented in figure 9.
The signals (averaged from 450 cycles) presented in
figure 9 are much smoother than the original raw signals
(figure 5), and the time shift can be determined manually.
It is, however, faster and more objective to use an algorithm.
G Bombek and A Hribernik
sensor 1
sensor 2
sensor 3
601 801 1001 1201 1401 1601 1801 2001
measuring point (10-5s)
10
6
4 c-correl1-2
c-correl1-3
2 c-correl2-3
-2
0 100 200 300 400 500
-4
measuring point (10-5s)
It was decided to use cross-correlation (a direct method), and
the results are presented in figure 10.
From the data presented in figure 10, the maximum values
and their locations can be easily found and used for the velocity
calculation. As already presented in figure 4, the distance
between the sensors is set at 60 mm in order to minimize the
size of the sensor system and to prevent sensors 2 and 3 being in
the shadow of sensor 1. The sensor is approximately 800 mm
away from the wheel. We assumed that approximately 20%
fewer particles hit sensors 2 and 3 compared with sensor 1,
but the velocity of the particles was assumed to be constant.
Our method is based on determining the time shift between
the peaks of the average impact signal, so the amplitude of
the signal and the number of hits is unimportant if the average
impact signal is representative. This is why 3000 particle
waves were used to determine the average impact signal. The
locations of the peaks correspond well, but the amplitudes
depend on the signal amplitude, which is higher in the case of
sensor 3, as presented in figures 6 and 9. However, as already
mentioned, this does not influence the results.
6
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101
2.3. Measuring procedure
To obtain results that are as precise as possible and to reduce
the measurement error and uncertainty, a particular procedure
must be followed. This procedure starts with positioning
and setting the correct orientation of the sensors. First, the
location of a particle’s virtual source point (see figure 1) must
be determined; this is followed by the positioning of the
sensors on the Y axis (the size and the position of the area
with the maximum concentration of particles depend on the
dimensions and the position of the internal parts of the wheel).
These two steps must be performed after every modification
to the wheel. Next, the sensors have to be aligned so as
to be oriented with the particle’s virtual source point (the
most common and influential source of measurement error,
see figure 17). The wheel must then operate for at least 3 s
at the desired load in order to achieve stable conditions. The
data acquisition (10 s) starts when the conditions are stable.
It is possible to detect unstable operation of the wheel during
subsequent data manipulation. This data manipulation begins
with finding the locations of the signals that define the wheel’s
position, followed by slicing the data at this point to obtain
a signal representing one rotation of the wheel. However,
in the case that the algorithm detects an unstable rotational
speed, it is possible to interpolate the results so as to adjust
them to the most common interval length. The intervals are
then overlapped (see figure 8), averaged (figure 9) and a cross-
correlation is performed on the average signals (figure 10) to
determine the time delay (sensors 1 and 2, and sensors 1 and
3). The last step of the procedure is control of the inclination
via a cross-correlation of the signals from sensors 2 and 3 (see
figure 17) to detect poor alignment or to change the sensor’s
orientation during the measurement.
The average time delay (between sensors 1 and 2 and
between sensors 1 and 3) was used for the velocity calculation.
Special attention was given, during the assembly of the sensors,
to ensure that there was less than 0.1 mm of difference between
the distances measured from the first sensor head to the heads
of the second and third sensors. Any changes in the shape
of the sensor heads due to the impacts of the particles were
neglected.
3. Validation and measurement-uncertainty
estimation
Since the environment in the shot-blasting device is extremely
harsh and requires extra protection for the cables and other
parts, the ability to perform a validation in a less-demanding
environment is useful. Furthermore, it is easier to test the
sensors and the algorithm when the waves are more distinct
and sharper, and the velocities of the elements can be measured
independently of our system. Our measurement method is an
invasive one, so a parallel comparison with other measurement
methods (if any exist at all) is an improper solution to the
validation issue. The creation of a similar flow with known
parameters and good repeatability is practically impossible.
The best solution was to transfer from a longitudinal movement
to a rotational one. A special disc with hitting elements was
7
G Bombek and A Hribernik
Figure 11. The scheme of the simulator.
used for the calibration and for test purposes. The scheme of
the test bed is presented in figure 11. A device for the testing
of inline, high-pressure pumps was used; it has a powerful
electric motor (20 kW), a rigid construction and enables
the continuous setting of a rotational speed between 0 and
5500 min−1 . The radius of the rotational elements was
limited to 175 mm. Five hitting elements (each with two
flails) were used to simulate the velocities and the frequencies
of the impacts, including several impacts for each wave.
The majority of the tests were performed between 3500 and
4000 rpm, resulting in approximately 300 signals per second
and velocities close to 70 m s−1 (similar to the actual wheel).
An attempt was made to replicate, as far as possible, the
circumstances in a shot-basting chamber (the frequencies of
the impacts, the time delay and several impacts in each wave),
but there were still some unresolved issues regarding what
actually happens to the flail after the impact, how much time
it takes to return to the original position, what is the best flail
length and diameter, etc. The large number of impacts and the
high stresses reduce the useful lifetimes of the hitting elements
and so some studies were performed to determine which
material was the most suitable. Finally, a soft polyethylene
rope with a diameter of 2.5 mm was chosen.
The geometrical scheme and the dimensions of the
simulator used for the determination of the measurement
uncertainty are presented in figure 12.
The actual velocity of the flail tip was calculated as
a circumferential velocity using the outer diameter and the
rotational frequency. The uncertainties of the radius R and the
rotational speed of the disc were considered when determining
the uncertainty in the circumferential velocity. The uncertainty
in the rotational-frequency measurement depends on the
uncertainty in the time interval between two rotations and
depends mostly on the uncertainty inherent in the DAQ card’s
system clock, at the chosen sampling frequency (uncertainty
type B), and the uncertainty due to actual small variations in the
rotational speed (uncertainty type A) during the measurement
period.
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101
Figure 12. Geometrical model of the simulator (all the dimensions
are in mm).
Figure 13. Device for the mass-flow measurement.
Table 2. Comparison of set and measured velocities and the
uncertainties.
−1 −1
Actual (set) velocity (m s ) Measured velocity (m s )
75.97 ± 0.13 76.23 ± 1.40
64.79 ± 0.11 64.44 ± 1.20
54.09 ± 0.09 54.36 ± 1.00
43.13 ± 0.07 40.59 ± 0.75
32.14 ± 0.05 31.57 ± 0.55
The method for the velocity measurement under
investigation was based on the same algorithm as in the actual
measurement, and the most influential parameter was the time
differences between impacts. The results are presented in
table 2.
With the exception of the velocity set at 43.13 m s−1 ,
the results correlate well, and the difference lies within the
measurement uncertainty, as can be seen from table 2. The
most probable explanation for the larger discrepancy at
43.13 m s−1 lies in the deformation of the hitting elements, with
a possible contribution from the simulator vibration. However,
since the expected particle velocities within the shot-blasting
chamber were above 60 m s−1 , no special attention was given to
this problem. The maximum calibration velocity was limited
to 76 m s−1 . Above this velocity, the simulator’s vibration, as a
result of being unbalanced, was too high and may have caused
8
G Bombek and A Hribernik
Figure 14. Relative mass-flow distribution (cumulative mass flow
2.5 kg s−1 ).
damage to the equipment. As it later turned out, this velocity
was practically the same as the measured particle velocity
in the shot-blasting chamber. The measurement uncertainty
of the measurement system could be improved by increasing
the distances between the sensors. However, increasing the
distances between the sensors and the wide angle of the particle
expansion can result in fewer particles hitting the second
sensor, which might lead to a need to increase the diameter
of the second sensor and change the position (i.e. increase the
distance between the axes), resulting in a size increase and a
loss of resolution.
4. The results
The results were acquired in the test chamber for shot-blasting
rotor wheels. Some of the dimensions are presented in
figure 1. The wheel in serial production was measured and
later modified to study the impact of the wheel’s internal parts
on the mass flow, the velocity and the efficiency. The velocity
profile of the shot particles immediately before impacting the
part being treated can be useful for validating the shot-blasting
turbine wheel and for setting the process parameters. The true
value of this for the development of wheel design lies in its
connection with the mass flow (to estimate the efficiency of the
acceleration), which is a major contributory factor regarding
the particle velocity and the process parameters. As a result,
a device (see figure 13) was developed to estimate the mass
flow [13]. This device was moved along the Y axis, and the
particles caught in it were weighed after a defined period of
operation. Since the hole diameter is only several times larger
than the particle diameter and the effective cross-section of the
hole is unknown, all the results were divided by a maximum
value to obtain the relative mass flow. Figure 14 presents
the relative mass-flow distribution, which was measured at
800 mm from the tip of the turbine (in the same plane as
used for the velocity measurements, see figure 1). It has an
approximately two-dimensional, normal distribution with an
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101
Figure 15. Relative mass-flow distribution (cumulative mass flow
5.5 kg s−1 ).
expressive peak 50 mm below the horizontal centre line. More
than 60% of the shot-particle flow was concentrated within the
600 mm high and 50 mm wide ellipse. The concentration of
shot particles outside this area was too low for any successful
velocity measurements. The shape of the flow and the relative
mass flow are presented in figures 14 and 15.
The vertical velocity profile was measured along a line
travelling through the centre of the flow (see figure 1 for
the location of the measurement plane) and is presented in
figure 16, together with the relative mass flow.
The point of maximum mass flow (for the case of
2.5 kg s−1 ) was set at the same height as the rotor’s axis.
It was surprising to find that the lowest velocities were
at the centre of the flow (the maximum concentration of
particles). The explanation for this is in the number of particles
accelerated on each blade. It was assumed that they are
placed in multiple layers, resulting in increased friction, a less
favourable acceleration curve and therefore, a lower velocity.
After some modifications, the mass flow was increased to
80
78
76
74
velocity (m/s)
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
-500 -300 -1000
Y axis position
p (mm)
Figure 16. Vertical velocity profile in accordance with the relative mass flow.
G Bombek and A Hribernik
approximately 5.5 kg s−1 (see figures 15 and 16), resulting in
a reduction of the velocity at the centre of the flow to 65.1 m
s−1 , which confirmed the assumption relating to the influence
of the increased friction. It is important to point out that
the internal parts of the wheel were changed, resulting in a
different shape of the flow, and some work is underway to find
the optimum shape for the internal parts and their settings.
Our research was focused on the core of the flow, and the
velocity measurements were limited to the area of interest.
Furthermore, the same electric motor was used in all the tests.
The increased engine load due to the increased mass flow from
2.5 kg s−1 to 5.5 kg s−1 resulted in an engine-speed drop from
2950 rpm (2.5 kg s−1 ) to 2825 rpm (5.5 kg s−1 ), contributing
to an approximately 4% lower velocity of the particles.
Another problem that can occur during a measurement is
related to the angle of the sensor. It is practically impossible
to accurately position the sensor so that it is coaxial with a
particle’s trajectory. The virtual source point of the particles is
approximately 40 mm in diameter, and also, the positioning of
the sensor has limited accuracy. That is why the third sensor
was introduced, to minimize the error in the angular position.
The final result is an average of velocities taken from a cross-
correlation of sensors 1 and 2 and sensors 1 and 3. Any
discrepancy between the sensor alignment and the particle
trajectory reduces the time shift and so the velocity increases
(due to shorter virtual distances between the sensors). Other
factors to be considered are the thicknesses and diameters of
the sensors, and a possible obstruction of the flow by the first
sensor, thus reducing the number of impacts on the second or
third sensor. The results of the experiments using different
inclination angles are presented in figure 17, together with the
shift in the cross-correlation peak between the signals from
sensors 2 and 3 with respect to the base point.
It is clear from figure 17 that sensor inclination is the
most influential factor with respect to the measurement error.
However, the measurement results within the range −5◦ to
+5◦ did not change significantly. But, in the case of a
higher discrepancy in the angle, it was possible to detect
this discrepancy from the shift in the cross-correlation peak
between sensors 2 and 3.
1.5
1.35
1.2
1.05
veelocity (m/s) (5.5 kg/s)
0.9
rel. mass flow
0.75 veelocity (m/s) (2.5 kg/s)
0.6 reel. mass flow (2.5 kg/s)
0.45 reel. mass flow (5.5 kg/s)
0.3
0.15
0
100 300 500
9
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 (2010) 085101
Figure 17. Influence of the inclination on the results.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents a new method for in situ, shot-particle
velocity measurements. The method makes it possible
to measure velocities in a shot-blasting chamber under
conditions practically identical to those that occur during
normal operation. The measurement system was tested with a
mass flow of 2.5 kg s−1 and the system was used to gradually
increase the mass flow to 5.5 kg s−1 by changing only the
internal parts of the wheel. Velocities at several positions
can be measured, provided there are sufficient numbers of
particles. The method proved to be reliable under these
industrial conditions, which can also be found in real-life
problems (there were no problems with dust or small particles,
but some problems were revealed when the rotational speed
of the wheel was not constant). The mass flow can be
estimated using an additional device (figure 13). Furthermore,
a combination of velocity measurements and the mass-flow
profile can be used to study the influence of modifications
on certain wheel elements with respect to critical parameters,
including the efficiency.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Gostol TST for their help during the
experiments, and for enabling the measurements to be made on
actual wheels. Special thanks go to them for their permission
to publish the results from a prototype wheel that is still under
development.
References
[1] Shao F, Lu Z, Wu E and Wang S 2000 Study and industrial
evaluation of mass flow measurement of pulverized coal for
iron-making production Flow Meas. Instrum. 11 159–63
[2] Yan Y, Byrne B, Woodhead S and Coulthard J 1995
Velocity measurement of pneumatically conveyed solids
using electrodynamic sensors Meas. Sci. Technol.
6 515–37
10
View publication stats
G Bombek and A Hribernik
[3] Barratt I R, Yan Y, Byrne B and Bradley M S A 2000 Mass
flow measurement of pneumatically conveyed solids using
radiometric sensors Flow Meas. Instrum. 11 223–35
[4] Mennell J, Byrne B and Yan Y 2000 Appraisal of radiometric
techniques to determine absolute solids fraction in
pneumatic suspensions of particulate solids Flow Meas.
Instrum. 11 213–21
[5] Aı́sa L, Garcia J A, Cerecedo L M, Palacı́n I Garcı́a and
Calvo E 2002 Particle concentration and local mass flux
measurements in two-phase flows with PDA. Application to
a study on the dispersion of spherical particles in a turbulent
air jet Int. J. Multiph. Flow 28 301–24
[6] Lee K H, Lee C H and Lee C S 2004 An experimental study on
the spray behaviour on fuel distribution of GDI injectors
using the entropy analysis and PIV method Fuel 83 971–80
[7] Andrews D R 1983 A versatile laboratory correlator with
application to determine particle velocity in an erosion test
J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 16 706–9
[8] Barker B, Young K and Pouliot L 2005 Particle velocity sensor
for improving shot peening process control Proc. ICSP-9
(Paris, France) 385–91
[9] Kee K C and Rielly C D 2004 Measurement of particle impact
frequencies and velocities on impeller blades in mixing tank
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 82 1237–49
[10] Zhu J-X, Li G-Z, Qin S-Z, Li F-Y, Zhang H and Yang Y-L
2001 Direct measurements of particle velocities in
gas–solids suspension flow using a novel five-fiber optical
probe Powder Technol. 115 184–92
[11] Ivantsiv V, Spelt J K and Papini M 2009 Mass flow rate
measurement in abrasive jets using acoustic emission Meas.
Sci. Technol. 20 095402 (8pp)
[12] Hribernik A, Bombek G and Markočič I 2003 Velocity
measurements in a shot blasting machine Flow Meas.
Instrum. 14 225–31
[13] Hribernik A and Bombek G 2006 Improved method for shot
particle velocity measurement within a shot blasting
chamber Flow Meas. Instrum. 17 99–205
[14] Bombek G and Hribernik A 2003 Measurement of the shot
blasting machine particles velocity V NI Week Proc. 2003:
Worldwide Instrumentational Conf. (Austin, National
Instruments, Corp., 2003)
[15] Deng T, Bingley M S and Bradley M S 2001 Influence of
particle dynamics on erosion test conditions within the
centrifugal accelerator type erosion tester Wear 249 1059–69
[16] Lu F K et al 2009 Detection of shock and detonation wave
propagation by cross correlation Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 23 1098–111