Print page

Print page

Funnel flow

Q: In our powder feed hoppers, funnel flow is experienced. The smaller the product particle size the more outspoken the problem is. Due to space and other limitations, it is not possible to change the configuration dramatically. The powder product has a wall friction angle between 12.6 and 16.7 degrees (measured with Jenicke shear test). Hopper wall inclination at outlet is 30 degrees (vertical to wall). Based on these numbers, mass flow should normally occur. What could we improve to get mass flow? The options that we’ve thought of are: the wall surface roughness could be improved by a grinding operation; to increase the particle size, but this also means a dramatic change in the whole process; or to increase outlet diameter and/or install another feeding system. What is the best option in your mind, and are there other options?

A: Additional information about the type of wall material, flow rate, consolidation time in the hopper, type of feeder/feeder interface, is needed to fully answer the question. From what was given, 1) the wall friction data indicates that a wall angle of 30 (best case) to 25 degrees is required for mass flow. 2) the smaller particle size will be more cohesive and, as a result, more likely to funnel flow or even rat hole with his hopper design (any information on cohesive strength, permeability, density function would help).

I would recommend a material flow property test on the smallest particle feedstock. This would better define the flow patterns, hopper shape and possible limiting flow conditions. Existing test reports may be suitable.

It would be a quick, inexpensive and relatively easy step to polish the hopper walls, depending of course on what they currently are. If they are stainless steel, I would recommend using a scotch pad with a polishing motion along the fall line of flow. If the wall is rough or has rough weld affected regions, use a flapper wheel with 240 grit, again directed along the fall lines of the hopper.

If polishing does not work, I would recommend replacing the cone with a proprietary hopper design which has the advantages of a) mass flow with angles 15 degrees more shallow the conical hoppers, b) arch free flow through an opening half that of a conical hopper, c) twice the limiting flow rate of conical hoppers. We can specify a hopper with additional the additional data indicated.

Details of the hopper/feeder interface are needed to assure that the problem does not begin at this location, as it often does.

Back to Ask the Experts