TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of three rotational shear cell testers
T2 - Powder flowability and bulk density
AU - Koynov, Sara
AU - Glasser, Benjamin
AU - Muzzio, Fernando
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from the Rutgers Catalyst Manufacturing Science and Engineering Consortium and the National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center for Structured Organic Particulate Systems ( NSF ERC-SOPS; EEC-0540885 ). The authors would also like to acknowledge Haldor Topsoe for assistance with shear cell measurements.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier B.V..
PY - 2015/10/1
Y1 - 2015/10/1
N2 - Developed to aid in the design of hoppers and silos, the shear cell is now frequently used to rank the flowability of powders relative to one another. While standards, such as ASTM D6773 and D6128, exist for shear cell tests, there are still differences between commercially available shear cell testers, such as cell geometry and size. In this work, we used two materials, a free-flowing alumina and a cohesive alumina, to compare measurements from three commercially available rotational shear cells. Results were collected and compared for cohesion, unconfined yield stress, major principal stress, pre-shear stress, flow function coefficient, bulk density, effective angle of internal friction, and the angle of internal friction. ANOVA methods were used to determine the statistical significance and relative size of each of these effects. This work has found that while, as expected, the material type has the largest effect on the shear cell results, the consolidation at which the material was tested and the tester type are also statistically significant effects. These results indicate that care should be taken when comparing the results between different shear cells.
AB - Developed to aid in the design of hoppers and silos, the shear cell is now frequently used to rank the flowability of powders relative to one another. While standards, such as ASTM D6773 and D6128, exist for shear cell tests, there are still differences between commercially available shear cell testers, such as cell geometry and size. In this work, we used two materials, a free-flowing alumina and a cohesive alumina, to compare measurements from three commercially available rotational shear cells. Results were collected and compared for cohesion, unconfined yield stress, major principal stress, pre-shear stress, flow function coefficient, bulk density, effective angle of internal friction, and the angle of internal friction. ANOVA methods were used to determine the statistical significance and relative size of each of these effects. This work has found that while, as expected, the material type has the largest effect on the shear cell results, the consolidation at which the material was tested and the tester type are also statistically significant effects. These results indicate that care should be taken when comparing the results between different shear cells.
KW - Flowability
KW - Powder
KW - Shear cell
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930629571&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930629571&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.powtec.2015.04.027
DO - 10.1016/j.powtec.2015.04.027
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84930629571
SN - 0032-5910
VL - 283
SP - 103
EP - 112
JO - Powder Technology
JF - Powder Technology
ER -