Characterization of the Physical Properties

for Solid Granular Materials

Jonathan Tucker
1,2
, Lawrence Shadle
1
, Sofiane Benyahia
1
, Joseph Mei
1
, Chris Guenther
1
1
National Energy Technology Laboratory, United States Department of Energy, Morgantown, WV, USA
2
Eberly College Department of Physics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA
4x Microphotograph of Ilmenite
4x Microphotograph of Copper Oxide (18x30)
4x Microphotograph of Acrylic (40x400)
4x Microphotograph of Stainless Steel Shot
4x Microphotograph of Sorbent Ax
4x Microphotograph of Glass Beads (16x20)
300x SEMPhoto of Sorbent Ax
4x Microphotograph of HDPE (800 Micron)
4x Microphotograph of AluminumOxide (35x100)
4x Microphotograph of FCC Catalyst
Methodology
Developing a Road Map for characterization ensured consistency with minimal
time in current and future projects.
Size & Shape Analysis
Processed using EQPC Analysis
(Diameter of Circle of Equal Projection Area)
Determination of Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD)
and 90% Size Distribution using QICPIC.
Identified as most critical value in prorogation of
potential error.
High sample counts used to increase confidence.
S50 value for sphericity used as final value.
Sauter Mean Diameter
Defined as the diameter of a
sphere that has the same volume
to surface area ratio as the
particle of interest.

Sphericity
The measure of how spherical or
round a particle is. Also defined
as the surface area of a sphere of
the same volume as the particle
divided by the actual surface
area of the particle.
Minimum Fluidization Velocity

Many of the physical properties of granular materials are at the core of several fundamental equations used in multiphase fluid dynamics, and it has been noted that the uncertainty of these variables can propagate a
substantial amount of error in the design of systems, predictive models and data analysis. A methodology was developed in order to provide high precision characterizations over a wide range of materials, which
would be more cost effective and result in less uncertainty than many of the currently used techniques. The methodology proposed in this study was found to be highly successful, providing a system of internal
checks and balances, and offering a high level of reproducibility.
ABSTRACT
Density (Bulk, Particle, Skeletal)
CONCLUSSIONS
RESULTS
Equipment Used:
SympaTEC QICPIC Particle Analyzer
Equipment Used:
Micromeritics AccuPyc 1330
Skeletal Density
Density of particle minus any internal voidage.
Found using He Porosimetry.
For nonporous materials equal to particle density.
Particle Density
Effective density of particle including any internal empty spaces.
Found using He Porosimetry.
Bulk Density
Defined as the volume occupied by a fixed mass of material.
Assumed fluffed state, or loose random spherical packing.
The minimum gas flow required through a bed of solid particles at which the aerodynamic drag forces will overcome
the gravitational forces, resulting in the bed transition from a static solid-like state to a dynamic fluid-like state.
Void Fraction
The volume of the empty space within a bed of materials with respect to the overall volume of the bed itself. The
most common case used would be a fluffed bed in which the particles are assumed to be in a state of random loose
packing.
Gas flow rates at increasing velocities plotted against pressure drops across bed.
Minimum fluidization velocity defined as the intersection of the slopes for the Ramp
and the Fluidized states.
Simple, and concise reports, encapsulating all raw
data for review or additional development.
Fast and low cost. (Approx. 4 man hours per mat.)
Overall minimal level of uncertainties. Sensitivity
analysis shows 4 - 9% across reported values.
Determines effective particle density of hydrophilic
and porous materials cheaper and safer than Mercury
Porosimetry.
Internal cross-checking within procedures.
Many external error sources identified and corrected.
Over 30 different materials classified within all 4
Geldart Classifications reflects wide applicable
range of methodology.
Provides quantitative, qualitative and intuitive
results for most possible needs.
Reported data to be utilized for upcoming Small
Scale Challenge Problem sponsored by NETL.
Reported data used to support current predictive
models and system designs for several projects.
Database of materials available for future work.
Material Index
1. Acrylic (40x400)
2. Aluminum Oxide (18x50)
3. Aluminum Oxide (35x100)
4. Bentonite
5. Bentonite Pellets
6. BiomassStraw
7. BiomassWoodchips
8. Ceramic Beads (3mm)
9. Coke (40x70)
10.Copper Oxide (18x30)
11.Copper Oxide (35x60)
12.Cork (20x40)
13.FCC Catalyst
14.Glass Beads (50 Micron)
15.Glass Beads (60 Micron)
16.Glass Beads (200 Micron)
17.Glass Beads (16x60)
18.Glass Beads (40x60)
19.Glass Beads (170x325)
20.HDPE (800 Micron)
21.Hematite (45x100)
22.Ilmenite
23.Nylon Beads (3mm)
24.Nylon Beads (6mm)
25.Sand (MX)
26.Sorbent Ax
27.Sorbent Bn
28.Sorbent R
29.Stainless Steel Shot
30.Zeolite (4x8)
31.Zeolite (8x12)
Many different methods and techniques available.
Methodology could vary from project to project.
Approaches highly varied in time, costs and
uncertainties.
Not all properties were determined initially.
Some methods would not work due to materials
being highly porous, or hydrophilic.
Factors contributing to error not fully recognized.
Using fixed 4 increment within the bed to calculate
Algebraic rearrangement of Ergun Equation results in Cubic Polynomial.
Solving equation for all points during Ramp reduce potential error.
Provides critical value for calculation of particle density.
Supports literature recommended value 0.40 average bed voidage.
Geldart Classification
The Geldart Classification was developed in order to group similar types of materials based on the physical properties
of the materials and certain types of material behaviors in fluidized systems. The classification of a material within the
Geldart chart, can simplify in a lot of situations if a material would be suitable for a desired process.
Clear, concise and consistent procedural approach.
High level of reproducibility, and repeatability.
Identified and corrected for many day to day
and operational variables.
Processing algorithms for handling data decreases
influence of experimenter bias.
Microscope photos of all materials provided allow
for an additional level of intuitive analysis.
Representative samples pulled from material
containers across the top to bottom.
Raw data collected is fully utilized to minimize the
time required running experiments.
Results of well defined known materials were
used as benchmarks for procedures.
Benefits
Primary Focus
Group C
Cohesive, difficult to fluidize; low bed
expansion; exponential bed de-
aeration; no bubbles, only channels;
very low solids mixing, no spouting.
Group A
Ideal for fluidization, range of non-
bubbling fluidization; high bed expan-
sion, slow linear de-aeration; bubbles
split and coalesce with maximumsize;
high solids mixing, no spouting.
Group B
Bubbles at fluidization; moderate bed
expansion; fast de-aeration rate; no
limit to bubble size; moderate solids
mixing; spouting only in shallow beds.
Group D
Coarse solids; low bed expansion; fast
de-aeration rate, no limit to bubble
size, low solids mixing; spouting even
in very deep beds.
PDT
L = 0
PDT
L = 4
PDT
L = 36
Bed
Material
Porous Metal
Distributor
Time Efficient
Previously used methods required between 8 - 17 man hours; whereas,
the proposed method needs only 4 hours.
Acquired data utilized fully to result in minimal number of experiments
Internal Cross-Checks
For nonporous materials, particle density can be used to validate SMD.
For natural materials, shape analysis can be validated using particle
density, as well as identify internal porosity or surface roughness.
Normalized minimum fluidization data can be used to validate bulk
density, particle density and instrument accuracy.