Powder Technology, 78 (1994) 5-13 5

Agglomerate strength measurement using a uniaxial confined

compression test

M.J. Adams
Unilever Research, Port Sunlight Laboratory, Quarry Road East, Bebington, Wiral, Memyside L63 3JW (UK)

M.A. Mullier” and J.P.K. Seville**

Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Universi~ of Surrey, Guildford, GlJ2 5XH (UK)

(Received July 27, 1991; in revised form October 12, 1993)

Abstract

In order to measure the strength of an agglomerated product it is convenient to compress a bed of the agglomerates
using a piston in a rigid cylinder; this is known as a confined uniaxial compression test. A simple first-order
lumped-parameter analysis of this compression process is presented, treating the system as purely dissipative
and applying the Mohr-Coulomb macroscopic failure criterion. This enables average single agglomerate strengths
to be deduced from the initial deformation behaviour of the bed under comparatively low loads. Agglomerates
with a range of strengths have been formed from quartz sand using varying amounts of a polyvinylpyrrolidone
binder. These have been tested both in the uniaxial compression test and individually, by compression between
parallel platens. The results show agreement with the proposed theory over an order of magnitude in single
particle crushing load. The load-deformation curve for the compression experiments is also consistent with
Kawakita’s equation and it is shown that, over a certain range of strain, the load-deformation equation developed
here and that due to Kawakita take approximately the same form; the agreement enables a physical interpretation
to be made of one of the parameters in Kawakita’s equation.

Introduction parameter from the the whole under

compression. This most easily achieved experimentally
and other particle formation pro- using a piston in a cylinder (Fig. in which case the
cesses it is often necessary to monitor strength of becomes of uniaxial confined compression.
product rapidly reproducibly. This difficult step then to relate observed macroscopic
han- behaviour to single particle properties in a
dling is to be avoided. conventional method is quantitative way. full solution to this problem would
so-called ‘Brazilian test’, in which single particles require the model relating
crushed between platens load required to the the distribution
cause fracture is recorded. However, in batch of of single particle failure stresses within bed.
particles formed under nominally identical conditions this problem is so complex that can only
there is always a wide variation in fracture loads (see, for
measured in this way. Consequently, many particles and Barnes [l]). Here ap-
must be tested a reliable average to be obtained. proximate first-order lumped-parameter approach which
A further complication is that the
loads are small (typically equivalem to a
grams’weight) so that the with which they
can may be high.
A simple alternative method consists of replacing
single particle with bed of similar particles
inferring some average single particle strength
cross-
tion
*Present address: Gillette Management 452 Basingstoke A0
Road, Reading, Berks OQE, UK.
whom correspondence should be addressed. Fig. Confined uniaxial test -

0032-5910/94/$07.00 0 Elsevier Sequoia. rights reserved

0032-5910(93)02777-8
6
nevertheless enables average single agglomerate failure
stresses to be deduced from simple uniaxial compression
experiments, which has obvious practical advantages.
Heckel[2] adopted the above approach and was able
to describe the pressure-volume relationship of metal
powders in terms of two lumped parameters. He sub-
sequently demonstrated that one of these parameters
was directly related to the yield stress of the particles
[3]. The application of this work to a wide range of
powders has been undertaken by many workers with
perhaps the most comprehensive study being carried
out by Roberts and Rowe [4]. They greatly extended
the value of the technique by introducing the effects
of particle ductility, particle size and deformation. How-
ever, they and others have observed that there are
significant deviations from the Heckel relationship for
brittle materials. While this does limit the value of the
technique for agglomerates with solid binders, a more
serious concern is that the failure stress for a brittle
porous material in compression is a function of the
principal stresses acting on its periphery. For example,
the failure surface for a sandstone rock has recently
been proposed to be of the following form [5]:
where J2 is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress
tensor and 1, is the first invariant of the stress tensor.
The Heckel analysis ignores the frictional constraints
at the container wall which attenuate the transmission
of stress through a bed. This is valid if the bed height
is relatively small compared with the bed diameter. If
this were not the case, a three-dimensional approach
to the problem would be required (see, for example,
Isherwood [6]). Kawakita and Ludde [7] list 15 other
equations which have been used to express bed void
fraction as a function of applied load without allowance
for frictional effects. Most of the equations are essen-
tially empirical although it is claimed that some of the
parameters that arise within these constitutive rela-
tionships are related to single particle properties.
Seelig and WulfT [8] have argued that compaction
is the result of several distinct processes: initial com-
paction occurs due to particle rearrangement, followed
by elastic and plastic deformation and fracture of single
particles. Cooper and Eaton [9] considered that frag-
mentation was unimportant and based their model on
a two-stage mechanism consisting of large void filling
by rearrangement and small void filling by distortion.
The result of their analysis is a deconvolution of the
experimental pressure-volume data into two curves
which characterise the two mechanisms. It is clear that
compaction does involve several mechanisms and that
the relative importance of each will depend on the
properties of the particles under examination.
Eventually, as the applied pressure is increased, the
single particles lose their separate identities and bulk
deformation occurs. Much work on compaction has
concentrated on this final stage of the process, because
this is of most importance in tableting. The work
presented here focuses upon the initial deformation
under low loads, because it is this region of the load/
porosity relationship which yields most information
about single particle properties.
The approach taken here is a macroscopic one.
Therefore, it should be stated at the outset that it is
not possible to deduce anything in detail about the
strength of the particles in terms of a fracture mechanics
analysis. The authors are engaged in a parallel study
of the fracture mechanics of individual agglomerates;
the details of this work are described elsewhere [lO-121.
It is argued below that the breakdown of agglomerates
due to the compressive stress fields experienced in
uniaxial compression is most appropriately prescribed
by conditions on a failure surface which may be defined,
for example, by eqn. (1).
Theory
The parallel friction-element model
Consider a bed of particles confined within a rigid
die (Fig. 1). The compressive energy applied to the
bed can be accommodated by elastic or plastic defor-
mation, interparticle frictional sliding, and plastic or
brittle failure. The cyclic pressure-strain curves obtained
from the particles studied in the current work show
that the elastic strain (and hence the stored elastic
energy) is negligible. Thus the system can be regarded
as entirely dissipative. Here, it is useful to lump together
interparticle sliding and individual particle fracture
which are, from the point of view of the macroscopic
assembly, both internal friction processes. The particles
used in the current work were themselves agglomerates
of smaller sub-particles and were coarse (greater than
1 mm) and non-cohesive. Thus, their tapped bulk density
was virtually independent of applied pressure until the
threshold pressure for particle failure was reached. In
other words, since little spatial rearrangement is possible
under applied load without particle breakdown, almost
all the internal friction can be ascribed to particle
failure rather than interparticle sliding. The problem
is to model the extent to which the incremental failure
work increases as the strain proceeds.
Two-dimensional computer models of granular ma-
terials under load e.g. [l, 131 and experiments with
photoelastic particles [ 141 have consistently shown con-
centrated contact force lines propagated through the
material in the general direction of the major principal
stress (Fig. 2). Many of the particles in the structure
are in fact under little or no load and are therefore
Fig. 2. Force transmission lines in a compressed bed of particles
[l] (the width of the lines indicates the relative magnitude of
the local stress; principal stress vertical).
effectively redundant, as elegantly demonstrated by
Troadec et al. [15] for two-dimensional packings of
cylinders in which redundant elements were removed
from the structure without affecting its macroscopic
stress-strain behaviour. The propagation of stress in
concentrated lines has led Dunstan et aZ. [16] to propose
a new theory for slow dilatant plastic deformation of
granular materials. They model their material as ‘a
changing collection of spatially dispersed crooked col-
umns which are supported by distributed lateral forces
arising from the minor principal stress and which trans-
mit all the major principal stress through the material’.
This approach enabled them to calculate the energy
stored and subsequently dissipated in the loading and
subsequent collapse of each transitory column. Their
extensive plane strain tests on real granular materials
show good agreement with this conceptual theory.
A similar approach may be used to model confined
uniaxial compression. In effect, the bed is modelled as
a series of parallel columns (Fig. 3). Since the applied
stress is transmitted via relatively few preferred routes,
the number of particles which are undergoing or are
about to undergo fracture is also relatively small. As
compression proceeds and particle fracture occurs, some
re-arrangement is permitted, load paths bifurcate and
more particles become load-bearing. (In terms of Fig.
3, the number of columns which are ‘active’ increases
as the compression proceeds.) This is a well-known
problem in comminution, where repeated packing rear-
rangements must occur in order to ensure that the
loads on individual particles remain high (see, for
example, ref. 17). Any model must take the features
mentioned above into account. Here, they are intro-
duced by bringing an increasing proportion of all possible
columns into play as the compression proceeds.
Fig. 3. Parallel column compression model.
The single a&plomerate failure criterion
In order to develop a constitutive relationship it is
necessary to define a failure criterion for the agglom-
erates, since failure represents the primary event in
the compaction process. In the field of particle tech-
nology, the Rumpf [18, 191 model has traditionally been
used to describe the strength of agglomerates. According
to this approach the mean tensile strength per unit
section area, a,, is given by
g=$kH
m
P
where E is the void faction, d, is the diameter of the
particles making up the agglomerate, k is the coor-
dination number and H is the inter-particle force acting
at each contact point. Rumpf assumed that the particles
are monodisperse and spherical and that the bonds
between them were of equal strength and randomly
distributed across the failure section. By summing the
contributions of the individual bonds across the section
Rumpf also effectively assumed instantaneous failure
at all points.
More recently it has been argued that agglomerates,
like many other solids, will fail in tension by a process
of crack propagation [lo, 11, 20, 211. It is then possible
to apply fracture mechanics techniques to determine
the strength. Such an analysis shows that the applied
stress is concentrated at flaws or cracks within a body;
for elastic systems the applied stress becomes singular
at the crack tip. The stress field ahead of the crack
tip is proportional to a quantity known as the stress
intensity factor, K, which increases with the loading.
In practice, it has been shown that these linear elastic
8

fracture mechanics concepts have to be modified to
take account of inelastic processes occurring at the
crack tip. The analytical procedures involved to de-
termine the critical value of K at fracture, the ‘critical
stress intensity factor’, K,, for agglomerates have been
described elsewhere [21]. In short, Kc is a measure of
the stress at which fracture occurs by crack propagation
and is therefore an intrinsic material property.
For an isolated column or agglomerate, failure in
uniaxial compression occurs by tensile crack opening
[22], as in the well-known ‘Brazilian test’. In the ‘column
model’ of confined uniaxial compaction described here,
however, local crack opening within a single agglomerate
resulting from the major principal stress acting in the
axial direction would be constrained by the radial
principal stress induced by neighbouring columns. Under
these conditions, the particles would be constrained to
fail in oblique shear. Such failure is common in the
fracture of stone columns under a compressive load.
This was first recognised by Coulomb [23] who related
the shear failure stress, 7, to the sum of the cohesive
strength r0 and the frictional stress Crp’ acting at the
failure planes, thus
7=70+& (3)
where A* = k,nA and n is the total number of active
or load-bearing columns.
Note that as the compression proceeds and agglom-
erates fail, the columns of which they form a part may
become inactive (in the load-bearing sense) only to be
reactivated at a higher strain. However, in this simple
approach, the failure load F of each column is the
same, so that any increment in load implies an increase
in the total number of load-bearing columns, n. Thus,
dP=7dA* (6)
or
dP=rdA*lA, (7)
where dP is the increment in nominal pressure and A0
is the cross-sectional area of the bed. The number of
load-bearing columns must increase with the applied
strain - dhlh in order to support the load. The simplest
assumption is then that the increment in new fracture
area is directly proportional to the strain. This may be
written in the following form in order to render the
constant of proportionality, ka, dimensionless:
dA*=k* $A,,

where (Y is the pressure coefficient or coefficient of Thus

friction and P’ is the compressive stress. Due to the
generalisation by Mohr [24] that failure will occur when
dP=k,$
the shear stress in any plane’reaches a critical value,
this failure criterion is referred to as the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion. More generally it would now be known as The pressure P’ in the failure criterion (3) will now
one of a class of macroscopic stress criteria. be assumed to be proportional to the applied nominal
The theoretical basis of the above types of failure pressure, P, thus
criteria and their relationship with fracture mechanics P’=k$ (IO)
is described elsewhere [25]. Essentially, microcracks
grow but do not reach a critical state to result in gross The implied assumption here is that the entire stress
fracture because of the compressive stress field. Even- field scales with P.
tually, the micro-cracks coalesce and failure occurs by Combining eqns. (3) to (10) yields
net section rupture in shear. The failure force F mea-
sured in the axial direction will be proportional to the dP= - (7b+a’P) f
product of the failure stress and the cross-sectional
area of the fracture plane A, so that where
F=k12A (4) k, T()
7b= - (12)
where k, is a proportionality constant. In the context k3
of the ‘column’ model of the bed, the quantity F and
represents the maximum force that the column can
sustain; this corresponds to the failure force of the a’=k+ (13)
weakest granule. If this is summed over all ‘active’
Integrating eqn. (11) gives:
columns (i.e. those which contain a granule which is
currently failing), then the total force F* may be written P

as

+*=d*
s
PO
-=-
dlJ
Tb+a'P s
.h dh
ho
T (14)

where h, is the initial height of the bed.


Hence,
ln(rb+a’P)-ln T;=(Y) In@&)
Rearranging and introducing the natural strain
( = In&/h)) gives
InP=ln(r~/cu’)+cu’c+ln[l-exp(-a’e)]
This relatively simple equation provides a pres-
sure-volume relationship for confined uniaxial compres-
sion. At large values of E, a plot of In P as a function
of E should be linear with a slope of (Y’and an intercept
of ln(rblcu’), from which T; can be calculated.
It is of interest to relate the quantity, rO’, to the
single agglomerate failure load measured in the simple
compression test. In the diametric compression of spher-
ical agglomerates, the failure zone scales with the
cross-sectional area of the agglomerates [22]. For the
purposes of comparison, therefore, a single agglomerate
failure load, FcALc, has been defined as the product
of the agglomerate maximum cross-sectional area and
the cohesive strength:
d2 nd: k3
F cALc- -a
4 r”=4 zb
where d, is the agglomerate diameter. Without con-
sidering the details of the mechanisms leading to single
agglomerate failure it is impossible to proceed beyond
the crude form of eqn. (17) which is, in any case,
sufficient for the present purpose.
Experimental methods
The agglomerates to be studied were formed from
quartz sand using a polyvinyl-pyrrolidone (PVP) binder
of molecular weight 44 x 103. The sand was first sieved
to separate a size fraction between 45 and 180 pm.
The particles were then wet-mixed with the binder in
aqueous solution, using a planetary mixer. The wet
mass was granulated in a rotating pan, and the ag-
glomerates were dried and sieved into the desired
fractions.
For the confined uniaxial compression test, the ag-
glomerates to be tested were placed in a 37.2 mm
diameter cylinder and tapped to remove any large
packing irregularities. The bed depth was measured
using a vernier micrometer. An initial depth of about
18 mm was used throughout. A close-fitting piston was
then applied and the powder was compressed using a
‘JJ’ testing machine. In all the experiments reported
here the cross-head speed was maintained at 3.5 mm
per min. The applied force and the displacement were
measured using a load cell and a linear voltage dis-
placement transducer respectively; these sensors were
interfaced to a computer so that a complete record of
9
the force-displacement behaviour was obtained for each
test.
(15) The single-particle crushing test was also carried out
E using the ‘JJ’ tester and consisted of a simple compres-
sion between platens at the same cross-head speed.
Because of the large statistical variation in fracture
(16) strengths of single agglomerates, the data presented
here represent averages over ten measurements in each
case.
Results
Figure 4 shows a typical set of data obtained from
the uniaxial confined compression test, plotted in the
form of the natural log of the applied stress against
the natural strain. As predicted by the theory, the plot
is linear at large values of strain, since under these
circumstances the third term on the right of eqn. (16)
is small. Initial values of the intercept, ln(rO’l&), and
the gradient, cy’, of this line may be calculated from
the data obtained at large strains; in this case, the last
10% of data points were used. The value of (Y’ was
(17) then adjusted incrementally to give the best fit of the
full form of eqn. (16) to the entire data set, on a least
squares basis. Finally, r,,’ was found from the intercept
and gradient of the linear portion of the final curve.
Table 1 shows the calculated values of ro’ and (k,/
k#‘oALc for a range of agglomerate diameters from
1440 to 2 580 pm and binder concentrations from 0.5
to 3.2% by weight. Agglomerates with less than 0.5%
binder were found to be too weak to give reliable
results.
Values of single particle crushing load, F, for the
same agglomerates are given in Table 2. The quantity
InP -
w
.
ii
5 -
0-I’ ” ” ” ’
0 5 10
STRAIN x 100
Fig. 4. In P vs. strain for sand agglomerates 2 360-2 800 pm
(3.2% binder; run 8)+data points; every tenth point shown -
eqn. (16).
10

TABLE 1. Results of uniaxial confined compression tests

Test Binder Agglomerate (wwCALc*

no. COIYC. diameter, d, & m-*) (N)
(%) (pm)

6 0.5 2580 0.59 x lo6 2.7

12 1.0 2580 1.54 x lo* 8.1

4 2.0 1850 3.40 x lo6 9.2
3 2.0 2180 2.70 x lo6 10.1
5 2.0 2580 2.04 x lo6 10.7

11 3.2 1440 5.03 x lo6 8.2

10
9
8
3.2
3.2
3.2
1850
2180
2580
4.87
3.78
3.01
x
x
x
lo6
lo6
106
13.1
14.1
15.7
I . CONC2
3.2 % I

*From eqn. (17).

TABLE 2. Results of single particle crushing tests

Test Binder Agglomerate Crushing Flda2

no. cont. diameter, d, load, F (N m-‘)
(%) (pm) (N) Xl@
5 10 15

6 0.5 2580 0.7 f 0.2 1.05+0.3 Fexpt (N)

12 1.0 2580 3.1 f 0.9 4.7 f 1.4 Fig. 5. Comparison of values of calculated and measured single
particle fracture loads.
4 2.0 1850 5.7+0.8 16.7 k 2.3
3 2.0 6.9 + 1.9 14.5 rt4.0
5 2.0 2580 7.4* 1.3 11.1*2.0 to describe compression of a mass of powder. One of
11 3.2 1440 6.2* 1.1 29.9 f 5.3
the most widely used of these equations is that due
10 3.2 1850 6.9k1.8 20.2 + 5.3 to Kawakita and co-workers [7, 261:
9 3.2 2180 10.8 of:2.0 22.7 of:4.2
8 3.2 2580 14.0 f 2.9 21.Ok4.4 v,-v
-=- abl'
(18)
v, l+bP
(F/d:) should remain constant with changes in ag- where V, is the initial volume of the bed, V is the
glomerate size providing that the binder concentration current volume, P is the applied pressure and a and
remains unchanged. In fact, it is apparent from the b are constants. It is clear from eqn. (18) that as P
data of Table 2 that (F/&*) decreases somewhat with becomes large so that bP> 1,
increase in agglomerate size, suggesting, unsurprisingly,
that factors in the agglomeration process reduce the vo-v..
strength of the agglomerates as they become larger. a=V,
That the TV’values in Table 1 follow a similar trend where V, is the volume of the particles alone. Kawakita
is further evidence to support the analysis presented et al. [26] found that the values of the parameter a
above. they obtained from fitting eqn. (18) to experimental
Figure 5 compares values of (kZ/k3)FCALCderived data were in good agreement with the initial porosity
from the confined compression test and the measured of the powder bed. Combining eqns. (18) and (19) we
single particle fracture load. Despite the considerable have
scatter in the single agglomerate fracture loads, the
experimentally-determined value of the single particle p(!c-$)~$k$) (20)
crushing load is seen to be approximately proportional
to the single agglomerate failure load inferred from
the uniaxial confined compression test. which is one of the forms of his equation which Kawakita
recommends in order to obtain a value for the constant
b. Figure 6 shows a plot of a typical set of data from
Discussion the sand/PVP agglomerates, illustrating good agreement
with eqn. (20). Kawakita er al. [26] suggested that the
It is of interest to compare the predictions of eqn. constant (l/b), which has dimensions of pressure, is
(16) with those of the empirical equations often used related to the yield stress of the individual powder
 11

Thus,
P v-v,

% In P= ln(T,‘/a’) + a’ In(V,/V) (22)

k-l

or

!c
p=$
a’ (1v
From Kawakita’s eqn. (20):

Equations (23) and (24) will give similar estimates for

P provided that their dependencies on strain, and
therefore current volume, V, are similar in the range
of interest. In fact, the voidage terms (l/cy’)(VO/v’
and (Vo-- V)I(V- V,), from eqns. (23) and (24), are

r-1
v, - v
indeed proportional over certain ranges of void fraction.
VO
For V, lV,,= 0.44, for example, the two terms are ap-
Fig. 6. Kawakita plot for 2 360-2 800 Frn sand agglomerates (1.0%
proximately equal in the range 0.9 > V/V,,> 0.6 if CY’= 4;
binder; run 12).
as the value of a’ increases, the range of void fraction
over which the two expressions are proportional de-
creases, so that for (Y’=20

(25)
over the range 0.98 > V/V, > 0.92. In this work, (Y’varied
between 10 and 30, but strains were confined to less
than lo%, so that eqn. (24) may be used, leading to
Tb= 0.7/b (26)
which is shown in Fig. 7, giving good agreement with
the data for this value of V,/V,.

.. , , , , , , , Conclusions
0
0 2 L 6
AGGLOMERATE SHEAR STRENGTH 7; (MRI Uniaxial confined compression of the agglomerates
Fig. 7. Comparison of Kawakita parameter, b, with agglomerate considered here is a purely dissipative process in which
shear strength, TV’, for all confined compaction experiments; eqn. strain can only be accommodated as the result of
(26). individual agglomerate failure. Here, the Mohr-
Coulomb macroscopic stress criterion is applied to the
particles. Values of l/b from this work are plotted in failure of individual agglomerates. The modelling prob-
Fig. 7 against values of TV’, obtained by fitting eqn. lem then reduces to describing (i) the way in which
(16) to the experimental data. The excellent linear the effective area over which failure occurs varies with
correlation confirms the link between Kawakita’s con- the extent of the overall deformation (i.e. the strain)
stant and the yield stress of the particles, which may and (ii) the way in which single agglomerate failure is
initially seem surprising because of the apparently dif- affected by the local normal stresses on the failure
ferent forms of eqns. (16) and (18). plane. In this analysis, extremely simple assumptions
Developing the comparison further, at large values have been made in each case, leading nevertheless to
of strain, eqn. (16) reduces to an expression for the load-deformation relationship
which is a good approximation to experimental be-
In P= ln(T,‘/a’) + a’6 (21) haviour. Moreover, this simple theory provides a means
Since E is here the natural strain it may be replaced by which the average shear strength of a single ag-
by ln(V,,lV), using the notation of eqn. (16). glomerate can be obtained by experiments on a bed
12

of agglomerates, and this value is related to the single kl, k2,k, proportionality constants, -
particle crushing strength through a single empirical number of active columns (eqn. (5)), -
proportionality factor. ;: pressure, stress, Nme2
The form of any expression for the load-deformation P’ local value of normal stress on failure plane,
relationship under confined uniaxial compaction must Nmp2
include some measure of the strength of the individual V bed volume, m3
particles (in this case, agglomerates) being compressed. vo initial bed volume, m3
The analysis presented here clearly shows that the V/, final bed volume (eqn. (19)), m3
constant b in Kawakita’s equation is to be interpreted
as proportional to the reciprocal of the single particle Greek letters
failure stress, which is in agreement with the qualitative a parameter in Mohr-Coulomb failure cri-
arguments put forward by Kawakita et al. [26]. terion (eqn. (3)), -
ff’ =k,a (eqn. (13)), -,
E void fraction, -
% mean tensile strength (eqn. (2)), Nme2
Acknowledgements 7 failure stress, Nmp2
70 strength of agglomerate at zero normal load,
This work was carried out as part of a project Nmp2
sponsored under the Particulate Technology Specially rb =(k2/k3)~o (eqn. (12)), Nme2
Promoted Programme (S.P.P.) of the Science and En-
gineering Research Council. The grant-holder (Dr J.P.K.
Seville) wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Mr
L.J. Ford, the S.P.P. Coordinator. The authors also
wish to thank Professor R. Clift, Dr J.G. Petrie and References
Dr U. Ti.izi,in for useful discussions during the prep-
aration of this paper, and Dr C. Thornton of the C. Thornton and D.J. Barnes, Acta Mechanicu, 64 (1986) 45.
R.W. Heckel, Trans. Mefall. Sot. AIME, 221 (1960) 671.
Department of Civil Engineering of Aston University
R.W. Heckel, Trans. Metall. Sot. AIME, 221 (1961) 1001.
for the use of Fig. 2. R.J. Roberts and R.C. Rowe, Chem. Eng. Sci., 42 (1987) 903.
A.S. Khan, Y. Xiang and S. Huang, Int. 1 Plast., 7 (1991)
607.
D.P. Isherwood, in B.J. Briscoe and M.J. Adams (eds.),
TriboZogy in Particulate Technology, Hilger, Bristol, 1987, p.
List of symbols
234.
7 K. Kawakita and K.-H. Ludde, Powder Technol., 4 (1970/71)
A area of failure surface, m2 61.
A* =k+4, m2 8 R.P. Seelig and J. Wulff, Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Eng.,
cross-sectional area of bed, m2 166 (1946) 492.
A0
9 A.R. Cooper and L.E. Eaton, J. Am. Ceram. Sot., 45 (1962)
a,, 4, a2 parameters in eqn. (l), -
97.
a, b parameters in Kawakita’s equation (eqn. 10 M.A. Mullier, J.P.K. Seville and M.J. Adams, Chem. Eng.
(B)), -, m* N-’ Sci., 42 (1987) 667.
diameter of agglomerate, m 11 M.J. Adams, M.A. Mullier and J.P.K. Seville, in B.J. Briscoe
diameter of primary particle making up and M.J. Adams (eds.), TriboZogy in Particulate Technology,
Hilger, Bristol, 1987, p. 375.
agglomerate, m
12 M.A. Mullier, J.P.K. Seville and M.J. Adams, Powder Technol.,
F failure force, N 65 (1991) 321.
F* total force acting on test cell, N 13 P.A. Cundall, A. Drescher and O.D.L. Strack, Proc. IUTAM
F CALC calculated single agglomerate fracture load Conj, Delft, 1982, p. 355.
14 A. Drescher and G. de Josselin de Jong, 1. Mech. Phys. SoZids,
(eqn. (17)) N
20 (1972) 337.
H interparticle force (eqn. (2)), N
15 J.P. Troadec, D. Bideau and J.A. Dodds, Powder Technol.,
h bed height, m 65 (1991) 147.
11 first invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, 16 T. Dunstan, J.R.F. Arthur, A. Dali& 0.0. Ogunbekum and
Nmd2 R.K.S. Wong, Nature, 336 (1988) 52.
second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, 17 B. Steenberg, Powder Technol., 37 (1984) 2.89.
J2
18 H. Rumpf, in W.A. Knepper (ed.), Agglomeration, Inter-
Nme2
science, New York, 1962, p. 379.
K stress intensity factor, Nrnp3” 19 H. Rumpf, in K.V. Sastty (ed.), AgZomeration 77, AIME,
KC critical stress intensity factor, Nm-‘” New York, 1977, p. 97.
k coordination number, - 20 M.J. Adams, J. Powder Bulk Solidrs Technof., 9 (1985) 15.

21 M.J. Adams, D. Williams and J.G. Williams, /. Muter. Sci.,
24 (1989) 1772.
22 C.E. Capes, Particle Size Enlargement, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1980.
23 C.A. Coulomb, Mem. Math. Phys., Acad. Roy. Sci., Vol. 7,
Paris, 1776, pp. 343, 382.
13
24 0. Mohr, VIII Z., 44 (1900) 1524.
25 B. Paul, in H. Liebowitz (ed.), Fruchrre, An Advanced Treatise,
Vol II: Mathematical Fundamentals, Academic Press, New
York, 1968, pp. 315-496.
26 K. Kawakita, I. Hattori and M. Kishigami, J. Powder Bulk
Solids Technol., 1 (1977) 3.