Report of Material Characterisation and silo design for Industrial Salt

ME44100 –2018-2019

The objective of this report is to present the test results and hopper design based on the test results. Write it
as if you have to report to your ‘employer’.

Contact details
In case you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact:
Ed Stok
room B-2-240
phone: 015-2786839
Mobile: 06 14015 115
E.F.L.Stok@tudelft.nl

Note:
write your names, group number and test material in the footer on the next page

DEADLINE OF SUBMITTING MEASURED VALUES (Question 1b and 3): 1 Day after test via
Brightspace group page.

DEADLINE OF REPORT SUBMISSION: Thursday January 10, 2019 at 10.00 (digital: via BRIGHTSPACE
Group page)

Group number 01
Industrial Salt
Authors: name student no.
1. Nahom Tsehaie 4357728
2. Jaime Bulters 4189981
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

1. Material
1.a Describe the test material
Comparing the two test materials, industrial salt has a smaller particle size. This was noticed by feeling
the materials. As salt is a hydrophilic material the salt will cohere over time as it subtract water from air.
This will result in lumps and therefor increase the chance of arching.

1.b. Measure the Angle of Repose of (1) Industrial Salt (IS) and (2) Kitchen Salt (KS)

Pic1 – Industrial Salt Pic2 – Kitchen Salt

AoR = 31.8 AoR = 33.5

Figure 1: Angle of Repose for Industrial Salt and Kitchen Salt.

From the results it is clear that the angle of repose for Industrial Salt is smaller than the angle of repose
for Kitchen Salt. Although test results show small variances the biggest measured angle of repose for
Industrial Salt is still smaller than the smallest angle of repose of Kitchen Salt. The variances in the
measurements for one reason could be caused by a loose panel in the measurement device, another
reason could be small measuring errors.

Repeat the test 10 times and print the result in a table

Table 1: Test repetition for Angle of Repose of IS and KS
Repetition no. AoR-IS AoR-KS
1 31,6 33,2
2 28,4 34,7
3 30,9 34,2
4 32,9 35,2
5 31,4 35,2
6 31,6 35
7 31,6 34,7
8 31,8 34,7
9 32,5 35,7
10 31,8 33,5
Mean 31,45 34,61

95% interval 30,59 - 32,31 34,05 - 35,17

The 95 % interval shows that if the experiment is repeated under the same conditions there is a 95 %
chance the results of the experiment are in this interval.

N. Tsehaie 2/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

Determining the 95%-interval:

𝑛 = 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠

𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 = 𝑥̅ = ∑
𝑛

𝑛
1
𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝜎 = √ ∗ ∑(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )2
𝑛−1
𝑖−1

𝑧 = 2,262, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑛 = 10
𝑧∗𝜎
95% − 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑙 = 𝑥̅ ±
√𝑛

2. Performed shearcell measurements for Industrial Salt

The shearcelltype M is used for these measurements, its dimensions can be found in the operating
instructions. (There are two of these cells, make sure you put the right number in the operational
software). Wall friction is measured with two wall materials: cold rolled steel and (blasted) hot rolled
steel.

Normal stress Internal friction Internal friction Internal friction Wall friction
[kPa] Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Measurement 3 Measurement
pre shear 20 8 2 -
sh,1 2 0.5 0.2 1
sh,2 4 1 0.4 2
sh,3 8 2 0.8 3
sh,4 16 4 1.6 4
sh,5 6
sh,6 - - - 10
sh,7 - - - 13
sh,8 - - - 17

a. Density of the material

 Measure the material weight in the cell before the shear measurement starts, do this for the
three YL.
 Calculate the bulk density of the material (the volume and the dimensions of the shearcell can be
found in the operating instructions. Show how to determine the density of the material. (formula
and SI units)

To determine the density of the material, the following formula is used:

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠
𝜌=
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒

The mass of each yield loci is already given in the table above. The volume and dimensions of
the shear cell are as follows:
The shear cell has a ring shape, for ring shapes the volume can be calculated by:
1 1
𝑉𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 = ( 𝜋𝑑𝑜2 − 𝜋𝑑𝑖2 ) ∗ ℎ
4 4

N. Tsehaie 3/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

The outer diameter(do) = 0.2 m

The inner diameter (di) = 0.1 m
The height (h) = 0.04 m
Volume = 0.00942478 m3

The results are tabulated in table 2:

Table 2: Results of density calculations

Measurement Material weight [kg] Density [kg/m3]

1; 1.2129 1286.9
2; 1.2180 1292.3
3; 1.2015 1274.8

 Also retrieve the densities during the sheartests from the RingShearTester and draw the density
as a function of the consolidation stress.

Graphy Denisty vs consilidation stress

1320

1315
Density in Kg/m^3

1310

1305

1300

1295
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000
Consilidation stress σ1

Figure 2: Density vs consolidation stress plot and trend line

The density of the industrial salt retrieved during the sheartest from the RingShearTester are
respectivitely averaged: 1316, 1315 and 1302 kg/m^3. All the blue dots are the values that come
out of the RingShearTester. The red tredline gives the estimatic graph of it.

N. Tsehaie 4/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

b. Data Time Line of 1 measurement

Include a data time line of 1 of the measurements here

Figure 3: Data time line of measurement with pre shear stress 20 kPa

3. Yield loci and Mohr circles

Yield Loci of the three measurements

12.000
y = 0.6899x - 0.0766
10.000

8.000
𝛕 in [kpa]

6.000
y = 0.6766x + 0.0142
gr01 Measurement1
gr01 Measurement 2
4.000
gr01 Measurement 3
Linear (gr01 Measurement1)
2.000 Linear (gr01 Measurement 2)
Linear (gr01 Measurement 3)
y = 0.6675x + 0.0177
0.000
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000
σ in [kpa]
Figure 4 : Yield Loci of Industrial Salt

N. Tsehaie 5/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

WALL YIELD LOCI OF HOT ROLLED AND

7.000 COLD ROLLED STEEL
6.000 y = 0.3799x + 0.1069

5.000
𝛕 IN [KPA]

4.000

3.000

2.000
y = 0.161x + 0.1584
1.000

0.000
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000 20.000
Σ IN [KPA]
Cold Rolled steel Hot Rolled Steel

Figure 5: Wall Yield Loci of Industrial Salt with two different surface materialsTable 3: Tabulated results 𝜎 𝑣𝑠 𝜏

YL1 gr01 Industrial Salt

YL2 gr01 Industrial Salt
σ [kPa] τ [kPa]
σ [kPa] τ [kPa]
1 2,051 1,283 1 0,506 0,362
2 4,051 2,762 2 1,052 0,711
3 8,052 5,509 3 2,051 1,414
4 16,051 10,977 4 4,051 2,752

YL3 gr01 Industrial Salt Cold Rolled steel

σ [kPa] τ [kPa] WYL cold gr01 Industrial Salt
1 0,250 σ [kPa] τ [kPa]
0,187
2 0,452 1 1,148 0,319
0,321
3 0,851 2 2,147 0,503
0,579
4 1,652 3 3,148 0,676
1,123
4 4,147 0,837
5 6,148 1,157
Blasted hot rolled steel 6 10,148 1,791
WYL hot gr01 Industrial Salt 7 13,148 2,279
σ [kPa] τ [kPa] 8 17,147 2,910
1 1,151 0,543
2 2,150 0,928
3 3,151 1,310
4 4,150 1,692
5 6,152 2,439
6 10,151 3,964
7 13,151 5,052
8 17,151 6,658

N. Tsehaie 6/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

--------from here on the test apparatus is not required anymore, make sure you have extracted all
measurement data and requested information from the system for processing
Datatimelines are required for appendix A of this report--------

4. Construct Mohr circles for a time consolidated Industrial Salt

Suppose there is a relation between the tested Industrial Salt and time consolidated Salt. Assume
that each YL of the time consolidated material can be constructed by increasing each individual measured
shearstress by 10%.
Do this for each of the 3 YL, and construct the Mohr circles for all the measurements according directions
in “Powder and Bulk Solids” by D. Schulze.

Show the new tables here:

Table 4: Measurement1 + 10% shear – Yield Locus 1

σ [kPa] τ [kPa]
1 2,051 1,4113
2 4,051 3,0382
3 8,052 6,0599
4 16,051 12,0747
Pre shear 20,051 13,332

Figure 6: YL1 and Mohr’s circle Time Consolidation

Table 5: Measurement2 + 10% shear – Yield locus 2

σ [kPa] τ [kPa]
1 0,506 0,3982
2 1,052 0,7821
3 2,051 1,5554
4 4,051 3,0272
Pre shear 8,051 5,3317

N. Tsehaie 7/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

Figure 7:YL1 and Mohr’s circle Time Consolidation

Measurement3 + 10% shear – Yield locus 3

σ [kPa] τ [kPa]
1 0,250 0,2068
2 0,452 0,3575
3 0,851 0,6358
4 1,652 1,2144
Pre shear 2,051 1,3596

5. Friction angles for

 What is the effective angle of internal friction for both materials (φ e)

N. Tsehaie 8/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

 What is angle of internal friction (φi) for both materials?

 What is the wall friction for both materials? (φ w or φx)

Describe or show how to determine the above angles for both the tested and the time consolidated
material. What is the difference? Are they the same for all measurements? What are the values (present
them in a table)?

The effective angle of internal friction and angle of internal friction for the industrial salt can be extracted
from the results reports obtained after conducting the elements.

For the time consolidated salt the effective angle of friction can be determined by drawing a line from the
origin to the last measured point. This will lead to:

𝜏4
φe = tan−1 ( )
𝜎4
For the angle of internal friction the pre-shear stresses have to be used. This leads to:

𝜏𝑝𝑟𝑒
φi = tan−1 ( )
𝜎𝑝𝑟𝑒

The results are given in the tables below:

measurement σ pre [kPa] φe [ ˚ ] φi [ ˚ ]

1 20 34,4 31,2
2 8 34,1 31
3 2 34,2 31,1

Time consolidated salt:

measurement σ pre [kPa] φe [ ˚ ] φi [ ˚ ]
1 20 36,95 33,62
2 8 36,77 33,51
3 2 36,32 33,54

The figure below shows the relation between the normal stress and the wall friction angle for two
materials. These materials are hot rolled steel and cold rolled steel. The figure shows a big difference in
friction angles between the two materials. From this figure can be noticed that hot rolled steel has a
higher friction coefficient than cold rolled steel. The limit of the wall friction angle for hot rolled steel
around 21,1 ˚, for cold rolled steel the limit of the wall friction angle is around 9,5 ˚

N. Tsehaie 9/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

σ vs wall friction angle

30
cold rolled steel
25
Hot rolled steel
20

φ[˚]
15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
σ[kPa]

Figure X: Relation between σ and friction angle

In question 1 you have determined the angle of repose. Comment on how the angle of repose of your
test material relates to the friction angles?

The value of the angle of internal friction is in the 95%-interval of the angle of repose for the measured
industrial salt. This would mean that the angle of repose is equal to the angle of internal friction.
The difference in the angle of internal friction and the effective angle of friction is due to fact that the
yield locus is not linear, therefor the line between the last measured point and the origin is different from
the line between the origin and the pre shear.

6. Powder flow function

Determine for both the tested and the time consolidated material the pairs of values of σc
(unconfined yield stress) and σ1 (compacting stress) necessary to plot the powder flow function.

These values are as follows:

The following values are from the shearcell cell report or determined with the circle of mohr:
#Test Unconfined yield stress σc [Pa] Compacting stress σ1 [Pa]
Tested Time consolidated Tested Time consolidated
Measurement 2 kPa 76 192 3465 3580
Measurement 8 kPa 0 700 13639 18150
Measurement 20 kpa 0 1750 33884 41500

Th powder flow function has the following formula: σc = f(σ1). If we plot σc against to σ1, we obtain the
following graph:

N. Tsehaie 10/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

Powder flow function

2000
Unconfined yield stress σc [Pa]

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Compacting stress σ1 [Pa]

7. Evaluation of the measurements

 What do you notice about the measurements?

From the measurements one can notice that the industrial salt will flow freely when there is no
consolidation, for the 20 kPa and the 8 Kpa measurements this would imply that when the pre-stress is
released from the salt, the salt would flow immediately.

Furthermore, the angle of internal friction differs slightly from the angle of repose. This difference relates
to the method used to measure the angle of repose. This was done with a smart phone held by hand and
later the angle was determined using a computer program. As the photo’s where taken by hand, the
angle at which the photo was taken differed slightly, this accounts for a difference.

 What can you tell about the reliability of the measurements?

Except for the angle of repose the experiments were conducted once at different stress states. This gives
an approximation but is not reliable.

 What storage height is accounted for by the applied stresses?

The height which is accounted for will be determined by using the fact that the stress in the bottom part
will equal:
𝜎𝑏 = 𝜌 ∗ 𝑔 ∗ ℎ

For 𝜎𝑏 = 33,884 kPa, this would mean a height of h = 2,66 m.

Design a conical stainless steel hopper with mass flow for the tested Industrial Salt, for the
2 wall materials.
Use diagrams from “Powder and Bulk Solids” by D. Schulze

8. Hopper flow factor

Determine the hopper flow factor.

Show how you determined the flow factor (ff) and the angle of hopper case ().

To determine the ff first the angle of the angle of hopper case is determined, with the wall friction angle
and effective angle of internal friction, the ff can be determined.

N. Tsehaie 11/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

For the angle of the hopper case () the following equations are used:

𝜋 1 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜑𝑒 )
𝜃𝑐 = − ∗ arccos ( )− 𝛾
2 2 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜑𝑒 )

sin(𝜑𝑤 )
2𝛾 = 𝜑𝑤 + arcsin ( )
sin(𝜑𝑒 )

The angle of the hopper case () equals:

Material 𝛾 𝜃𝑐
cold rolled steel 13,24 43,1
hot rolled steel 30,34 26,0

The hopper flow factor (ff) is determined from gif 10.20 in the book “Powder and Bulk Solids” with the 3
parameters (𝜑𝑒 , 𝜑𝑤 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜃𝑐 ) and has the value: 1.8 for cold rolled steel and 1,9 for hot rolled steel.

9. Design of the hopper

Determine (and show how you determine) the minimum outlet diameter for mass flow.

We want to design a circular outlet. In order to determine the minimum outlet diameter for mass flow,
we need to know few parameters first. The formula for minimum outlet diameter B is:
𝐻(𝜃)∗𝜎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡
𝐵𝑚𝑖𝑛 = Where:
𝜌𝐵 ∗𝑔
𝐻(𝜃) = factor determined by slope of the hopper wall and in variable with the cone angle;
𝜎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 = critical stress developed in the surface of the arch
𝜌𝐵 = bulk density of the material
𝑔 = acceleration due to gravity

- The 𝜎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 can be determined from the intersection of the graph where the powder flow function and the
𝜎
line 𝑐 are plotted. This value is the critical unconfined yield stress 𝜎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 . In our case the critical stress is
𝑓𝑓
100.52 for cold rolled steels 100.44 Pa for hot rolled steel.
𝑚
- The acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 2
𝑠
- We already calculated the bulk density in question 2 for the three measurements. The bulk density we
𝑘𝑔
are using the maximum one, which is 1316 3 .
𝑚
𝜃
- 𝐻(𝜃) can be approximated with 𝐻(𝜃) = 2.0 + where 𝜃 is the cone angle. In our case the cone angle
60
is 43.1 degrees for cold rolled steel. The cone angle of the hot rolled steel is 26,0 degrees. So this gives a
H of 2,65 and 2,40 respectively.

If we fill in all the values for the minimum diameter, we get:

𝐻(𝜃)∗𝜎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 2.65∗100.52
𝐵𝑚𝑖𝑛 = = = 0.021 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 for cold rolled steel
𝜌𝐵 ∗𝑔 1316∗9.81
𝐻(𝜃)∗𝜎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 2.40∗100.44
and 𝐵𝑚𝑖𝑛 = = = 0.019 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 for hot rolled steel
𝜌𝐵 ∗𝑔 1316∗9.81

We still need to apply a safety margin of 25% in 𝐵𝑚𝑖𝑛 , because we did not a apply a safety margin in 𝜃 of
3 degrees.

𝑘𝑔
So, The bulk density (ρb) equals 1310 and to achieve mass flow in this situation, the minimum outlet
𝑚3
diameter should be equal to 2.6 cm for cold rolled and 2.4 cm for hot rolled steel. This is not realistic,
because with these values, there will be arching. If the outlet is too small, a stable arch can form above
the outlet and the flow stops.

N. Tsehaie 12/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

10. Discussion on the design of the hopper and the sheartests.

Determine the maximum storage capacity and the geometry (including dimensions) of the silo if the
space available is limited to 10x10x10m. Make assumptions where necessary.

In the previous question we determined the minimum required diameter. Since the particle size of the
industrial salt is 600 micrometer, our material is classified as coarse grained material. Now we can use
the following formula, to calculate the mass flow:
𝑊 = 𝐶 ∗ 𝑝𝑏 ∗ √𝑔 ∗ (𝐵 − 𝑘 ∗ 𝑑𝑥)2.5
Where:
 C and k are fitting parameters. Beverloo found C=(.55-.65) and k=(1.5-3.0). we are using the
maximum of C and the minimum of k, in order to create the maximum mass flow. So C = 0.65
and k = 1.5
 𝑝𝑏 and g and B are already defined in question 9
 dx = particle size in meter. In our case this is 0.0006 meter.

This gives us for cold and hot rolled steel respectively :

𝑊 = 0.65 ∗ 1316 ∗ √9.81 ∗ (0.026 − 1.5 ∗ 0.0006)2.5 = 0.27 𝑘𝑔/𝑠
𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑊 = 0.65 ∗ 1316 ∗ √9.81 ∗ (0.024 − 1.5 ∗ 0.0006)2.5 = 0.22 𝑘𝑔/𝑠

This seems way too small. So we decided to take mass flow of approx. 130 kg/s. If we take a outlet
diameter of 0.3 meter, gives us a mass flow of 131.1 kg/s. this seems reasonable. So we do further
calculations with a diameter of 0.3 meter.

The maximum dimensions for the designed conical hopper that will fit in the space of (10x10x10 m3)
1000 m3 will be as follows:

The outlet diameter is determined from the mass flow (0.3 meter). From the cone angle of both
materials, the height of the inclination of the lower part of the hopper will be determined. The remaining
upper height will be straight. This results in the following equations.

𝐷𝑡𝑜𝑝 = 10 𝑚
𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡 = 0.3 𝑚
𝜃𝑐,ℎ𝑟 = 26°
𝜃𝑐,𝑐𝑟 = 43,1°
𝐻𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 10 𝑚
𝐷𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡
−
𝐻𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 2 2
tan(𝜃𝑐 )

𝐻𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 𝐻𝑡𝑜𝑡 − 𝐻𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑

2
1 𝐷𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝐷𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡 2 1 2
𝑉 = 𝜋 (( ) + +( ) ) ∗ 𝐻𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 + 𝜋𝐷𝑡𝑜𝑝 ∗ 𝐻𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
3 2 2 2 2 4

Applying these equations leads to the results shown in the table below:

Material 𝜃𝑐 Doutlet[m] Dtop[m] Hinclined[m] Hstraight[m] Volume [m3]

Hot rolled 26 0,3 10 9,943974 0,056026 272,7772
Cold rolled 43,1 0,3 10 5,182823 4,817177 518,2189

In addition, discuss the difference or similarities in design for both wall materials.

N. Tsehaie 13/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

Appendix A: Data Time Lines of all 4 measurements

Add here the Data Time Lines of the three shearcell tests, and the wall friction test.

N. Tsehaie 14/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt
ME44100 – Practical 2018-2019 v1

Documentation:

 Storage and flow of solids A.W. Jenike

 Course Quality control and Powder Technology Dr.I. Peschl
 Introduction to Particle Technology M. Rhodes, J. Wiley & Sons
 Powders and Bulk Solids D. Schulze
 www.dietmar-schulze.de
 Brightspace

N. Tsehaie 15/15 group number 01

J. Bulters Industrial Salt