Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Flow regime chart for pneumatic conveying

Haim Kalman a,b,⇑, Anubhav Rawat a
a
Laboratory for Conveying and Handling of Particulate Solids, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, Beer-Sheba 84105, Israel
b
Aron Fish Chair in Mechanical Engineering-Fracture Mechanics, Israel

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

A new flow regime chart Re(Ar) was

developed.

Flow regime chart enables to predict
the flow shape for any material, air
velocity.

Two new types of plugs were
discovered.

For Ar > 100 all kind of plugs may
exist.

For Ar < 100 only Plug-1 was found.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Dense phase pneumatic conveying is preferred by industry over dilute phase flow due to its advantages.
Received 2 June 2019 Models enabling to calculate pressure drop are worthless for a designer if he is unable to predict in
Received in revised form 25 August 2019 advance the mode of conveying. Therefore, this research is focused on developing a new flow regime
Accepted 30 September 2019
chart. Based on hundreds of experiments all required threshold velocities are defined by Reynolds num-
Available online 4 October 2019
ber as a simple power function of Archimedes number. This work, revealed two new kind of plugs
unknown before. Using the threshold functions a new flow regime chart was plotted By comparing the
Keywords:
results to previously published models characterizing only the material properties revealed that the fee-
Pneumatic conveying
Flow regime chart
der is probably have a major role controlling the final mode of flow. Taking into account the findings in
Plug flow this paper, one might have ideas of how to improve the feeders in order to fully fulfill the flow potential.
Dune flow Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dilute phase flow

1. Introduction homogeneously distributed in the pipe and the particle-particle

Pneumatic conveying is a common way to convey particulate
materials in a pipe insulated from the surrounding. At the same
time the surrounding is insulated from the powders to prevent
contaminations. In a common practice the flow in the pipe is
divided into two main regimes: dilute phase flow and dense phase
flow. In dilute phase flow only one type of flow exists: particles are
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hkalman@bgu.ac.il (H. Kalman).
interactions might be neglected. In dense phase flow a number of
flow types may exist, such as: stratified, dune, fluidized, slug or
plug. Dense phase flow is gaining popularity because of its advan-
tages in overall power saving and capability to decrease pipe wear
and particle attrition. A proper engineering design for a given
pneumatic conveying system requires to calculate or define the
air source operation, thus, air flow rate and pressure drop. The lit-
erature provides many suggestions how to define the air flow rate
and to calculate the pipe pressure drop. However, they all requires
first to know the flow type, whether it will be dilute or dense.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2019.115256
0009-2509/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256
Nomenclature
 
Archimedes number, gq qp  q d =l2 (–)
3
Ar
D internal pipe diameter (m)
d particle size (m)
g gravity acceleration (ms2)
R bend radius (m)
Re Reynolds number, qU sf d=l (–)
t time (s)
A number of border lines between dilute and dense phase flows
were suggested in the past, through either saltation velocity,
pick-up velocity or minimum pressure velocity. However, the case
for dense phase flow is more complicated.
The scientific work on plug conveying (one of the types of dense
phase flow), theoretically, experimentally and numerically, started
years ago. Works (Muschelknautz, et al., 1969, Konrad, 1980,
Janssen, 1985, Mi and Wypych, 1995, Pan and Wypych, 1997,
Hong and Klinzing, 1989, Borzone and Klinzing, 1987, Aziz and
Klinzing, 1990) present a number of basic models for predicting
the pressure drop while conveying the particulate plugs. A number
of publications (Vasquez et al., 2003, Jae Bum and Klinzing, 2010,
Lecreps and Sommer, 2007, Lecreps et al., 2009, 2014a, 2014b,
Nied et al., 2017) focused on single plugs and measured the friction
force, analyzed various velocities and calculated the void fraction
with a plug. However, all of the above were related to only one
kind of plug, which we call here as Plug-2, and therefore, their
solutions or analysis are appropriate for only this kind of plug. It
should be mentioned that literature present various names, such
as plug and slug, to the same kind of flow, which might be confus-
ing. Specifically, various names, such as: moving, fluidized dense
phase, turbulent flow, dune flow, stratified flow, etc., are given to
apparently similar kind of flow. Recently, Shaul and Kalman
(2014, 2015a, 2015b) defined three kind of classical plugs, which
are:
a. Plug-1: moving pistons of particulate materials covering the
whole pipe cross-section leaving empty pipe after passing.
b. Plug-2: same as Plug-1 only stationary layer exists between
plugs. The plug front picks-up the layer and the rear release
particles to the layer. All the above references, but (Shaul
and Kalman, 2014, 2015b), related to this kind of flow.
c. Plug-3: same as Plug-2 only small plugs are moving at the
pipe top over a large stationary layer of particles at the pipe
bottom.
Shaul and Kalman also corrected the basic differential equation
used by all previous researchers and developed mechanistic fric-
tion models to all three kind of plugs. Later on, these models were
modified and confirmed by experiments (Rawat and Kalman,
2019a, 2019b) to show good agreement.
All of the above models and research has a great scientific merit,
however they have no practical use if the designer can’t predict the
type of flow in advance. It is worth to quote Sanchez et al. (2003):
‘‘One of the most challenging issues in solids handling is being able
to predict ahead of time whether a powder or granular material
will convey in a dense phase plug format. Until now, we have
had to rely on conducting almost full scale testing on the material
to ascertain if it will convey in this mode.” Therefore, a number of
investigators have proposed a number of techniques to address
this problem.
Geldart (1973) was the first to classify materials for fluidization
and defined four classes. It is commonly believed that particles of
pick-up velocity (ms1)
Upu
Usf superficial fluid velocity (ms1)
l fluid viscosity (Pas)
q fluid density (kgm3)
qp particle density (kgm3)
type A and C might be conveyed in plug flow with difficulties, type
B will not convey naturally in plug flow and type D are the best
candidates for plug flow (Sanchez et al., 2003). Dixon (1979) based
his analysis on Geldart’s classification and modified the border
lines between classes. Mainwaring and Reed (1987) suggested that
the flow type is dictated by the combination of two factors, the
permeability factor and the de-aeration factor. Both of them are
usually measured in a fluidized bed column. Later on Jones and
Mills (1990) and Jones (1988) showed that the de-aeration factor
can be measured by tapping and vibrating a material sample. In
any case, they defined three types of flow: materials with low per-
meability factor and high de-aeration factor values can convey in a
moving bed mode, materials with lower de-aerations and high per-
meability factors are conveyed in plug type flow, all others can
flow only in dilute phase flow. Pan (1999) classified the materials
based on their loosely poured bulk density and median particle
diameter into three groups. Fine powders (roughly groups C and
A according to Geldart) can flow in dilute or fluidized dense phase.
Larger particles with low density may flow in dilute or slug flow.
Particles having higher densities can be conveyed in only dilute
phase flow. Sanchez et al. (2003) conducted an excellent review
of the above and more models. They also compared 175 experi-
ments they have found in the literature and some of their own to
the various models. It should be emphasized that all of the above
considered the materials properties and disregarded the operating
conditions (air and solid mass flow rate) and the system at hand
(kind of feeder, pipe type and connections, way of inserting the
air, etc.). Therefore, their conclusions must be limited to specific
cases.
Only one paper by Borzone (2010) was found to take into
account also the operating conditions. However, he tested only
two similar materials and therefore his results are not conclusive.
He conducted experiments with a blow tank connected to a short
1-in. pipe. He controlled the air velocity and changed the pressure
drop, which apparently changed the solid mass flow rate. Accord-
ing to Geldart classification, the materials are characterized as class
D, which is a good candidate to plug flow. According to Pan classi-
fication the materials are characterized to the third group which
can be conveyed only in dilute phase flow. However, Borzone
(2010) showed that the materials can flow in all kind of flows given
the appropriate air velocity. At high velocities the conveying is con-
ducted by dilute phase flow. Reducing the velocity, it becomes
dune flow. Further reducing the air velocity, it might flow either
as plug or slug (depending on the pressure drop and solid mass
flow rate). Finally, the flow might become as static bed. The flow
was only slightly dependent on the pressure drop.
Rabinovich and Kalman (2011) presented a flow regime chart
for vertical pipe flow that present both material properties and
operating conditions (air velocity). The chart is defined by Rey-
nolds number (operating conditions) as a function of Archimedes
number (solid properties). The chart predicts the flow type for
any material at any air velocity, whether to be packed bed, flu-
idized, bubble flow or slug flow (in the range of fluidization) or fast
 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256
fluidization flow, plug flow or dilute phase flow (in the conveying
range). The chart was enabled due to previous researches showing
that all known and relevant threshold velocities can quite accu-
rately be defined by simple power equations of Re vs. Ar. It was
valid for terminal and minimum fluidization (Rabinovich and
Kalman, 2008a), saltation and minimum pressure (Rabinovich
and Kalman, 2008b, 2010) and pick-up (Kalman et al., 2005) veloc-
ities, among others. In most of the cases, Re was modified to take
into account the pipe diameter and Ar was modified to take into
account various affecting parameters, such as particle sphericity,
coefficient of restitution, friction coefficient and volumetric
concentration.
In this paper, previously defined threshold velocities and newly
developed ones are used to define a new flow regime chart for
horizontal flow. The threshold velocities which were not defined
earlier, will be defined in the same way as all other, as Re vs. Ar.
In this way the flow regime chart will include both solid properties
and operating conditions. Afterwards, the flow regime chart will be
compared to results and other charts from the literature to discuss
the differences between the definitions and what is probably the
reason for the differences. It should be emphasized that although
the new flow regime chart provide the basic phenomena, some
other parameters, not fully considered in this paper, may affect
the flow, such as: system parameters (feeder type, line configura-
tion, bends, pipe diameter and wall friction) operating parameters
(air flow rate and humidity and solid mass flow rate), particle prop-
erties (moisture content, electrical charging, particle shape, size
and size distribution) and finally, interactions between plugs in
multi-plug systems. All these parameters should be further inves-
tigated in order to improve the basic flow regime chart.
2. Experimental
To study the threshold velocities from one type of flow to
another, previous and new experiments are conducted in 2-in, 3-
in and 4-in Plexiglas pipe networks as appropriate. The experi-
ments are conducted on a variety of materials; some are granular,
up to 5 mm in size, whereas others were fine, down to a few
microns in size. Details of the experimental test rig, materials used,
and procedure adopted are explained in previous publications
(Rawat and Kalman, 2017, 2019a, 2019b) and shortly in subse-
quent sections.
2.1. Test rig
The current results related to various plugs flow have been con-
ducted in the indigenously fabricated experimental test rig, whose
generalized line diagram is as shown in Fig. 1a and b. The system
shown in Fig. 1a is used to Plug-1 studies and consists of a com-
pressor (1) of capacity 6–6.5 bar to generate the compressed air
for the experiments. One stop valve (2) and a gate valve (3) are pro-
vided to control the flow to the flow meters (Q) and to the Plexiglas
pipe network, respectively. The first pipe section (4) which is of
250 mm length is filled with plastic beads for flow straightening.
The second pipe section is of 350 mm length and is provided with
the pressure transducer (P1). The third pipe (5) is 1.5 m long test
section which could be separated from the line for the loading
and unloading of the artificial plugs. The plugs were tested after
some tapping. The fourth pipe (6) continues for 4 m up to a cyclone
separator (7) and is provided with two more pressure transducers
P2 and P3. All pipes are connected with each other by flanges. The
particles after experiments are collected in a collector at the bot-
tom of the cyclone (8).
The system shown in Fig. 1b is used for the other plugs tests.
The basic system is the same, only the plug is artificially fed into
3
a vertical section in order to force the plug to be symmetrical. In
case of Plug-2 and 3 repeated plugs were fed to create a stable sta-
tionary layer. The measurements took place only when the whole
new plug could move over the stationary layer to the cyclone with-
out causing any change to the layer height. The air is applied at the
top of the plug to force it to move through the long radius bend
(R/D = 10). In both cases, experiments were conducted with pipe
diameters of 1, 2, 3 and 4-in. The movement of the plug is recorded
by a high speed camera to measure the plug length, plug velocity
and particle velocity. The camera has the capability to record the
videos up to 5000 frames per second. All the pressure drop and
flow related data is read and recorded in the Lab-View system.
The results presented in this paper are the operating conditions
(air flow rate), material properties and visual observation of the
type of flow.
2.2. Materials
For the current study related to various plugs and other kinds of
flow over 30 materials have been measured at a very wide range of
shapes and properties. The particle size range was from 4 lm up to
5 mm, the particle density ranged from 935 kg m3 up to
7800 kg m3 and the Archimedes number from 103 up to 4.2
106. The materials properties, which used specifically in this work,
are presented in Table 1. All other materials are described in the
appropriate references. Also data from the literature, which will
be described later, will be used.
Table 1 indicating the particle size and the distribution. Two of
the materials are mono-sized (plastic beads and wheat) and two
have narrow size distribution (zeolite and potash), which means
that they were classified in between two sieves and the size repre-
sent the average of the range. Four materials have size distribution
(sand E3, fine salt, sand E2 and fly ash) presented in Fig. 2. In the
last case, the indicated particle size is the median size (Fig. 2). Most
of the particles have irregular shapes, but the plastic beads (nearly
spherical), wheat (elongated) and zeolite (spherical). The particle
densities were measured by a pycnometer, either Helium or water.
3. Flow regime chart
The flow regime chart is developed based on a number of
threshold velocities, some already published and some will be pre-
sented here at the first time. The flow regime chart describes the
potential of flow in the pipe and takes into account the material
properties and operating conditions. Whether the potential flow
will be realized in a real system or not depends also on the feeder.
Since here all the tests were conducted by artificially inserting a
plug into the pipe, as presented in Section 2, the effect of the feeder
is eliminated. This is important for getting general behavior, since
in addition to that a specific feeder may result with a specific flow
regime or eliminate a specific flow regime. However, these results
may lead to design of new and better feeders. As for the operating
conditions, it is assumed that the solid mass flow rate has no sig-
nificant effect. This is based on the fact that the following results
are achieved with various starting plug length and also partially
on the work of Borzone (2010) that showed only a minor effect
of the solid mass flow rate. It is assumed here that the solid mass
flow rate doesn’t affect the flow regime, but it may affect the plugs
length and frequency.
3.1. Dilute-dense border
By decreasing the air flow rate while keeping the solid flow rate
constant the flow will change from dilute to dense phase flow at
the saltation velocity. A number of definitions can be found in
4 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the test rig. a: for Plug-1 tests; b: for other plugs tests.

Table 1
Materials properties.

Material Particle Size, mm Size Distribution Particle Shape Particle Density, kg/m3 Archimedes number, Ar
Plastic beads 4 Mono-size Nearly spherical 935 2.16.106
Wheat 2.95 Mono-size Elongated 1251 9.61.105
Zeolite 2.2 Narrow Spherical 2210 7.90.105
Potash 1 Narrow Irregular 2046 6.12.104
Sand E3 0.275 See Fig. 2 Irregular 2373 1.90.103
Fine salt 0.36 See Fig. 2 Irregular 2170 982
Sand E2 0.175 See Fig. 2 Irregular 2373 485
Fly ash 0.012 See Fig. 2 Irregular 3794 0.122

the literature for the saltation velocity. However, by increasing the qU pu d

Re ¼ ð1Þ
air flow rate the flow changes from dense to dilute at the pick-up l
velocity. The pick-up velocity is always higher than the saltation  
gq qp  q d
3
velocity. Since the present experiments started with artificial plugs
(dense phase), the pick-up velocity is adopted as the border line Ar ¼ ð2Þ
l2
between dense and dilute phase flows.
A comprehensive research of Kalman et al. (2005) analyzed where q and q p are the air and the particle densities, l is the air
almost hundred experiments of their own and others found in viscosity, g is the gravity acceleration, d is the particle diameter
the literature to present power relationships between Re and Ar and Upu is the minimum superficial air velocity picking up the par-
in three zones. The pick-up velocity was defined for an air stream ticles. They modified Re by a function considering the pipe diame-
over a stationary layer of particles, as visualized in Fig. 3a and pre- ter, since the pick-up velocity increases as the pipe diameter
sented in Fig. 3b. Reynolds and Archimedes numbers are defined as increases. The effect of the pipe diameter is bounded by a factor
follows: of 1.4 for infinite pipe diameter related to a 2-in. pipe. However,
 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256 5

Kalman et al. (2005) to the values of Fig. 3b. However, in the follow-
ing equations and flow regime chart, the pick-up velocity for a 2-in.
pipe for spherical particles will be plotted.
The three zones take into account the effect of the cohesive
(Van-der-Waals) forces. Zone I is valid for large particles where
the pick-up force should overcome the particle weight. For smaller
particles, of Zone II, the pick-up force should overcome both the
weight and the cohesive forces. For fine powders, of Zone III, the
cohesive forces are so high that agglomerates are picked up instead
of individual particles. The relationships for the three zones are
presented in Eqs. (3)–(5):

Re ¼ 5  Ar3=7 for Ar > 16:5 ð3Þ

Re ¼ 16:7 for 0:45 < Ar < 16:5 ð4Þ

Re ¼ 21:8  Ar 1=3 for Ar < 0:45 ð5Þ

3.2. Blockage and Plug-1

Fig. 2. The size distribution of four materials.
Blockage is defined here as the conditions in which even an
existing plug in a pipe will not move or change. Rawat and
Kalman (2017) conducted a comprehensive experimental analysis
of the detachment velocity. In their tests, they used the rig config-
uration presented in Fig. 1a in which a plug of a material was
inserted into the horizontal pipe after some tapping. Then the air
flow rate was increased until one of two possibilities happened.
Either the plug was moved as Plug-1 (see Fig. 4) or particles
detached from the front and top part of the plug (see Fig. 5) creat-
ing a layer of particles. Consequently, plugs might move over the
stationary layer as Plug-2 or Plug-3. It was found that Plug-1 moves
only for materials having Ar < 100 (Rawat and Kalman, 2017).
Since data were gathered through observations, while the air
flow rate increased by increments, the values are probably slightly
higher than should. Therefore, the border line for the blockage is
defined as the line for which all the measurements presented by
Rawat and Kalman (2017) are above. The power function describ-
ing the detachment velocity is:

Fig. 3. Particle pick-up a. visualization; and b. three zones model (Kalman et al.,
2005).

it is almost insignificant for pipes of 2–4-in. in diameter. Archi-

medes number was modified by the particle shape that presents
higher pick-up velocity for lower sphericities. Therefore, Fig. 3b is
valid for spherical particles in a 2-in. pipe. Other pipe diameters Fig. 4. Visualization of movement of Plug-1 of Magnesium Oxide inside a 3-in. pipe
and particle shapes are converted by the functions presented by at Usf = 0.5 m/s (Rawat and Kalman, 2017).
6 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256
Fig. 5. Detachment phenomenon visualization on Wax particle plug of particles
dp = 5 mm in a 3-in. pipe at Usf = 0.45 m/s (Rawat and Kalman, 2017).
Re ¼ 6  104 Ar 0:69 for Ar > 100
and the minimum velocity in which Plug-1 moves can be defined
as:
Re ¼ 0:0041Ar 0:28 for Ar < 100
Any velocity (Re) lower than presented in Eqs. (6) or (7) will
keep the plug unchanged, therefore, it can be defined as the block-
age condition.
Although here Ar = 100 is defined as the border line between
Plug-1 and other kind of plugs, Rawat and Kalman (2019a) showed
that for Plug-1 also cohesiveness should be significant, thus Haus-
ner number, which is the ratio between the tapped and free bulk
densities and considered as an indication for flowability, should
be higher than 1.25. They showed that due to that even larger par-
ticles (Ar > 100) may move as Plug-1 if their moisture content
brings their cohesiveness to the required level. In any case, all data
and analysis in this paper are related only to dry particles.
3.3. Transition between Plug-3 and Plug-2
The most common and mostly investigated plug, is Plug-2, as
presented in Fig. 6a. A stationary layer exists between consequence
plugs which is picked up at the front of a moving plug and is
released at the rear of the plug. The released layer becomes imme-
diately stationary and will be picked up by the next plug. At low air
velocities, but above the blockage velocity a classical Plug-3 may
occur. This is described as a small plug moving at the top of the
pipe over a thick stationary layer of the particulate material, as
presented in Fig. 6b. The front of the moving plug picks up a small
part of the stationary layer and release the same amount at the
rear, in the same way as Plug-2 moves. However, along extensive
visualization, a new kind of plug was observed, as presented in
Fig. 6c. This is called Plug-3* and it has the same small plug moving
at the top of a thick layer. However, the layer is not stationary and
it has a velocity distribution along it. It might be considered as
transient between Plug-3 and Plug-2. This kind of plug was not
known, was not investigated before and therefore should be inves-
tigated in details in the future.
Through extensive experimentation and visualizations, the bor-
der conditions between Plug-3* and Plug-2, and between Plug-3
and Plug-3*, could be plotted for six materials (Ar = 500-2106)
and three pipe diameters in Fig. 7. It is clear that the pipe diameter
does not affect significantly the results. In addition, the border line
between Plug-3 and Plug-3* can be defined by a simple power
function, where Re defines only the critical value corresponding
to the border line:
Re ¼ 0:06  Ar 0:56 for Ar > 100 ð8Þ
and between Plug-3* and Plug-2:
Re ¼ 0:28  Ar0:47 for Ar > 100 ð9Þ
The existence ranges of Plug-3* is wider for lower Ar and nar-
rower for higher Ar numbers. For Ar > 106, practically, Plug-3* does
not exist and by increasing the air velocity a transition occurs from
Plug-3 directly to Plug-2.
3.4. Transition between Plug-2 and Plug-2*
Plug-2* was first reported by Rawat and Kalman (2019b)
through an extensive analysis of Plug-2 behavior. Plug-2* flows
in the same way as classical Plug-2 only the layer left at the rear
is moving and not stationary. The layer is moving at a decreasing
velocity and eventually in the experiments conducted in this work
ð6Þ the layer will halt. However, the moving distance is high enough
that in a multi-plug system the consequent plug will arrive and
pick-up particles from a moving and not stationary layer. The mov-
ing layer’s height decreases as is shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 8 presents a
comparison between the rear layer of classical Plug-2 and Plug-2*.
ð7Þ Since it is difficult to show in photos the moving of the layer it is
emphasized by arrows. However, the decrease of the layer height
is clear.
In case of classical Plug-2, the particle velocity is lower than the
plug velocity and the plug length has to be constant (Rawat and
Kalman, 2017). However, in case of Plug-2* the plug length may
change and also the particle velocity may become equal to the plug
velocity, as was reported by a number of researchers claiming for
Plug-2.
Through extensive experimentation and visualizations, the bor-
der conditions between Plug-2 and Plug-2*, could be plotted for
seven materials (Ar = 500-2106) and three pipe diameters in
Fig. 9. It is clear that the pipe diameter does not affect significantly
the results. The border line between Plug-2 and Plug-2* can be
defined by a simple power function, where Re defines only the crit-
ical value corresponding to the border line:
Re ¼ 1:1  Ar 0:44 for Ar > 100 ð10Þ
3.5. Transition between Plug-2* and moving bed/dune
In order to complete the flow regime chart, another kind of flow
that exists between Plug-2* and dilute phase flow should be iden-
tified. This kind of flow was given various names in the past, which
is gathered here under one category. In this category are included
all kinds of flow, which are not diluted neither plug flow, thus, they
include: slug, stratified, dune, fluidized, moving bed, turbulent,
etc., as presented in Fig. 10 for a number of materials. Here, they
will all called as dune flow. Probably, the material is dictating
the type of flow within this category, while coarse particles having
larger Ar will flow as classical dunes and fine powders, having low
Ar, will flow as fluidized or turbulent flows.
Through extensive experimentation and visualizations, the bor-
der conditions between Plug-2* and Dune flow, could be plotted for
six materials (Ar = 0.1-2106) and one pipe diameter in Fig. 11.
Results for Dune flows could be achieved only by using the 2-in.
pipe, since this kind of flow requires high air flow rates that could
not be achieved with the current apparatus for higher pipe diame-
ters. The border line between Plug-2* and Dune flow can be
 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256
Fig. 6. Visualization of three kind of plugs: a. Classical Plug-2, plastic beads at Usf = 1.6 m/s in a 2-in. pipe; b. Classical Plug-3, potash at Usf = 1.6 m/s in a 3-in. pipe; c. Plug-3*,
potash at Usf = 2.06 m/s in a 3-in. pipe.
Fig. 7. The border lines between Plug-3 and Plug-3* and between Plug-3* and Plug-
2 defined by tests with a number of materials (Ar) in various pipe diameters.
defined by a simple power function, where Re defines only the crit-
ical value corresponding to the border line:
Re ¼ 5  Ar 0:39
Please note that this border line is valid also for fine powders
having Ar < 100. Thus, Dune flow may occur also for the Plug-1
zone for higher velocities.
3.6. The flow regime chart
Putting all of the above threshold velocities into one figure, a
new and unique flow regime chart is achieved, as presented in
7
Fig. 12. This flow regime chart describes the expected flow regime,
whether Plug-1, 2, 2*, 3, 3*, Dune flow or Dilute phase flow for any
material, where its properties are described by the Archimedes
number and operating condition by the Reynolds number. It is
assumed here that the effect of the pipe diameter, as presented
in this paper, and the effect of the solid mass flow rate, are insignif-
icant, although these should be further investigated for a final clar-
ification. The present flow regime chart is unique since it involves
also the operating conditions, which were neglected by most pre-
vious flow characterizations, as will be further discussed later in
the paper.
It should be emphasized again that this chart presents the pipe
flow potential. However, the potential might not be realized in a
practical system due to limitations inserted by the feeding system.
This will also be further discussed later in the paper.
The flow regime chart shows that for Ar < 100 Plug-1 may exist,
but by increasing the velocity, dune flow might occur before dilute
phase flow is achieved. For Ar > 100, almost all kind of flows may
occur at various Reynolds numbers. First, at very low air velocities,
Plug-3 might appear. At higher velocities, Plug-3 is changing to
Plug-3*. However, the regime for Plug-3* is narrowing as Ar
increasing. Practically, for Ar > 106 (which includes most of the
plastic beads having particle diameters of about 4 mm), Plug-3*
does not exist. Increasing the air flow rate the classical Plug 2 exists
for all materials. With even higher air velocities the flow regime
changes to Plug-2*, than Dune flow and finally Dilute phase flow.
ð11Þ
Note, that dune flow exists at very narrow range of air velocities,
although the range increases for very high as well as very low Ar
numbers. Fig. 13 presents all the data measured by us in this work
and previous ones categorized according to the new flow regime
chart. The classification is very good.
The new flow regime chart agrees with the general statements
of Borzone (2010). He also showed that the materials can flow in all
kind of flows given the appropriate air velocity. As with the new
flow regime chart, in high velocities the conveying is conducted
8 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256
Fig. 8. Comparing between the rear part of classical Plug-2 and Plug-2*: a. Classical Plug-2 of zeolite in a 2-in. pipe and at Usf = 1.26 m/s; b. Plug-2 of zeolite in a 2-in. pipe and
at Usf = 2.87 m/s.
Fig. 9. The border line between Plug-2 and Plug-2* defined by tests with a number
of materials (Ar) in various pipe diameters.
by dilute phase flow. Reducing the velocity the flow becomes dune
flow. Further reducing the air velocity, it might flow either as plug
or slug (depending on the pressure drop and solid mass flow rate).
Finally, the flow might become as static bed. However, he showed
that for only two materials and didn’t further develop the idea
since this was a small part of a paper aimed to analyze particle
attrition in pneumatic conveying.
4. Comparing to previous characterizations
The comparison to previous works is divided into two parts. In
the first part, various experiments claimed for Plug-2 that were
used to develop various models are put on the new flow regime
chart. In the second part, the new flow regime chart is compared
to a number of previously developed characterizations.
4.1. Previous experiments for Plug-2
A number of previous papers related to Plug-2 flow and
developed models based on and validated by experiments. The
total range of their experimentation was quite narrow
(Ar = 8105-5106), since they all tested only kinds of plastic pellets
at various sizes (3–5 mm). Archimedes and Reynolds numbers
were calculated based on the properties reported in the relevant
publications. The non-dimensional numbers are presented in
Fig. 14 accompanied by the relevant border lines according to the
new flow regime chart. Although they were all claimed for Plug-
2 and analyzed Plug-2, the comparison shows that for some cases,
Plug-2 is confirmed by the new flow regime chart, but for many of
the experiments the new flow regime chart claims that they were
at the Plug-2* range and even in some cases also in the Dune
regime. This could be due to mainly three reasons.
 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256 9

Fig. 10. Visualization of dune, moving bed and fluidized flows for various materials. a. Potash, Ar = 6.1104, Usf = 5.8 m/s; b. Salt, Ar = 982, Usf = 5.5 m/s; c. Sand, Ar = 1881,
Usf = 4.4 m/s; d. Fly Ash, Ar = 0.122, Usf = 2.6 m/s.

Fig. 12. The final flow regime chart showing the border lines between various flow
modes, appropriate to a wide range of materials.
Fig. 11. The border line between Plug-2* and dune flow defined by tests with a
number of materials (Ar) in a 2-in. pipe.

First, it should be mentioned that the original test of Konrad and

Davidson (1984) appears at the border line between Plugs-2 and
2*, which is good. It should be also mentioned that Lecreps et al.
(2009, 2014a, 2014b) and Nied et al. (2017) conducted their exper-
iments with the same apparatus. The three reasons for the dis-
agreements are:

1. Since Plug-2* was not known before and it is easy to confuse

between them (if one is not aware to what should be focused
on when watching the visualization) confusing Plug-2* with
Plug-2 is reasonable. Therefore, it is understandable why so
many of the data are actually in the range of Plug-2*.
2. The second reason is relating to the fact that experiments are
involved. Experiments are unfortunately always accompanied
by errors, which could be sometimes significant without even
being aware to that. If there are measurement errors they are
probably with the air flow rate measurement. Air flow rate
devices are difficult to calibrate. In many of the pneumatic con- Fig. 13. All present experimental data on the new flow regime chart. The symbols
veying rigs used by various researchers a bank of nozzles is used are based on visual analysis of the videos.
10 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256

Fig. 15. Comparing previous classifications in terms of Re and Ar numbers to the

current flow regime chart.
Fig. 14. Comparing previous tests claimed for Plug-2 to the flow regimes claimed in
this work.
be provided. The comparison will therefore relate to the parameter
describing the particle properties, which is the Ar number.
Geldart (1973) was the first to classify materials for fluidization
and defined four classes. The borders between various types are
to control the air flow rate. A bank of nozzles was used, as
defined by density difference (particle and fluid) and particle diam-
reported, by Vasquez et al. (2003), Lecreps et al. (2009, 2014a,
eter. The main border line, between type A to type B, is developed
2014b), Nied et al. (2017), Li et al. (2002). However, some of
based on two early and simple correlations for minimum fluidiza-
them added or used also a rotameter (Mi and Wypych, 1995;
tion and minimum bubbling velocities. However, more recent
Vasquez et al., 2003) others didn’t report any measurement
equations define both the minimum fluidization and bubbling
beside the use of a nozzle bank. It should be emphasized that
velocities as functions of the Ar number. Moreover, for practical
also a nozzle should be calibrated once in a while by comparing
range of the densities difference (500–5000) original border lines
to measurement of the air flow rate. In the present work, the air
of Geldart can be reasonably described by constant Ar numbers,
flow rate was measured by two hot-wire mass flow rate trans-
thus, the border between C and A can be described by Ar = 0.7, A
ducers, and a third one was used to conduct a new calibration
and B by Ar = 100, and B and D by Ar = 20,000. These border lines
when the two mounted on the pipe line began to show different
are presented in Fig. 15. It is commonly believed that particles of
results (which happened a few times). Another source of errors
type A and C might be conveyed in plug flow with difficulties, type
may be related to air leakage, which leads to measure higher air
B will not convey naturally in plug flow and type D are the best
flow rates than actual flows in the pipe.
candidates for plug flow (Sanchez et al., 2003). Later, Dixon
3. As mentioned earlier, the feeding system may affect the flow
(1979) modified the border lines between classes.
regime and mainly the blockage conditions. In this research sin-
Jones and Mills (1990) and Jones (1988) based their character-
gle plugs were inserted into the pipe and tested, in a similar
ization on testing many materials defining visually their type of
way as was done by Vasquez et al. (2003). But the tests pre-
flow. Then they relied the classification on permeability and de-
sented in Fig. 14 are measured in systems, which used rotary
aeration factors. Materials with low permeability factor and high
valves (Li et al., 2002; Sanchez et al., 2005), blow tanks
de-aeration factor values can convey in a moving bed mode, mate-
(Lecreps et al., 2009, 2014a, 2014b; Nied et al., 2017; Konrad
rials with lower de-aerations and high permeability factors are
and Davidson, 1984) and an orifice (Tomita and Asou, 2009).
conveyed in plug type flow, all others can flow only in dilute phase
flow. Using, their tests and definitions, shows that their classifica-
The solid part of the new flow regime chart is the line for the
tion, based on two parameters (permeability factor vs. de-aeration
pick-up velocity. This three zones model was reported by Kalman
factor), can be successfully described by only Ar number, as is pre-
et al. (2005) and validated over and over again by many indepen-
sented in Fig. 15. That is probably because both factors can be
dent researchers and new experiments. This line can’t be higher
defined by the Ar number.
and all other types of flow should be presented at lower velocities.
Pan (1999) classified the materials based on their loosely
In any case, it should be emphasized that if the differences pre-
poured bulk density and median particle diameter into three
sented in Fig. 14 are true, any of the previous models (which were
groups. Fine powders can flow in dilute or fluidized dense phase.
all assumed Plug-2) should be reexamined if they were relied by
Larger particles with low density may flow in dilute or slug flow.
mistake on Plug-2* tests.
Particles having higher densities can be conveyed in only dilute
phase flow. As the definitions of Pan (1999) are presented in
4.2. Previous flow regime definitions Fig. 15, they don’t correlate with Ar number. The regimes of Pan
(1999) are overlapping each other. The overlapping is not reason-
Some efforts have been focused in the past to be able to predict able if Ar number defines the material.
the flow regime for a specific material. Here, three of the main For fine powders of about Ar < 100, Geldart (1973) classification
efforts are described and compared to the present flow regime claims that plugs (what kind of plugs is not mentioned) may flow
chart in Fig. 15. First of all, it should be emphasized that all previ- with difficulties. Jones (1988) claims that moving beds should be
ous efforts characterized materials, but not operating conditions. expected and Pan (1999) expects fluidized dense phase, which is
Therefore, a full comparison to the new flow regime chart can’t probably the same as moving bed. However, the current flow
 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256
Fig. 16. The effect of an obstacle on Plug-1 flow of flour at Usf = 2.3 m/s in 2-in. pipe, a. after the obstacle; and b. before the obstacle. The effect of an obstacle on Plug-2 flow of
potash at Usf = 1.5 m/s in 2-in. pipe, c. after the obstacle; and d. before the obstacle.
regime chart showed that at lower velocities Plug-1 should flow
and at higher velocities moving bed. The main difference between
the current and those of Jones and Pan’s classification is that they
used a feeder and here the plug was directly inserted into the pipe.
The feeder may cause changes. The solid mass flow rate is not con-
trolled by a blow tank. Also the way of injecting the extra convey-
ing air may also cause differences. Fig. 16 presents, for instance,
how Plugs-1 and 2 are passing through an obstacle that was cre-
ated by a bad joint between pipes. Flour enters the obstacle in
Fig. 16b as a perfect Plug-1, but exit as moving bed in Fig. 16a.
Potash enters the obstacle in Fig. 16d as a perfect Plug-2, and exit
also as Plug-2 in Fig. 16a. The obstacle damaged slightly the Plug-2,
but it is recovered shortly after. The obstacle destroyed the non-
stable Plug-1 but not the stable Plug-2. Therefore, it might be
claimed that in many cases a moving bed flow found for fine pow-
ders is actually a destroyed Plug-1.
For coarse particles having about Ar > 5104 all agree that plug
or slug flow may occur (see Fig. 15). Plug flows were observed
for this range also in the new flow regime chart. However, the type
of plug depends on the air flow rate. Also dune flow can be
expected at this range.
For middle size particles having about 100 < Ar < 5104 all previ-
ous classifications agree that plug flows can’t be expected, only
dilute phase flow. However, the new flow regime chart suggests
that at lower velocities all types of plugs exist. Probably, Jones
and Pan reached blockage while reducing the air flow rate and
could not reach the plug flow. The blockage may be a result of
the specific feeder used.
The above analysis claim that probably the feeder, or air jets or
bad pipe connections prevent the current pneumatic conveying
systems to reach Plug-1 flow for low Ar and dense phase flow for
median Ar numbers. Since dense phase flow has many advantages
over dilute phase flow and among the dense phase types of flows
Plug-1 is the most effective (no energy is lost for reaccelerating
halted particles), this paper should encourage to reexamine the
commonly used feeders and maybe to develop new ones enable
to fulfill the full potential of the pipe flow.
As was described at the end of the introduction, a number of
parameters may affect the flow regime and are not considered in
this work. However, the basic chart shown here is an excellent tool
(not shown before) enable to predict in advance the flow regime
and calculating the pressure drop. The parameters that may be cat-
egorized to: system parameters, operating parameters, particle
properties and multi-plug flow. Although the current investigation
considered a number of parameters: air flow rate, solid mass flow
rate through the plug length, solid moisture content, particle
11
shape, size and size distribution, their effect should be extended
in future research. Also, multi-plug systems should be further
investigated.
5. Conclusions
The paper introduces a new and unique flow regime chart
which combines particle properties and air flow rate. Extensive
visualizations of a number of materials introduced two new types
of plugs in addition to the three classical ones. Plug-3* is a subtype
of the classical Plug-3 only the bed below the plug is not stationary.
Plug-2* is a subtype of the classical Plug-2 only the layer between
consequent plugs is not stationary. Plug-1 exists for fine powders
(types C and A in Geldart’s classification) of Ar < 100. At higher
Ar number, all types of plugs may be found at different Re num-
bers. Their order for increasing Re numbers is: Plug-3, 3*, 2 and
2*. All of the threshold velocities could be well defined by Re as a
simple power function of Ar. Therefore, the flow regime chart is
presented by Re as a function of Ar with linear border lines on a
log-log diagram. In between any kind of plugs and dilute phase
flow dune flow exist at a narrow range.
Comparing the new flow regime chart to previous measure-
ments and characterizations found in the literature suggest that
considerable previous measurements considered as Plug-2 are
actually Plug-2*. As a results, models developed according to such
measurements or confirmed by such measurement should be ree-
valuated. The difference between previously characterized materi-
als for flow regimes and the current flow regime chart suggest that
the feeder used in the conveying line may also affect the flow
regime and eliminate some potential flows. This should lead to
reexamine the feeders and maybe to develop new ones enable to
fully use the flow potential in the pipe.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research is supported by the Israeli Ministry of Science,
Technology, and Space (2015-6-145).
12 H. Kalman, A. Rawat / Chemical Engineering Science 211 (2020) 115256

References Mi, B., Wypych, P.W., 1995. investigations into wall pressure during slug-flow
pneumatic conveying. Powder Technol. 84, 91–98.
Muschelknautz, E., Krambrock, W., Vereinfachte, 1969. Berechnung horizontaler
Aziz, Z.B., Klinzing, G.E., 1990. Dense phase plug flow transfer: the 1-inch horizontal
pneumatischer Förderleitungen bei hoher Gutbeladung mit feinkörnigen
flow. Powder Technol. 62, 41–49.
Produkten. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 41, 1164–1172.
Borzone, L.A., 2010. A comparison of particle wear in pneumatic transport. Chem.
Nied, C., Lindner, J.A., Sommer, K., 2017. On the influence of the wall friction
Eng. Commun. 197, 1215–1224.
coefficient on void fraction gradients in horizontal pneumatic plug conveying
Borzone, L.A., Klinzing, G.E., 1987. Dense-phase transport: vertical plug flow.
measured by electrical capacitance tomography. Powder Technol. 321, 310–
Powder Technol. 53, 273–283.
317.
Dixon, G., 1979. Proceeding of Int. Conf. on Pneumatic Conveying, 16–18 January,
Pan, R., 1999. Material properties and flow modes in pneumatic conveying. Powder
Café Royal, London.
Technol. 104, 157–163.
Geldart, D., 1973. Types of gas fluidization. Powder Technol. 7, 285–292.
Pan, R., Wypych, P.W., 1997. Pressure drop and slug velocity in low-velocity
Hong, G.U., Klinzing, G.E., 1989. Vertical plug flow of cohesive coal 2n 2-and 4-inch
pneumatic conveying of bulk solids. Powder Technol. 94, 123–132.
pipes. Powder Technol. 57, 59–67.
Rabinovich, E., Kalman, H., 2008a. Generalized master curve for threshold
Jae Bum, P., Klinzing, G.E., 2010. Voidage measurement for a moving plug in dense
superficial velocities in particle–fluid systems. Powder Technol. 183, 304–313.
phase pneumatic conveying using two different methods. Part. Sci. Technol. 28,
Rabinovich, E., Kalman, H., 2008b. Boundary saltation and minimum pressure
511–519.
velocities in particle–gas systems. Powder Technol. 185, 67–79.
Janssen, H.A., 1985. On the measurement of pressures in grain silos. Z. Ver. Dtsch.
Rabinovich, E., Kalman, H., 2010. Phenomenological study of saltating motion of
Ing. 39, 1045–1049.
individual particles in horizontal particle–gas systems. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, 739–
Jones, M.G., 1988. The Influence of Bulk Particulate Properties on Pneumatic
752.
Conveying Performance Ph.D. Thesis. Thames Polytechnic, London.
Rabinovich, E., Kalman, H., 2011. Flow regime diagram for vertical pneumatic
Jones, M.G., Mills, D., 1990. Product classification for pneumatic conveying. Powder
conveying and fluidized bed systems. Powder Technol. 207, 119–133.
Hand. Process. 2, 117–122.
Rawat, A., Kalman, H., 2017. Detachment velocity: a borderline between different
Kalman, H., Satran, A., Meir, D., Rabinovich, E., 2005. Pickup (critical) velocity of
types of particulate plugs. Powder Technol. 321, 293–300.
particles. Powder Technol. 160, 103–113.
Rawat, A., Kalman, H., 2019a. Modification and validation of particulate Plug-I
Konrad, K., 1980. Prediction of the pressure drop for horizontal dense phase
pressure drop models. Powder Technol. 347, 243–254.
pneumatic conveying of particles. In: Proc. of Pneumotrasport 5, Paper El.
Rawat, A., Kalman, H., 2019b. Particle velocity and stationary layer height analysis
Konrad, R., Davidson, J.F., 1984. The gas-liquid analogy in horizontal dense-phase
for modification and validation of particulate Plug-II pressure drop model,
pneumatic conveying. Powder Technol. 39, 191–198.
submitted for publication.
Lecreps, I., Orozovic, O., Jones, M.G., Sommer, K., 2014a. Application of the principles
Sanchez, L., Vasquez, N., Klinzing, G.E., Dhodapkar, S., 2003. Characterization of bulk
of gas permeability and stochastic particle agitation to predict the pressure loss
solids to assess dense phase pneumatic conveying. Powder Technol. 138, 93–
in slug flow pneumatic conveying systems. Powder Technol. 254, 508–516.
117.
Lecreps, I., Orozovic, O., Erden, T., Jones, M.G., Sommer, K., 2014b. Physical
Sanchez, L., Vasquez, N.A., Klinzing, G.E., Dhodapkar, S., 2005. Evaluation of models
mechanisms involved in slug transport and pipe blockage during horizontal
and correlations for pressure drop estimation in dense phase pneumatic
pneumatic conveying. Powder Technol. 262, 82–95.
conveying and an experimental analysis. Powder Technol. 153, 142–147.
Lecreps, I., Sommer, K., 2007. Horizontal dense-phase pneumatic conveying of
Shaul, S., Kalman, H., 2014. Friction forces of particulate plugs moving in vertical
granular material. Bulk Solids Powder Sci. Technol. 2, 95–105.
and horizontal pipes. Powder Technol. 256, 310–323.
Lecreps, I., Sommer, K., Wolz, K., 2009. Stress states and porosity within horizontal
Shaul, S., Kalman, H., 2015a. Investigating the conveying mechanism of particulate
slug by dense-phase pneumatic conveying. Part. Sci. Technol. 27, 297–313.
plugs with stationary layers. Powder Technol. 272 (2015), 322–331.
Li, J., Pandiella, S.S., Webb, C., McGlinchey, D., Cowell, A., Xiang, J., Knight, L., Pugh, J.,
Shaul, S., Kalman, H., 2015b. Three plugs model. Powder Technol. 283, 579–592.
2002. An experimental technique for the analysis of slug flows in pneumatic
Tomita, Y., Asou, H., 2009. Low-velocity pneumatic conveying of coarse particles in
pipelines using pressure measurements. Part. Sci. Technol. 20, 283–303.
a horizontal pipe. Powder Technol. 196, 14–21.
Mainwaring, N.J., Reed, A.R., 1987. Permeability and air retention characteristics of
Vasquez, N., Sanchez, L., Klinzing, G.E., Dhodapkar, S., 2003. Friction measurement
bulk solid materials in relation to modes of dense phase pneumatic conveying.
in dense phase plug flow analysis. Powder Technol. 137, 167–183.
Bulk Solids Hand. 7, 415–425.