Understanding and Eliminating Particle Segregation Problems1

by
J.W. Carson and T.A. Royal, USA
and
D.J. Goodwill, Canada

1. INTRODUCTION ship filled with grain was prevented from

Mixtures of solid particles can separate or
segregate while they are being handled. This
often results in costly quality control problems
due to the waste of raw materials, lost
production, as well as increased maintenance
and capital costs required to retrofit existing
facilities.
Segregation problems occur in a wide range of
industries handling materials as diverse as coal
and pharmaceutical powders. The cost
implications can be great, even when handling
small quantities of material, as illustrated in the
batch processing of pharmaceutical tablets. It is
not unusual for the value of a single batch of
ingredients to be in excess of $100,000. Yet,
strict U.S. quality control standards dictate that
some or even the entire batch may have to be
discarded if it is found that the amount of active
ingredient or total weight of just five tablets in a
batch varies outside narrow limits.
It can be devastating to ignore the mechanisms
of segregation [1]. Several years ago, a cargo
leaving port because the inspector measured a
higher than allowed percentage of fines in the
loaded vessel. Unfortunately, the only place he
could easily make his observations was directly
under the fill point where the fines had become
concentrated, but the regulations that he had to
follow did not allow for such segregation.
Another example of the detrimental effects of
segregation is the difficulty in developing a gas
seal in a sloping standpipe or dryer when
handling materials containing a wide range of
particle sizes. In some processes, however,
segregation can be beneficial by allowing gas to
escape through coarse particles in a bed.
What is it about particle mixtures that allow
some to segregate while others do not?
2. SEGREGATION MECHANISMS
There are five primary mechanisms that have
been identified as being responsible for most
particle segregation problems. Each of these

1
Source: Carson, J.W., Royal, T.A., and Goodwill, D.J.: Understanding and Eliminating Particle Segregation Problems.
Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 6, Feb. 1986, pp 139-144. Used with the permission of the publisher.

One Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886-3189 Tel: (978) 392-0300 FAX: (978) 392-9980
Also: San Luis Obispo, CA Toronto, Canada Via del Mar, Chile
www.jenike.com
will be described along with conditions under Fig. 2: Variation of coefficient of segregation in binary
which it occurs and examples. mixtures having various particle diameter ratios and mean
particle diameters [3]
2.1 Sifting 100

90

As the most common mechanism by which 80 ratio = 2.84

particles segregate, sifting can be described

segregation coefficient
70 ratio = 2.38

simply as the movement of smaller particles 60 ratio = 1.42

through a mixture of larger particles. From 50

40
experiments [2] and actual field observations, it
30
has been found that four conditions must be 20
present in order for this mechanism to occur: 10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1. A difference in particle size between the mean particle diameter, microns
individual components Experiments [3] on
binary mixtures of spherical particles have the tendency to segregate by sifting
shown that sifting can occur with a particle decreases substantially (Fig. 2). This is
diameter ratio as low as 1.3:1 (Fig. 1). In more than likely due to the attraction
general, the larger the ratio of particle sizes, between finer particles which tends to make
the greater the tendency for particles to them less mobile. However, some sifting can
segregate by sifting. occur down to and below a mean particle
diameter of 200 mm (#70 U.S. mesh) for
2. A sufficiently large mean particle diameter particle diameter ratios as low as 2:1.
Experiments [3] on binary mixtures have
shown that below 500 mm (#35 U.S. mesh) 3. Free-flowing material In order for sifting
to occur, it is essential that no agglomerates
Fig. 1: Variation of coefficient of segregation in binary
mixtures having various particle diameter ratios [3]
are formed, either between particles of a
given size or particles of varying size. This
100 generally requires the mixture to have a low
moisture content and little or no fine
particles.
80
segregation coefficient

4. Interparticle motion If particles are

60 stationary or moving with a uniform
velocity, they are essentially locked together
40 and their tendency to segregate becomes
almost nonexistent, even for highly
20 segregating materials. Thus, a velocity
gradient through the flowing material is
required.
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Sifting is vividly illustrated in Fig. 3, which is a
particle diameter ratio photograph of a formed pile. The darker colored

2
 Fig. 3: Demonstration of sifting mechanism in a slice involved a plant producing tabular alumina
model consisting of a wide range of particle sizes (e.g.,
8 mesh by 0).

This mixture was first placed into a bin of the

fine particles are concentrated in the center
under the incoming stream. However, as the pile
is formed, the slope stability is such that layers
of finite thickness intermittently move from the
central feed point, carrying some of the finer
particles with them. This results in the striations
visible in the photograph.
In order for sifting to occur, it is essential that
all four of the above conditions be present. If
any one of the four is absent, the mixture will
not segregate by this mechanism.
Since sifting is such a common mechanism of
segregation, numerous examples can be found
in most industrial plants handling bulk solids.
One example from the authors experience
geometry shown in Fig. 4. Because of a
horizontal baffle centered under the fill point,
material filled the bin from the sides. The sifting
mechanism resulted in the finer fraction of
material becoming concentrated at the
periphery. The hopper walls were not steep or
smooth enough for material to flow along them,
so that a funnel flow (first-in, last out) flow
pattern [4] developed during discharge, resulting
in a segregated mixture as shown on the right of
Fig. 4.
As this material was discharged, it was put in
the same order into a second bin, shown in Fig.
5, which did not contain a horizontal baffle.
Here the sifting mechanism caused the fines to
be concentrated in the center of the bin, but the
distribution throughout the bin varied more than
in the first bin because of the segregated mixture
being charged into it. This bin also exhibited a
funnel flow pattern, and thus one would expect
a variation in the percentage of coarse particles
exiting the bin, as shown at the right in Fig. 5.

Fig. 4: Segregation in Bin 1 due to sifting and funnel flow Fig. 5: Segregation in Bin 2 due to segregated mixture
pattern from Bin 1, sifting and funnel flow pattern

Mixed batch in From bin above

Fines %, in
Baffle
VL = Very low VH
Fines %, out concentration H
VH of fines
VH M
H H H H H L = Low time
L
L M M M = Medium
time L L
L H = High
VL L VL VH = Very high Fines %, out
H H concentration VH
L L of fines H time
L M
L = Low concentration of fines M L
VL
H = High concentration of fines
Out
Out

3
 Fig. 6: Segregation due to sifting in a sloping chute
Mixture of fine sand, coke, and phosphate rock
Stream Split
Horizontally
Actual experimental results of sampling of
material from this second bin confirmed a
segregation pattern similar to that shown in this
figure. Funnel flow bins typically have
segregation problems like this.
A second example involves a mixture of
phosphate rock, coke, and silica, which was
flowing down an inclined chute into a series of
three bins as shown in Fig. 6. Each of these bins
fed a separate region of a furnace that produces
phosphorus. The plant found that their quality
control problems were the result of the mixture
of ingredients not being uniform from one bin to
another. In particular, they found that the first
bin in the series had a high percentage of the
fine silica particles, while the last bin in the
series had a low percentage. Upon investigation
it was found that this was due to the sifting
mechanism occurring as the bins were refilled.
The mixture was placed at the top of the sloping
chute section by a bucket elevator, and as long
as there was any space left in the first bin or the
vertical pipe above it, all of the material would
enter this bin. As soon as this pipe became
filled, the stream was automatically diverted to
the second bin. However, as this process took
place, some of the fines in the mixture sifted out
as it passed over the vertical pipe of the first bin,
4
thereby leading to a higher concentration of
fines in the first bin than in the second. Later, as
the second bin became filled and flow was
diverted to the third bin, this process continued,
with some fines being dropped out of the stream
into the first bin, a smaller quantity being
dropped into the second bin, and whatever was
left over going into the third bin.
Sifting can also occur within a bin, for example
when fines percolate out of a flow channel into
stagnant or slowly moving material. In funnel
flow bins, this results in s slug of fines being
discharged last. These accumulated fines are
typically less free-flowing than the rest of the
mixture, and they can result in intermittent
arching or ratholing problems. In multi-tube
blenders, this type of segregation can also occur
in the flow channels which enter the tubes, even
though the bin is of mass flow type.
A final example [5] occurred in a plant
manufacturing a chemical reagent in which
serious problems with an electric furnace were
experienced as a result of particle segregation.
Coke and lime were mixed in a 40:60 ratio and
fed to the furnace via a surge bin. Both materials
were dry and free-flowing, with the top size of
the lime being 76 mm (3 inch) and that of the
coke 25 mm (1 inch). The majority of the
product less than 6 mm in size had been
removed in both cases. Both materials
underwent particle size segregation by sifting
when centrally charged into a bin. The coarser
particles rolled to the outside of the bin, whereas
the fines sifted to the center. The effect of this
size segregation on the coke/lime ratio is
illustrated in Figs. 7a and 7b. Samples were
taken from the material discharge stream at
regular intervals during the emptying of a
pyramidal, single outlet funnel flow bin used to
smooth flow to the furnace. This particle
segregation had two very serious effects on the
 Fig. 7a: Size segregation of coke/lime mix during otherwise exhibit mass flow (flow along the
emptying of surge bin walls).

On a chute, a higher drag results in a lower

80 +3/4"
3/4" x 1/4" particle velocity. This effect can be accentuated
-1/4" due to stratification on the chute surface because
60
of the sifting mechanism described above.
40 Concentrations of smaller particles close to the
Size
Distribution chute surface and larger particles at the top of
(%)
20 the bed of material, combined with the typically
higher fictional drag of finer particles, often
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
result in a concentration of fine particles falling
Sample No. close to the end of the chute, with coarse
particles falling further away. This can be
Fig. 7b: Coke/lime segregation during emptying of surge particularly detrimental if portions of the pile go
bin to different processing points, as is often the
case with multiple outlet bins or bins with
80
vertical partitions.

60 An example of particle trajectory effects from a

chute is shown in Fig. 8. Here a mixture of light
Percentage
of Coke or 40 coarse material and dark fine material has been
Lime in
Mix placed on a chute surface. Because the dark fine
20
material has higher frictional drag and lies
Lime nearer to the chute surface, its trajectory is
Coke

0
shorter than that of the light coarse material,
0 1 2 3

Sample No.
4 5 6
resulting in the segregation shown in the sketch.

furnace operation: first, high percentages of
fines (up to 30%) lead to decreased bed porosity
and increased frequency and severity of
explosions; second, a mix deficient in either
lime or coke reacts inefficiently and leads to
greatly increased raw material usage.
An attempt was made a number of years ago by
one of the authors to use this phenomenon as a
Fig. 8: Demonstration of segregation upon discharge from
a chute

2.2 Particle Velocity on a Surface

If there are variations in particle size or shape,

the smaller particles and/or those that are more
irregular in shape will typically have a higher
frictional drag on a hopper or chute surface.
This can result in a funnel flow pattern and
increased segregation in a hopper that would

5
method of rough classification of particles.
However, the technique was found to have
limited usefulness and, to the authors
knowledge, has not been pursued further.
2.3 Air Entrainment (Fluidization)
Fine particles generally have a lower
permeability than coarse particles and,
therefore, tend to retain air longer in their void
spaces. Thus, when a mixture of coarse and fine
particles is charged into a bin, it is common to
find that a vertical segregation pattern has
developed, caused by the coarse particles being
driven into the bed as the bin is filled and the
fine particles remaining fluidized near the top
surface.
An example of this occurred in a feed bin for a
pharmaceutical tabletting press which was being
filled by a dense-phase pneumatic conveying
system through a vertical downspout in the
center of the bin. The mixture consisted of a fine
powder (the active ingredient) and a filler
material consisting of larger particles. Because
of the segregation phenomenon of fluidization,
the fine active ingredient became concentrated
in a layer at the top of the bin, causing severe
quality control problems when it exited the bin
over a short period of time.
2.4 Entrainment of Particles in an Air Stream
The finer the particle size, the longer it may
remain suspended in an air stream, such as upon
filling of a bin. This effect starts to become
important around 50!mm and is very common
below 10 mm. Thus, secondary air currents can
carry airborne particles away from a fill point
into outer areas of a bin, scattering them in a
way that bears no resemblance to the calculated
trajectory.
6
Particles may also be affected by air resistance
as they fall, resulting in finer particles having a
lower free-fall terminal velocity than coarser
particles and thereby not traveling as far
horizontally when they exit a chute. However, a
stream of particles drags a stream of air with it,
preventing the full drag force from being felt on
individual particles. Thus, only particles on the
edge of the stream are affected much by air
drag.
An example of this mechanism was found in a
plant manufacturing alumina in which serious
size segregation occurred during the unloading
of a large silo into railcars. The flat bottomed,
20m diameter by 20m tall silo having capacity
of 2,000 t was centrally filled and then
discharged simultaneously through four
openings to a single railcar. An average of 8%
fines (-45 m m product) was acceptable;
however, railcars frequently had fines
concentrations as high as 20%, which led to
serious problems in the downstream process.
This segregation was due to the fine particles
becoming airborne while the silo was being
filled. They were then carried by secondary air
currents to the periphery of the silo, where they
were deposited in a narrow concentrated rim. As
the level of the silo rose and fell, there was a
continuous accumulation of fines at the
periphery, which, because of the funnel flow
pattern, remained in the silo until final
discharge.
2.5 Dynamic Effects
Particles often differ in their resilience, inertia,
and other dynamic characteristics which can
cause them to segregate, particularly when they
are forming a pile such as when charged into a
bin or discharged from a chute. Vibration can
cause a single large particle to rise through a
container of fines which percolate down by the
sifting mechanism.
An example of this involved the handling of
plastic pellets having a variety of particle sizes,
shapes and resilience. The finest particles were
in fact the most resilient, which resulted in an
unusual segregation pattern when they were
charged into the center of a blending bin.
Instead of ending up with a concentration of
fines under the fill point, which would be
expected if the sifting mechanism were the
dominant factor, the more resilient fines actually
ended up at the periphery of the bin. This had a
direct effect on the quality of the output from
this blending bin.
3. IMPORTANCE OF CAREFUL
SAMPLING
When analyzing particle segregation problems,
it is vitally important to collect representative
and meaningful samples of the mixture so that
valid conclusions can be drawn. For example, it
is common to find plant operators taking
samples of a mixture in a blender to determine
proper blend times, but then ignoring the
demixing that occurs upon discharge from the
blender. It would be far more meaningful, but
unfortunately more time-consuming, to sample
the discharge stream from a blender after
various mixing times to determine what the
correct mix time should be.
Another common mistake is to take a sample cut
across a portion of a stream material, ignoring
the segregation that may be present within the
stream. One example of this phenomenon was
found in a plant producing dry cell batteries. As
material moved through the manufacturing
process, it was compacted with a feed screw in a
roll press, then granulated, screened, and placed
in a surge bin. The operator occasionally took
7
Table 1: Effect of sampling techniques
Particle Grab Full Stream
Size Sample Width Sample
Mesh % %
-14, +20 53.9 42.5
-20, +40 38.7 47.1
-40, +60 4.9 6.9
samples from the chute leading from the screen
to the surge bin and sent the samples to a lab for
particle size distribution.
He then adjusted the roll pressure and feed
screw speed based in part on the ratio:
% -14, +20 mesh
% -20, +40 mesh
If this ratio was less than 1.0, he would
generally increase the feed screw speed.
In observing this operation, it was found that he
was only taking a portion of the discharge
stream from the screen. A test was set up in
which the operator first took his sample using
the normal procedure, and then another sample
was taken in which the full stream of material
was momentarily diverted into a sampler
container. The results are shown in Table 1.
While the numbers do not appear to be
dramatically different, the ratio of the particle
sizes is greater than 1.0 with the grab sample
and less than 1.0 with the full stream sample.
Thus, with the same material coming from the
screen, the operators actions would be
completely different. Only experience would tell
which action was correct, but, clearly, full
stream samples are less subject to operator error
than partial stream cuts.
Another problem that often occurs is using only
a small portion of the collected sample for
testing. For example, it is common to find an
operator collecting a sample and then using only
a small potion from the top of the sample jar for
testing to determine particle size, moisture, etc.
Obviously, any segregation in the jar will
strongly affect the results unless a riffler
(sample spitter) is used to reduce the sample
size.
A sampling thief is sometimes used to obtain
a sample from below the top surface of a bed of
material. Not only are the results of such a test
questionable as to where the sample is actually
being taken, but this too ignores any demixing
or segregation that may occur upon discharge
from the container.
4. HOW TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE
SEGREGATION
There are three main techniques that can be
considered when segregation problems are
present: change the material, change the
process, or change the design of the equipment.
Each of these will be addressed in the following.
4.1 Change the Material
A common characteristic of most highly
segregating materials is that they are free-
flowing and, therefore, the particles easily
separate from each other. Thus, one obvious
change to decrease the segregation tendencies of
a material is to increase its cohesiveness by, for
example, adding water or oil. It must be
recognized that this can be overdone since, if
the cohesiveness is increased too much, other
flow problems such as arching or ratholing may
replace that of segregation and result in greater
disruption to the process.
8
Another technique that can be used is to change
the particle size distribution. For example, if
segregation is occurring by the sifting
mechanism, lowering the particle diameter ratio
below 1.3:1 or decreasing the mean particle
diameter below 100 mm will reduce or eliminate
it. Such changes will also minimize segregation
that might occur due to particle velocity
differences and, if all of the particles are of a
nearly uniform size, differences in fluidization
tendencies will be minimal as well.
The segregation potential of a mixture can be
readily determined in a laboratory so that the
effect of the above changes can be readily
evaluated [6].
As pointed out in the Introduction, segregation
can sometimes be beneficial. An astute lottery
player, recognizing the effect of particle size on
the tendency of particles to segregate, will
crumple up his ticket before dropping it into a
drum. This increases the probability that his
ticket will be on top after the drum is rotated or
vibrated.
4.2 Change the Process
Several techniques can be used when handling
highly segregating materials to minimize their
tendency to segregate. First, if the mixture being
handled consists of several discrete products
which are more or less uniform in themselves
but vary distinctly from one to another, it is
always beneficial to handle each of these
materials separately up to the final processing
step and then proportion and mix them just
before this step.
Material on a conveyor belt may be segregated
either from side to side due to a 90 transfer
chute upstream or segregated vertically due to
sifting on the belt while going over idlers. If this
 Fig. 9: Plan view of multiple outlet bins
a) nonsymmetric central hopper sees segregated material
if bin is center-filled
b) symmetric all four hoppers see the same material if
bin is center-filled
a b
happens, the stream coming off the conveyor
belt should not be split for obvious reasons.
When pneumatically conveying fine fluidizable
powders into a bin, it is preferable to use a
tangential entry into the side of a bin rather than
going in at 90 either to the side wall or the top.
Another technique which has been used with
success is to carry the pneumatic line into the
center of the bin and then direct it upward to a
deflector plate which will decrease its velocity
and allow a symmetric pattern when particles
fall from this surface.
Finally, free-fall chutes should not be used to
transfer segregating materials unless there is a
mixing device downstream of the chute.
4.3 Change the Design of the Equipment
Mass flow bins have a first-in, first-out flow
pattern, whereas funnel flow bins have a first-in,
last-out pattern of flow. Thus, if materials have
segregated from side to side while filling the
bin, a mass flow pattern will tend to minimize
segregation upon discharge, whereas a funnel
flow bin will make the segregation worse.
Increasing the height-to-diameter ratio of the
9
cylinder section of a mass flow bin above 1.0
usually results in a uniform velocity pattern
across the top surface. This lessens the tendency
for segregation compared to using a short
cylinder section or no cylinder at all.
If multiple outlet bins are used, it is important
that the hoppers and outlets be located
symmetrically with respect to the fill point to
avoid concentrations of fines in one hopper
section, which could cause pluggage or
downstream quality control problems [7].
Examples of proper and improper multiple
outlet designs are shown in Fig. 9.
An alternative to traditional mass flow bin
design is to use a patented BINSERT [8],
which consists of a hopper within a hopper, in
which the velocity pattern is controlled by the
position of the bottom hopper. It is possible to
design such a system to provide a completely
uniform velocity profile and thereby an absolute
minimum level of segregation. Alternatively, by
changing the geometry at the bottom of the
hopper, a velocity profile can be developed in
which the center section moves faster than the
outside, thus providing in-bin blending of the
materials [9].
5. CONCLUSIONS
Particles in a mixture can segregate by one of
five primary mechanisms: sifting, particle
velocity on a surface, air entrainment
(fluidization), entrainment of particles in an air
stream, and dynamic effects. Of these, the most
common mechanism for segregation is sifting of
fines through a matrix of coarse particles. For
this to occur, there must be at least a minimum
ratio of particle sizes and a minimum mean
particle size, the bulk solid must be free-
flowing, and there must be relative motion
between particles.
Once the mechanisms of segregation are
understood, they can be used to analyze particle
segregation problems and to determine ways to
eliminate such problems.

REFERENCES

[1] Johanson, J.R.: Particle Segregation and

What to Do about It; Chem. Eng. (1978)
May, pp. 183-188.

[2] Williams, J.C.: The Segregation of

Particulate Materials: A Review; Powder
Technology Vol. 15 (1976); pp. 245-251.

[3]Williams, J.C., and M.I. Kahn: The Mixing

and Segregation of Particulate Solids of
Different Particle Size; Chem. Eng.,
London, Vol. 19 (1973); p.269.

[4] Carson, J.W., and J.R. Farris: The

importance of Material Flow Characteristics
in Storage Tank Selection; Powder/Bulk
Solids (1984) Apr.

[5] Goodwill, D.J.: Solving Particle Segregation

Problems in Bins; Engineering Digest
(1985).

[6] Jenike & Johanson, Inc., Flow-of-Solids

Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 2.

[7] Johanson, J.R.: Know Your Material How

to Predict and Use the Properties of Bulk
Solids; Chem. Eng. (1978) Oct. 30, pp. 9-17.

[8] Blending Apparatus for Bulk Solids. U.S.

Patent 4,286,883, Sep. 1, 1981.

[9] Jenike & Johanson, Inc., Flow-of-Solids

Newsletter Vol. 3, No. 1.

10