Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Particuology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/partic

A comparison between powder flow property testers

Hamid Salehi, Diego Barletta, Massimo Poletto ∗
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy

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

Article history: In this work, three different shear testers—the Jenike shear cell tester, the Schulze ring shear tester, and
Received 9 May 2016 the Brookfield powder flow tester—were compared in terms of the raw shear stress time series, yield loci
Received in revised form 28 July 2016 points, angle of internal friction, cohesion, and unconfined yield strength. The three different powders
Accepted 30 August 2016
of dolomitic lime, calcium lactate, and calcium carbonate were used for these comparisons. These three
Available online 3 January 2017
powders were characterized into different flowability classes using the Jenike classification, wherein
dolomitic lime falls into the cohesive range, calcium lactate falls into the free-flowing range, and calcium
Keywords:
carbonate falls into the very cohesive range. Results showed that the best agreement between the testers
Powder flow property
Shear tester
was found with moderately cohesive powders such as dolomitic lime. Furthermore, the free-flowing
Flowability material tends to produce more consistent data between the three testers in terms of shear stresses and
Jenike tester yield loci. It should be noted that the pre-shear data of free-flowing powder obtained by the Jenike shear
Schulze tester cell must be appropriately interpreted. The largest differences between the testers are found with calcium
Brookfield powder flow tester carbonate, which is a highly compressible powder. The ways in which a high powder compressibility can
differently affect the results obtained with the different testers were discussed.
© 2016 Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of
Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Shear testers are important instruments for the design of reli-
able solids handling equipment such as hoppers, silos, and storage
bins. The design procedure for this type of equipment requires
knowledge of powder flowability and other flow property data that
can be obtained using shear testers. Powder flowability test meth-
ods have been divided (Schwedes, 2003) into three main categories:
(a) tests for non-compacted powders, such as measuring the angle
of repose; (b) tests for tapped powder, such as measuring the Haus-
ner ratio or the Carr index; and (c) tests for consolidated powders,
such as shear testers (Jenike and Schulze shear testers).
The first two methods are generally considered insufficiently
accurate and reliable to characterize powders, and standardized
procedures therefore must be used to obtain more repeatable data
(Santomaso, Lazzaro, & Canu, 2003). Quantitative results from the
methods classified as (a) and (b) above can scarcely be used in
design procedures but are suited for a general classification of
particulate materials. Meanwhile, shear testers include standard-
ized procedures, and therefore provide more precise and physically
meaningful results to be used for design purposes in industrial
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +39 089 96 8781.
E-mail address: mpoletto@unisa.it (M. Poletto).
applications. These systems can be used also for the classification
of powders (Schulze, 1996a,b). Krantz, Zhang, and Zhu (2009) have
compared different static and dynamic techniques for characteriz-
ing powders, and have concluded that the proper characterization
technique should be selected on the basis of its ability to properly
reproduce the state of stress and powder compaction close to the
powder process condition. Furthermore, for certain testers the spe-
cific measurement procedure can affect the results. For example,
Han, Dhodapkar, and Gong (2014) assessed the time consolidation
effect on the flow function of different solids at different shear rates
and reported that varying the shear rates will affect the time consol-
idation flow function values of sticky pellets. However, they found
that varying the shear rate did not affect the flowability of non-
sticky and soft-and-non-sticky powders. Similar conclusions were
drawn by Vasilenko, Koynov, Glasser, and Muzzio (2013). Other
process parameters have been verified to be important, such as the
particle size distribution (Lu et al., 2009; Lu, Guo, Liu, & Gong, 2015),
the consolidation level (Saw, Davies, Jones, & Paterson, 2014), the
moisture content (Landi, Barletta, & Poletto, 2011), and the sys-
tem temperature (Faqih, Mehrotra, Hammond, & Muzzio, 2007;
Tomasetta, Barletta, & Poletto, 2014). Non-standardized tester pro-
cedures have been proposed for low-consolidation (Freeman, 2007;
Tomasetta, Barletta, Lettieri, & Poletto, 2012) and for biomass par-
ticulate solids (Miccio, Barletta, & Poletto, 2013).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2016.08.003
1674-2001/© 2016 Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20
Nomenclature
C Cohesion, Pa
fc Unconfined yield strength, Pa
R Radius of Mohr circle at steady-state condition, Pa
P Center coordinate of the Mohr circle at steady-state
condition, Pa
Greek symbols
 Static angle of internal friction, degree
1 Major principal stress, Pa
c Normal consolidation stress during pre-shear phase,
Pa
N Normal stress during shear phase, Pa
 Shear stress, Pa
c Shear stress at steady-state condition during pre-
shear phase, Pa
¯ c Average pre-shear shear stress, Pa
The availability of several shear testers for powder character-
ization raises the question as to how and to what extent the
results are dependent on each specific tester. Several papers in
the literature have reported comparisons between powder flow
properties measured with different shear testers. Schulze (2011)
performed a round robin study of Schulze RST-XS (ring shear tester-
extra-small size) and RST-01.pc (medium size) shear cells using
limestone, where similar results were observed for both shear cell
sizes. Schmitt and Feise (2004) compared the Schulze ring shear
tester, the Walker ring shear tester, and the Peschl rotational shear
tester and no significant result difference was found between them
when easy-flowing powders were used. However, the type of tester
considerably affected the results for non-easy-flowing powders. A
study by Bell, Ennis, Grygo, Scholten, and Schenkel (1994) reported
lower unconfined yield strength in a Johanson hang-up IndicizerTM
when compared with the Jenike and the Schulze testers. Leturia,
Benali, Lagarde, Ronga, and Saleh (2014) compared traditional char-
acterization techniques with methodologies provided by the FT4
powder rheometer (Freeman Technology, Worcestershire, UK) and
reported that the tested characterization techniques have differ-
ent working ranges that depend on the powder cohesion. They
also concluded that, when choosing the characterization method
for powders, the real process conditions should be considered.
Recently a new shear tester appeared on the market developed by
the Brookfield Company (Berry, Bradley, & McGregor, 2015) called
powder flow tester (PFT). Koynov, Glasser, and Muzzio (2015) have
compared the flowability and bulk density of a free-flowing and a
cohesive powder with three rotational shear testers; namely, the
PFT, the Schulze RST, and FT4 powder rheometer; and they con-
cluded that the material type has the largest effect on the shear cell
Fig. 1. Yield locus evaluation procedure.
11
results. In addition, the consolidation at which the material was
tested and the tester type have statistically significant effects.
In this paper a direct comparison is attempted between experi-
mental results obtained with the Jenike shear cell, the Schulze RST,
and the Brookfield PFT. In particular, the main goal of this work is
to understand the differences between these testers by looking not
only at the final derived flow properties such as the angle of internal
friction, cohesion, and unconfined yield strength, but also at the raw
shear stress time series. A comparison between shear stresses at the
same powder consolidation and the normal stress value has not yet
been reported in any published paper on the topic, to the best of
our knowledge. This leaves open the question of how far the differ-
ences in the observed results may depend upon the shear physics
or upon the interpretation of the shearing results. Three very differ-
ent kinds of powders were used in this research project, including
a cohesive powder (dolomitic lime), a free-flowing powder (cal-
cium lactate), and a very cohesive powder (calcium carbonate). For
a better comparison of the testing procedures, identical stress levels
were applied in the three shear testers and also to the three pow-
ders. Statistical significance of the data was assured by repetition
of all of the tests.
Methods
Jenike shear tester
To study the flow behavior of particulate solids, Jenike (1964)
used the principle of plastic failure with the application of the
Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria. The Jenike shear cell consists of a
fixed cylindrical base, a shear ring, a mold ring, a twisting lid, and a
shearing lid, where the internal diameter (ID) of the base, the ring,
and the mold ring are always similar. The ID of the Jenike cell used
in this work was 92 mm; while the shear lid and the shear ring were
made of aluminum, and the base, the mold ring and the twisting
lid were made of brass. A vertical load was applied to the lid via
a hanger in equilibrium placed on the vertical pin located at the
center of the lid. A shear movement to the ring was applied by a
stem moving horizontally at the level of the shear plane. The lid
was designed to move in the vertical direction without interfering
with the ring, thereby allowing the full vertical load to be applied to
the powder in the cell. A shear cell connected to the stem allowed
measurement of the force necessary to shear the material. Both the
shear force and the load were considered to be applied directly on
the powder shear plane, which is defined by the contact surface
between the shear ring and the base.
Details of the cell design as well as the testing procedure used
in this work are described elsewhere (ASTM D6128, 2000, 2006;
Jenike, 1964). The typical shear stress chart for the pre-shearing and
shearing phase is reported in Fig. 1. A software application devel-
oped in the LabVIEW environment (National Instruments, USA)
was used to acquire, visualize, and record the main data measured
during the shear experiments. A linear (Coulomb) yield locus was
12 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20
Fig. 2. Graphic of the hypothesis that Nedderman (1992) used to calculate the state
of stress in the pre-shearing phase.
assumed and its parameters were evaluated with a linear regres-
sion procedure on the shear yield points.
Methods for calculating the major principal stress
Two different methods were applied to calculate the major prin-
cipal stress,  1 . Both methods involve the use of the static yield
locus and of the pre-shearing point. For a Coulomb material, the
static yield locus is represented on – plane by a line that can be
obtained from a regression procedure on all the shear data point
and is defined by the slope, that is the tangent of the static angle
of internal friction, , and by the intercept on the -axis, that is the
material cohesion, C. The coordinates of the preshearing point are
 c , the normal consolidation stress applied during the pre-shear
phase and ¯ c that is the average of all the values of the shear stress
at steady-state condition during pre-shear phase,  c .
The first method was reported by Nedderman (1992) and, in
principle, is valid only for the pre-shear point belonging to the static
yield locus line in an ideal Coulomb material. In fact, in the case
depicted in Fig. 2, the Mohr circle representing the state of stress in
the pre-sharing phase is tangent to the yield locus on the pre-shear
point. It follows, therefore, that the radius, R, of this Mohr circle and
the coordinate of its center, p, can be calculated as
R = ¯ c / cos ,
p = c + ¯ c tan .
Eqs. (1) and (2) were applied in all cases in which the pre-shear
point ( c , ¯ c ) fell on the regression line of the static yield locus
or slightly above it. In these cases only, the regression on the yield
points to obtain C and  was reworked to include also the pre-shear
point.
In the other most frequent cases in which the pre-shear point
( c , ¯ c ) fell below the regression line of the static yield locus, the
equations for p and R are given as
 2  
c c ¯ c2 + c2
p = C tan  + − C tan  + − + C2,
cos2  cos2  cos2 
 same normal stress of the pre-shear step), respectively. The maxi-
R= (p − c )2 − ¯ c2 .
According to Figs. 1 and 2, in all cases the principal stress,  1 ,
and the unconfined yield strength, fc , are calculated as
1 = p + R,
cos 
fc = 2C . (6)
1 − sin 
Schulze shear tester
A Schulze ring shear tester RST-01.01 was used, which was
equipped with either an M-cell (internal volume of 942 cm3 , exter-
nal and internal annulus diameter of 198 and 102 mm, respectively)
or an S-cell (internal volume of 96 cm3 , external and internal annu-
lus diameter of 118 and 62 mm, respectively).
The operating instructions recommended for the ring shear
tester RST-01.1, and the ASTM-standard (ASTM D6773, 2002) were
followed. For all of the tests, four shear points were registered
to obtain a yield locus. Further, a software application developed
in the LabVIEW environment (National Instruments) was used to
acquire, visualize, and record the main data measured during the
shear experiments, including the lid position. The shear stress was
derived from the average torque calculated from the forces mea-
sured by the load cells connected to the crossbeam through the
tie rods. Additionally, the RSV 95 software version 2.1.0.1 for the
RST-01.01 Schulze shear tester was used to derive the yield loci,
the Mohr circles for the both the consolidation state of stress and
the over-consolidated state of stress, the flow functions, the powder
bulk densities and the other related flow properties of the powders.
A linear (Coulomb) yield locus was assumed and its parameters
were evaluated with the linear regression procedure on the shear
yield points available in the RSV 95 software.
Brookfield powder flow tester
The Brookfield PFT (Brookfield Engineering Laboratories, Inc.,
Middleboro, MA, US) (Berry et al., 2015) is a ring shear tester whose
measuring principle is similar to that of the Schulze tester. The
tester operates by applying a vertical compression through the lid
onto the powder sample contained in the annular trough (internal
volume 230 cm3 , external annulus diameter 152.4 mm). An inter-
nal automated procedure controlled by the ‘powder flow software’
is used to operate the cell to reproduce the sequences of normal
stresses and the shear movement necessary to define the yield loci,
as is described in Fig. 1. The main aspects of the standard procedure
for the Brookfield PFT that differed from the Jenike and Schulze
procedures are the following. First, the initial pre-shear (consoli-
(1) dation) step was repeated several times to obtain repeatable shear
stress steady-state values corresponding to the maximum consol-
(2) idation (critical state) for a given load. Second, in each yield locus,
the shear (over-consolidation) step with the largest normal stress
was performed under a normal load equal to that of the consolida-
tion step. The corresponding data point in terms of the normal and
shear stresses contributes equally with those for the other shear
steps to derive the yield locus. Consequently, the values of cohe-
sion and angle of internal friction obtained for the linearized yield
locus may also be affected by this difference related to the inclu-
sion of an additional shear step data point. The PFT was used always
under the control of the ‘powder flow software’ and the procedure
recommended by the manufacturing company was followed. The
axial speed of the lid approach movement and rotational speed
of the trough were set to 1.0 mm/s and 1 rev/h respectively. The
(3) number of consolidation points (i.e., the number of yield loci) and
over-consolidation points (i.e., the number of points in each yield
locus) were set to 7 and 5 (including the last shear point at the
(4) mum normal stress in all experiments was set to the maximum of
4.82 kPa.
Procedure and materials for the comparison between testers
(5)
To obtain results from the different shear testers that could be
compared not only in terms of the flow function but also in terms
of the yield loci and shear stress time series, experiments with the
 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20 13

Table 1
Pre-shear,  c , and shear,  Ni , stress sets by Jenike, Schulze, and PFT testers for
measuring the flowability of powders.

Condition no. 1a 2a 3 4 5 6 7

Pre-shear,  c (kPa) 0.688 1.377 2.06 2.75 3.44 4.13 4.82

Shear,  Ni (kPa)
Shear 1 0.138 0.275 0.41 0.55 0.67 0.83 0.96
Shear 2 0.275 0.551 0.83 1.10 1.38 1.65 1.93
Shear 3 0.413 0.826 1.24 1.65 2.06 2.48 2.89
Shear 4 0.551 1.1 1.65 2.20 2.75 3.30 3.86
a
Stresses not applicable with the Jenike tester.

Table 2
Pre-shear,  c , and shear,  N , stresses applied to compare the pre-shearing and shear-
ing stress time series for the different testers.

 c (kPa)  N (kPa)

2.06 1.24
4.82 2.89
9.63 5.78

different testers were carried out by applying the same sequence

of normal stresses in the pre-shear and shear steps. The PFT did not
allow a free choice of these values, so a specific approach was used
for the comparison between testers in terms of the flow function
and other yield loci-derived quantities. In particular, the values of
the applied normal pre-shear stress and shear stress used in the
Jenike and Schulze testers were taken to be equal to those auto-
matically defined by the PFT procedure when the maximum value
was set to 4.82 kPa. However, according to the Jenike and Schulze
standardized procedures, the largest normal load in the shear phase
applied by the PFT tester for each yield locus, which is equal to the
normal load of the pre-shear phase, was not used with the Jenike
and Schulze measurements. The pre-shear and shear normal stress
values used for these comparisons are reported in Table 1. Owing
to the limits of the loading procedure, it is not possible to carry out
measurements with the Jenike tester corresponding to the yield loci
found with the two lowest values of the seven pre-shear normal
stresses applied by the PFT procedure. To avoid bias in the results
owing to the different assumptions made for the yield locus shape
(Berry & Bradley, 2007), in all cases we have assumed a linear yield
locus.
In addition, a comparison was carried out between testers in Fig. 3. Comparison between pre-shear stresses in a Jenike tester at a 9.63 kPa normal
terms of the time series taken at defined pairs of normal pre-shear stress for a varying number of twists using (a) dolomitic lime, (b) calcium lactate
and shear stress values, as reported in Table 2. It can be noted and (c) calcium carbonate.
that the higher normal stresses for both pre-shear and shear val-
ues exceeded the PFT measurement range and thus comparison for
overnight in an oven at 150 ◦ C and then cooled to ensure that the
these values was only possible between the Jenike and the Schulze
same water content exists in all powders during all of the experi-
testers. Prior to each set of experiments, the Jenike and the Schulze
ments.
testers were calibrated according to the standard procedure. No
in situ calibration procedure was possible for the PFT, but only a
validation check. Results
All tests were carried out at ambient conditions, around 22 ◦ C
and 30%–50% relative humidity. Three powders were used as test Determining the number of twists on the Jenike tester pre-shear
materials: dolomitic lime, calcium lactate, and calcium carbon- stress
ate. The particle size distributions of these powders measured
with a laser diffraction instrument (Mastersizer 2000, Malvern, UK) During the Jenike tester operation, there exists a limited length
are reported in Table 3. Prior to each test, powders were placed of the shearing displacement that is allowed by the Jenike cell

Table 3
Material properties and wall friction of the material on aluminum.

Material d10 (␮m) d50 (␮m) d90 (␮m) d32 (␮m) Flowability class (Jenike, 1961) w (*) (◦ )

Calcium lactate 149 267 467 221 Free flowing 18

Dolomitic lime 2 23 257 6 Cohesive 16
Calcium carbonate 2 7 40 4 Very cohesive 21

(*) Angle of wall friction reported is evaluated at a normal stress of 4.81 kPa.
14 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20
Table 4
Pre-shear stresses obtained with a Jenike tester at a 9.63 kPa normal stress for dif-
ferent numbers of twists and for the three materials.
Number of twists  c (kPa)
Calcium carbonate Calcium lactate Dolomitic lime
4 – – 6.85 ± 0.02
5 10.6 ± 0.05 – –
7 10.9 ± 0.03 – 6.74 ± 0.05
10 11.0 ± 0.07 7.71 ± 0.03 7.05 ± 0.04
12 – 7.56 ± 0.01 – delay of the trace for the PFT tester is not considered.
15 10.9 ± 0.04 7.36 ± 0.04 6.9 ± 0.02
20 11.9 ± 0.05 7.87 ± 0.02 6.89 ± 0.04
30 – 7.10 ± 0.06 6.77 ± 0.03
35 – 7.25 ± 0.05 – der, and especially at low consolidation. This finding, together with
40 10.7 ± 0.02 7.70 ± 0.03 – the consideration that the lowest normal stresses used are close
geometry. Therefore, one must determine the number of twists on
the sample that are necessary to reach the critical state in this shear-
ing displacement. Fig. 3 and Table 4 report the results comparing
the pre-shear stresses measured with a Jenike tester at 9.63 kPa
normal stress for various numbers of twists. The values in Table 4
are the average of at least three independent measurements and
their standard deviations. For the sake of qualitative comparison,
each plot in Fig. 3 reports the result from a single experiment.
Inspection of Table 4 shows that, for all of the tested materials, the
number of twists does not significantly affect the pre-shear stress
at the steady-state condition. Fig. 3 further shows that traces of
the pre-shear stress of both calcium carbonate and calcium lactate
can exhibit a maximum for a large number of twists. Following the
standard Jenike procedure, these maxima were interpreted in this
work as material over-consolidation and the number of twists to
be used in the experiments was chosen to avoid this phenomenon.
The resulting number of twists used in the experiments was 15
for dolomitic lime and 10 for both calcium lactate and calcium
carbonate.
Tester comparison in terms of the time series of shear stress
Fig. 4 and Table 5 report the comparison between the pre-
shear and shear stresses of dolomitic lime, calcium lactate, and
calcium carbonate, respectively, as a function of displacement mea-
sured with the Jenike, Schulze, and PFT testers at the different
consolidation levels reported in Table 2. For the sake of qualitative
comparison, each plot in Fig. 4 reports the result of a single exper-
iment, where Fig. 4(a), (c), and (e) report results for the pre-shear
phase and Fig. 4(b), (d), and (f) report results for the shear phase.
The values in Table 5 refer to the steady-state pre-shear condition
and the maximum values for shear, and are the averages of at least
three independent measurements and their standard deviations.
Inspection of Fig. 4 reveals that the PFT requires the longest
shear displacement to attain a steady state while the Schulze tester
requires the least displacement to reach the steady state, apart from
low-consolidation stresses at which the Jenike seems to require a
shorter displacement. It should be noted that the shear displace-
ment is estimated on the basis of the rotational speed and of the
time elapsed since the rotation start. Furthermore, the shape of the
shear stress curve for the PFT exhibits a certain delay, which can be
attributed to a looser kinematic chain comprising both the trough
with the motor and the lid with the torque measuring cell. As a con-
sequence, the effective relative rotation of the lid and the trough
may begin a certain time after the motor has started.
Dolomitic lime has intermediate cohesive properties that reside
between those of calcium carbonate and calcium lactate, and
the shear stress () values obtained are consistent with this
classification. However, apart from the results obtained at very low-
consolidation stresses, the deviations between the different testers
for the dolomitic lime sample are the smallest registered among the
three tested materials, as reported in Table 5. In addition, the stan-
dard deviation values exhibit a high internal consistency between
the Schulze and PFT results. Fig. 4(a) and (b) exhibits some slip
and stick behavior for this material, and especially at the highest
applied normal stresses. However, in terms of comparison between
the final values of the traces obtained with different testers, the
dolomitic lime material exhibits the best agreement between the
results obtained with the different testers, if the above discussed
Calcium lactate flows more easily than dolomitic lime, and so it
requires somewhat smaller  values than the most cohesive pow-
to the lowest limit of the Jenike tester, could be used to partially
explain the significant relative deviation between the different
testers, as reported in Table 5. The standard deviation values, in
fact, show a high internal consistency for the Schulze and the PFT
results, which both are less dependent on operator error. Fig. 4(c)
and (d) shows no significant change in the comparison between
testers in terms of the displacement required to reach steady state
during the pre-shear step and the failure during the shear step.
Regarding calcium carbonate, inspection of Table 5 shows that
the Jenike results differ most from the other two testers, though at
the highest consolidation stresses the Schulze and the Jenike testers
provide more similar results. The standard deviations of the results
are approximately of the same order for all of the testers, suggesting
an internal variability that is owing to the sample rather than to
the measurement accuracy. The differences between the testers are
clearly observable with this material, and will be further discussed
in the following, when we present the differences in terms of the
yield loci, and in the Discussion Section.
Tester comparison in terms of yield loci
Comparisons between the yield loci obtained with the different
testers are reported in Fig. 5 for dolomitic lime, calcium lactate,
and calcium carbonate. In particular, Fig. 5(a), (c), and, (e) report
results obtained at a low-consolidation applied normal stress,  c ,
of 2.75 kPa, while Fig. 5(b), (d), and (f) report results obtained at a
higher  c of 4.82 kPa. These stresses are in the low range of those
used in industrial applications, however, as stated above, the high-
est values were set by the limits of the PFT. In any case, these values
may be relevant for process or quality control applications.
The results for dolomitic lime (Fig. 5(a) and (b)) indicate that
yield loci points are very similar for all of the shear testers. The most
significant deviations are found at the lowest values of the normal
stresses using the Jenike shear tester, which is likely the conse-
quence of a somewhat lower angle of internal friction provided by
the this tester.
Results for calcium lactate (Fig. 5(c) and (d)) indicate much
smaller differences between the yield loci obtained with the dif-
ferent shear testers. In this case, however, the yield locus obtained
with the PFT is somewhat less inclined than the others. With
calcium lactate, however, all testers produce data points fairly well-
aligned and the largest shear stresses found are provided by the
Jenike tester results. Calcium lactate is rather free-flowing, and the
very small value of the yield locus intercept therefore makes it
difficult to compare results in terms of cohesion and unconfined
yield strength. In fact, the differences existing in these results may
depend on extrapolation errors. In particular, the PFT tester some-
times produces yield loci with negative values at the intercept,
which the automated procedure of the tester analysis software
reports as zero values for the cohesion and the unconfined yield
strength. The consolidation Mohr circle is rather similar for both the
PFT and the Schulze testers, while it is larger for the Jenike tester.
 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20 15

Fig. 4. Shear stresses of (a, b) dolomitic lime, (c, d) calcium lactate, and (e, f) calcium carbonate, as a function of displacement measured with Jenike ( ), Schulze ( ),
and PFT ( ) testers at three different normal consolidation stress values ( c ) during the pre-shear phase and three different normal stresses ( N ) in the shear phase,
respectively given as: 2.06 and 1.24 kPa (thin line), 4.82 and 2.89 kPa (medium thick line), 9.63 and 5.78 kPa (thick line), with (a, c, e) for pre-shear phase and (b, d, f) for shear
phase.

In addition, in the case of the Jenike tester results, considering the
geometrical procedure used to determine the value of the major
principal stress, the differences seem to be caused by the shorter
distance between the pre-shear point and the linear approximation
of the yield locus.
Results for calcium carbonate (Fig. 5(e) and (f)) show similar
yield loci values for both the Jenike and the PFT testers. In spite
of this finding, the two sets of yield loci show some differences in
terms of slope, and thus of the angle of internal friction. The slope is
lower for the PFT results, and somewhat higher values of both the
cohesion and the unconfined yield strength are found for the PFT

Table 5
Shear stresses with dolomitic lime, calcium lactate, and calcium carbonate measured using the Jenike, Schulze, and PFT testers at different normal consolidation stress values
( c ) during the pre-shear phase and different normal stresses ( N ) in the shear phase.

Material Test  c (kPa)  N (kPa)  c (kPa)  N (kPa)  c (kPa)  N (kPa)

2.06 1.24 4.82 2.89 9.63 5.78

Dolomitic  (kPa) Jenike 1.41 ± 0.037 1.39 ± 0.04 3.5 ± 0.028 2.81 ± 0.042 8.22 ± 0.031 6.2 ± 0.025
lime Schulze 1.78 ± 0.06 1.46 ± 0.037 3.8 ± 0.052 3.01 ± 0.04 7.92 ± 0.08 6.05 ± 0.062
PFT 1.58 ± 0.012 1.27 ± 0.017 3.62 ± 0.014 2.87 ± 0.018
Deviation Schulze–Jenike 20.7 5 8 7 4 2.5
(%) PFT–Jenike 10.7 9 3.4 2
PFT–Schulze 12 13 5 5

Calcium  (kPa) Jenike 1.69 ± 0.060 1.25 ± 0.090 3.50 ± 0.110 2.21 ± 0.054 7.6 ± 0.32 4.7 ± 0.19
lactate Schulze 1.35 ± 0.010 0.96 ± 0.006 3.45 ± 0.010 2.19 ± 0.051 5.95 ± 0.03 3.87 ± 0.078
PFT 1.37 ± 0.010 0.84 ± 0.002 2.83 ± 0.005 1.98 ± 0.01
Deviation Schulze–Jenike 20.1 23.2 1.4 0.9 21.8 17.8
(%) PFT–Jenike 18.9 32.8 17.9 10.4
PFT–Schulze 1.4 12.5 19.1 9.5

Calcium  (kPa) Jenike 1.78 ± 0.042 1.54 ± 0.050 4.05 ± 0.071 3.43 ± 0.037 11.0 ± 0.44 8.56 ± 0.36
carbonate Schulze 2.18 ± 0.057 1.99 ± 0.040 4.98 ± 0.082 4.11 ± 0.002 10.6 ± 0.35 8.31 ± 0.15
PFT 1.99 ± 0.015 1.66 ± 0.010 4.93 ± 0.018 3.93 ± 0.010
Deviation Schulze–Jenike 18.3 22.6 18.6 16.5 3.2 2.9
(%) PFT–Jenike 10.5 7.2 17.8 12.7
PFT–Schulze 8.7 16.5 1 4.3
16 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20

Fig. 5. Yield loci and main Mohr circles for (a, b) dolomitic lime, (c, d) calcium lactate, and (e, f) calcium carbonate obtained by applying the following normal stresses: (a, c,
e) at pre-shear, 2.75 kPa; at shear 0.55, 1.10, 1.65, and 2.20 kPa; (b, d, f) at pre-shear, 4.82 kPa; at shear 0.96, 1.93, 2.89, and 3.86 kPa. Different lines and symbols identify the
different shear testers: Jenike ( ), Schulze ( ), and PFT ( ). Empty symbols signify pre-shear; filled symbols signify shear; thin lines signify
the Mohr circle at unconfined yield; medium lines signify the Mohr circle at consolidation; and thick lines signify the Coulomb approximation of the static yield locus.

tester. Results also indicate that the linear Coulomb approximation
of the static yield locus is less accurate in the case of the PFT tester.
This finding for the PFT tester is more evident owing to the inclusion
of the shear point at the same normal load of the pre-shear phase.
In fact, this shear point deviates from the linear approximation of
the yield locus more significantly than the others, and always in the
direction of lower shear stresses. It can be questioned whether the
inclusion of the shear point at the same normal load of the pre-shear
phase is valid or not since, as observed above, it can meaningfully
affect the results. The answer to this question, however, requires
targeted studies beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, for the
interpretation of the shear testing results we have made the choice
to follow the indications provided by the tester manufacturer.
The Schulze tester reports somewhat higher values, thank you of
shear stress than the other two testers at entire shear loads. Similar
results have been reported by Koynov et al. (2015). We have previ-
ously verified if these differences in shear stress might be attributed
to the effect of the wall friction between the powder, the lid and
the vane tip in the Schulze cell (Johanson & Barletta, 2004). In fact,
the material is held by the lid and moves relative to the wall of the
rotating trough, and the wall friction angles used herein are those
measured by the PFT tester and reported in Table 3. In spite of the
fact that the wall friction with calcium carbonate on aluminum is
higher than the wall friction of other materials, the corrections to
the Schulze tester results introduced by accounting for wall friction
would only change them by a few percent, and are not therefore
significant enough to justify the differences in the  values observed
between the Schulze tester and the two other testers. The slope of
the linearized yield locus for the Schulze tester is similar to that of
the Jenike tester. Therefore, as a consequence of the different shear
stress measured, the Schulze tester provides larger values of both
cohesion and unconfined yield strength of the material. For simi-
lar reasons, the Mohr circle relative to consolidation is also larger
for the Schulze tester than that obtained with the Jenike tester, but
not larger than the corresponding Mohr circle obtained by the PFT
tester. This finding seems to depend on the fact that the pre-shear
point found by the PFT tester appears to be much closer to the yield
locus than is true for the other two testers.
Tester comparison in terms of main flow properties
First, it is important to note that the results reported in this
section use a larger number of consolidation conditions than those
reported in the previous section.
Cohesion
The cohesion values as a function of the major principal stress
for the different testers and for all materials tested are reported
in Fig. 6. These results tend to confirm the qualitative differ-
ences found among the different testers when comparing yield
loci results. It must be considered that the combined differences
in terms of both cohesion and major principal stresses, which were
found for yield loci of different testers at the same normal consoli-
dation stress, tend to compensate.
Therefore, for the dolomitic lime material (Fig. 6(a)), a very good
agreement is found between the cohesion results of the Schulze and
the PFT testers, while the cohesion values of the Jenike tester are a
bit larger than the others.
 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20
Fig. 6. Cohesion as a function of the major principal stress for (a) dolomitic lime,
(b) calcium lactate (note the different scale for cohesion), and (c) calcium carbonate
obtained with the Jenike ( ), the Schulze ( ), and the PFT ( ) shear testers.
For the rather free-flowing calcium lactate material (Fig. 6(b)),
the low value of the cohesion significantly affects its estimation
because of the error involved in the extrapolation procedure nec-
essary for its determination, as was similarly remarked for the yield
loci in Fig. 5(c). The large error bars shown in Fig. 6(b) confirm this
limitation and may indicate differences that are not statistically
significant. With this warning in mind, it can be noted that both
the Schulze and the Jenike testers detect a significant increase of
cohesion when raising the consolidation stress, while the PFT val-
ues are much less dependent on consolidation. Finally, the Jenike
tester provides the largest values.
For calcium carbonate (Fig. 6(c)), the Schulze tester provides
cohesion values larger than those obtained with the other two
17
Fig. 7. Angle of internal friction as a function of the major principal stress at consoli-
dation for (a) dolomitic lime, (b) calcium lactate, and (c) calcium carbonate obtained
with the Jenike ( ), the Schulze ( ), and the PFT ( ) shear testers.
testers. However, the regions occupied by the data points of the
different testers tend to overlap in the lower consolidation range.
In particular, Fig. 6(c) shows that the data point at the lowest normal
load for the Jenike tester (corresponding to condition 3 in Table 1)
drops close to the two data points of the Schulze and PFT testers
corresponding to condition 2 in Table 1. This means that, despite
different values of  c being applied to the testers, similar values of
 1 and thus of cohesion were obtained.
Angle of internal friction
The values of the angle of internal friction as a function of
the major principal stress during consolidation are reported in
Fig. 7 for the different testers and for all materials. For dolomitic
18 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20
Fig. 8. Unconfined yield strength as a function of the major principal stress for (a)
dolomitic lime, (b) calcium lactate (note the different scale for the unconfined yield
strength), and (c) calcium carbonate obtained with the Jenike ( ), the Schulze ( ),
and the PFT ( ) shear testers.
lime (Fig. 7(a)), the Jenike, the PFT, and the Schulze testers pro-
vide different values of the angle of internal friction. These angles
seem relatively constant with increasing consolidation for both
the Schulze and the Jenike testers, while a certain consolidation
dependence is observed with the PFT.
For calcium lactate (Fig. 7(b)), all testers indicate rather constant
values of the angle of internal friction. The PFT reports values just
below those provided by the other two testers, and with slightly
smaller standard deviation values.
For calcium carbonate (Fig. 7(c)), all three testers provide simi-
lar values for the angle of friction at high consolidation, but small
changes are detected at lower consolidation. Here, the Jenike tester
Fig. 9. Bulk density as a function of the major principal stress for (a) dolomitic lime,
(b) calcium lactate, and (c) calcium carbonate obtained with the Schulze ( ), and
the PFT ( ) shear testers.
yields no significant change of frictional properties with consolida-
tion, while both the Schulze and the PFT testers report a certain
decrease of the angle of internal friction with decreasing consoli-
dation.
Flow function
The flow function is the relationship between the unconfined
yield strength and the major principal stress during consolidation,
and the values obtained are reported in Fig. 8 for the differ-
ent testers and for all materials tested. The unconfined yield is
a property derived from the static yield locus by determining
the unconfined yield Mohr circle. This parameter, therefore, is a
combined function of the material cohesion, c, and also of the
static angle of internal friction, . In particular, it possesses a
 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20
strong dependence on c and a weaker dependence on . There-
fore, considering that only a small change of  was recorded for
the materials in the present study for both varying consolidation
load and the tester type, the flow function plots in Fig. 8 exhibit
a similar dependence on consolidation and on the tester type. The
flow functions are important because their representation is the
means whereby powder flowability is typically reported and clas-
sified. Namely, powder flowability is classified according to the
Jenike classification (Schulze, 2008) or, in other words, accord-
ing to the flow factor value, ff =  1 /fc , where fc is the unconfined
yield strength. The classes generally considered are defined as free-
flowing (ff > 10), easy-flowing (4 < ff ≤ 10), cohesive (2 < ff ≤ 4), very
cohesive (1 < ff ≤ 2), and hardened materials (ff ≤ 1). Fig. 8 delineates
the relevant flow regions with flow factor lines at their boundaries.
The flow functions of dolomitic lime (Fig. 8(a)) are very similar
for all of the testers and fall on the boundary between the cohesive
and very cohesive ranges, with a slight tendency toward higher
flow factors at high consolidation. Calcium lactate is classified as
free-flowing by all testers (Fig. 8(b)), and it appears that differences
between tester measurements determine the change in the calcium
carbonate flowability classification (Fig. 8(c)) from cohesive to very
cohesive.
Powder bulk density
The powder bulk density values as a function of the major princi-
pal stress during consolidation are reported in Fig. 9 for all materials
and for the two testers (Schulze and PFT) that provide this measure-
ment. Differences between the testers are minimal, though the PFT
values are systematically slightly above those obtained with the
Schulze tester.
As expected, consolidation has a larger effect on the powder
bulk density of the cohesive calcium carbonate and dolomitic lime
powders (Fig. 9(a) and (c)) rather than on the free-flowing calcium
lactate (Fig. 9(b)). In fact, the calcium carbonate density values vary
significantly and span from around 400 kg/m3 at the lowest tested
consolidation stresses to nearly 600 kg/m3 at the highest consoli-
dation values.
Discussion
Dolomitic lime is a rather cohesive but somewhat compressible
material. With this sort of “average” material, all three testers pro-
vide very similar results in terms of all parameter features. This
is a consequence of the fact that all of the examined testers are
based on the same measurement principles and are able to provide
results relevant to these principles. As we have remarked above,
however, the different testers and the associated procedures might
provide different results if applied to powders that are character-
ized by low cohesion values such as calcium lactate, or with high
compressibility such as calcium carbonate.
It can be observed that with calcium lactate the Schulze and the
PFT testers exhibit similar trace shapes and values for both pre-
shear and shear stress, which are different from the trace exhibited
by the Jenike tester. Furthermore, the pre-shear curves obtained
by these two testers always exhibit a maximum that is located at a
displacement of 1 mm. Table 3 shows that the particles are coarse
and possess a rather narrow particle size distribution for this crys-
talline material, as can be seen by the similar values for the median
diameter, d50 , and the mean Sauter diameter, d32 . Therefore, the
maximum in the pre-shear stress may correspond to a transient
behavior in the material dilation, which is necessary for shear.
Operating with the Jenike tester, the number of pre-consolidation
twists was selected based on the shape of the pre-shear curve. With
this procedure, we may have simply selected a pre-shear condition
in which the maximum is elongated and shifted toward the end of
19
the useful tester displacement and thereby stopped the pre-shear
in the midst of the pre-shear transient at which the stress is at a
maximum. This argument could explain the higher values of the
pre-shear values found with the Jenike tester, and therefore the
higher values of the estimated consolidation stress in the yield loci
construction. In addition, the rather incompressible nature of this
material makes the shear results almost independent of the con-
solidation procedure and, in fact, the shear results are very similar
for the three testers.
The reasons are less clear why a highly compressible material
might produce results that vary with the shear tester used and, in
particular, between the Schulze and the PFT testers. We believe this
may be owing to the different shapes of the PFT and Schulze lids. The
PFT lid, in fact, possesses a toroidal profile in which the inner and
outer edges of the annular lid all end at the same height of the lid
vanes to minimize the friction of the sample with the trough walls.
This shape, however, may produce an uneven stress distribution
after the lid is applied. This issue is acknowledged to be present in
the PFT by the loading procedure, wherein the PFT system includes
a shaped scraper that is able to prepare the powder sample with
the appropriate toroidal convexity to match the lid shape. How-
ever, with highly compressible materials, this preparation might
not be sufficient to ensure a uniform compression of the powder
within the lid space because the volume available for the compres-
sion in the lid varies between the annulus center and its periphery.
Therefore, a possible consequence may be an uneven stress dis-
tribution on the shear plane that might explain the lower average
shear stresses registered in the highly compressible material with
the PFT tester than with the Schulze tester.
Another phenomenon that is typical of very compressible pow-
ders is anisotropy (Feise, 1998; Ittershagen, Schwedes, & Kwade,
2011; Ittershagen, Zetzener, Schwedes, & Kwade, 2013; Li & Puri,
1996). These materials, in fact, retain their compression history and
can provide lower shear stresses when the shear direction is differ-
ent during the pre-shear and the shear phase. Operating with the
Jenike tester, the consolidation procedure by twisting introduces
shear directions on the shear plane that are different during consol-
idation than during shear. A possible consequence is the apparent
lower material shear stress measured with the Jenike tester than
that with the Schulze tester.
Conclusions
Unlike other previously published works that compared shear
testers with the PFT, this paper used applied load conditions that
were exactly the same for the different testers. This allowed direct
comparison of the results obtained with the three different shear
testers, and not only in terms of the flow functions, the angle of
internal friction, the density and cohesion, but also in terms of the
yield loci and stress. The degree of agreement between testers is
highly dependent on the used materials. The results showed that
the PFT tester is less suitable for free-flowing materials because of
the higher error deviation between different repetitions, and shear
traces indicate that a looser kinematic chain existing in this tester
than present in the other testers may be the reason for these results.
The different shear testers similarly classified the three powders
within different regions of the Jenike classification. In particular,
the three testers produce very similar results for the dolomitic lime,
which is a cohesive but slightly compressible material. Good agree-
ment is also found in terms of yield loci for the three testers for
the free-flowing calcium lactate powder. Results indicate, however,
that some care should be given to the proper interpretation of the
pre-shear data obtained with the Jenike tester. With free-flowing
powders, in fact, the presence of a maximum in the pre-shear
curve should not be necessarily interpreted as a material over-
consolidation.
20 H. Salehi et al. / Particuology 32 (2017) 10–20
Fig. A1. Comparison between pre-shear stress measured at a normal consolidation stress of 4.82 kPa and a normal stress during shear of 2.89 kPa with a Schulze shear tester
in: , SV cell; , M cell. Thin line, calcium carbonate; thick line, calcium lactate; medium thick line, dolomitic lime. (a) pre-shear phase; (b) shear phase.
The largest differences between the tester results are found
with a highly compressible material. We discuss how this powder
feature might affect the tester results because of uneven powder
compression below the lid in the PFT tester, and owing to the sig-
nificant anisotropy effect on powder consolidation introduced by
the twisting procedure in the Jenike tester.
Appendix A
Comparing use of M- and S-cells with the Schulze tester
Fig. A1 reports the comparison between pre-shear stress and
shear stresses measured at a normal consolidation stress of 4.82 kPa
and a normal stress during a shearing stress of 2.89 kPa with a
Schulze shear tester by using either the M-cell or the S-cell for
all three materials. No differences were adopted in the sample
preparation for the tests carried out with these two cells. The
only difference between these two cells is their tangential veloc-
ity owing to their different radii. The velocity was set to 2.3 and
1.6 mm/min in the S- and the M-cell, respectively. The pre-shear
stresses at the steady-state conditions with the S- and M-cell at
a normal consolidation stress of 4.82 kPa were almost identical,
with less than 1% deviation between the two. The maximum shear
stress at the shearing step is slightly different between the two cells,
where the shear stress measured with the S-cell had a value about
2% larger than that measured with an M-cell.
References
ASTM D6128. (2000). Standard test method for shear testing of bulk solids using the
Jenike shear cell. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
ASTM D6773. (2002). Standard shear test method for bulk solids using the Schulze ring
shear tester. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
ASTM D6128. (2006). Standard test method for shear testing of bulk solids using the
Jenike shear cell. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
Bell, T. A., Ennis, B. J., Grygo, R. J., Scholten, W. J. F., & Schenkel, M. M. (1994). Prac-
tical evaluation of the Johanson Hang-up Indicizer. Bulk Solids Handling, 14(1),
117–125.
Berry, R., Bradley, M., & McGregor, R. (2015). Brookfield powder flow tester—Results
of round robin tests with CRM-116 limestone powder. Proceedings of the Insti-
tution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering,
229(3), 215–230.
Berry, R. J., & Bradley, M. S. A. (2007). Investigation of the effect of test procedure
factors on the failure loci and derived failure functions obtained from annular
shear cells. Powder Technology, 174(1–2), 60–63.
Faqih, A. M. N., Mehrotra, A., Hammond, S. V., & Muzzio, F. J. (2007). Effect of moisture
and magnesium stearate concentration on flow properties of cohesive granular
materials. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 336(2), 338–345.
Feise, H. J. (1998). A review of induced anisotropy and steady-state flow in powders.
Powder Technology, 98(3), 191–200.
Freeman, R. (2007). Measuring the flow properties of consolidated, conditioned
and aerated powders—A comparative study using a powder rheometer and a
rotational shear cell. Powder Technology, 174(1–2), 25–33.
Han, T., Dhodapkar, S., & Gong, T. (2014). Impact of different shear rates on flow
functions measured by a ring shear tester. Particulate Science and Technology,
32(4), 366–370.
Jenike, A. W. (1961). Gravity flow of bulk solids. Bulletin No. 108, University of Utah
Engineering Experiment Station.
Jenike, A. W. (1964). Storage and flow of solids. Bulletin No. 123, University of Utah
Engineering Experiment Station.
Ittershagen, T., Schwedes, J., & Kwade, A. (2011). A new powder tester to investigate
the anisotropic consolidation behaviour. Powder Technology, 211(1), 85–89.
Ittershagen, T., Zetzener, H., Schwedes, J., & Kwade, A. (2013). Anisotropic behaviour
of bulk solids and its effect on silo design. Powder Technology, 247, 260–264.
Johanson, K., & Barletta, D. (2004). The influence of air counter-flow through powder
materials as a means of reducing cohesive flow problems. Particle & Particle
Systems Characterization, 21(4), 316–325.
Koynov, S., Glasser, B., & Muzzio, F. (2015). Comparison of three rotational shear cell
testers: Powder flowability and bulk density. Powder Technology, 283, 103–112.
Krantz, M., Zhang, H., & Zhu, J. (2009). Characterization of powder flow: Static and
dynamic testing. Powder Technology, 194(3), 239–245.
Landi, G., Barletta, D., & Poletto, M. (2011). Modelling and experiments on the effect
of air humidity on the flow properties of glass powders. Powder Technology,
207(1–3), 437–443.
Leturia, M., Benali, M., Lagarde, S., Ronga, I., & Saleh, K. (2014). Characterization of
flow properties of cohesive powders: A comparative study of traditional and
new testing methods. Powder Technology, 253, 406–423.
Li, F., & Puri, V. M. (1996). Measurement of anisotropic behavior of dry cohesive and
cohesionless powders using a cubical triaxial tester. Powder Technology, 89(3),
197–207.
Lu, H., Guo, X., Gong, X., Huang, W., Ma, S., & Wang, C. (2009). Study of the flowability
of pulverized coals. Energy and Fuels, 23(11), 5529–5535.
Lu, H., Guo, X., Liu, Y., & Gong, X. (2015). Effect of particle size on flow mode and
flow characteristics of pulverized coal. KONA Powder and Particle Journal, 32(32),
143–153.
Miccio, F., Barletta, D., & Poletto, M. (2013). Flow properties and arching behavior of
biomass particulate solids. Powder Technology, 235, 312–321.
Nedderman, R. M. (1992). Statics and kinematics of granular materials. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Santomaso, A., Lazzaro, P., & Canu, P. (2003). Powder flowability and density
ratios: The impact of granules packing. Chemical Engineering Science, 58(13),
2857–2874.
Saw, H. Y., Davies, C. E., Jones, J. R., & Paterson, A. H. J. (2014). Shear testing of lactose
powders: The influence of consolidation stress and particle size on bulk density
and estimated cohesion. Advanced Powder Technology, 25(4), 1164–1170.
Schmitt, R., & Feise, H. (2004). Influence of tester geometry, speed and procedure on
the results from a ring shear tester. Particle & Particle Systems Characterization,
21(5), 403–410.
Schulze, D. (1996a). Measuring powder flowability: A comparison of test methods.
Part I. Powder and Bulk Engineering, 10, 45–61.
Schulze, D. (1996b). Measuring powder flowability: A comparison of test methods.
Part II. Powder and Bulk Engineering, 10, 17–33.
Schulze, D. (2008). Powders and bulk solids: Behavior, characterization, storage and
flow. Heidelberg: Springer.
Schulze, D. (2011). Round robin test on ring shear testers. Advanced Powder Technol-
ogy, 22(2), 197–202.
Schwedes, J. J. (2003). Review on testers for measuring flow properties of bulk solids.
Granular Matter, 5(1), 1–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10035-002-0124-4
Tomasetta, I., Barletta, D., Lettieri, P., & Poletto, M. (2012). The measurement of
powder flow properties with a mechanically stirred aerated bed. Chemical Engi-
neering Science, 69(1), 373–381.
Tomasetta, I., Barletta, D., & Poletto, M. (2014). Correlation of powder flow properties
to interparticle interactions at ambient and high temperatures. Particuology, 12,
90–99.
Vasilenko, A., Koynov, S., Glasser, B. J., & Muzzio, F. J. (2013). Role of consolidation
state in the measurement of bulk density and cohesion. Powder Technology, 239,
366–373.