Maintaining Product Uniformity and Uninterrupted Flow to

Direct-Compression Tableting Presses1

By
James K. Prescott
and
Roderick J. Hossfeld

Production of quality tablets requires not uncommon for a single batch of material to
consistent delivery of well-blended material. have a value in excess of several hundred
Two problems that traditionally plague thousand dollars. Strict U.S. quality control
direct-compression tableting operations are standards dictate that some or all of the batch
particle segregation of the blended product may have to be discarded if the amount of active
during handling and interruption of flow. ingredient or the total weight of just five tablets
This article discusses the problems associated in a batch varies outside narrow limits. Product
with transferring material from a blender to variation can result in problems with FDA
a tableting press. The equipment involved approval of a new drug. Further, consumer
includes portable containers (to store and dissatisfaction resulting from ineffectiveness of
transfer material), chutes (to direct the tablets with insufficient active ingredient or side
material from the portable container to the effects resulting from excess active ingredient
tableting press), and stationary feed hoppers can cause decreased sales and poor company
(at the bottom of the chute to provide a small image. More important, low-quality
surge for feeding the tableting press). Solids pharmaceuticals pose health risks to consumers.
flow technology is used to present practical,
cost-effective, and reliable solutions to these Product variation is usually attributed to
problems. segregation of the material within a batch.
Often, this appears to be an unpredictable or
Reliable, uninterrupted flow of uniformly mixed random event because pockets of segregated
bulk material is critical in producing quality material end up at the tableting press at irregular
tablets, capsules, caplets, etc. Flow stoppages intervals. This is a source of frustration to the
result in downtime and lost production. In the engineer or scientist who is trying to solve the
pharmaceutical industry, preventing segregation problem.
of the mixed material is especially critical. It is

1
Source: Prescott, J. K. and R. J. Hossfeld: Maintaining Product Uniformity and Uninterrupted Flow to Direct Compression
Tablet Presses. Pharmaceutical Technology, 18 (6), 1994, pp 99-114. 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 • Viña del Mar, Chile
www.jenike.com
To overcome problems of unreliable flow and • the active ingredient(s).
segregation, it is first essential to understand the These ingredients are mixed in a blender, such
mechanisms that cause them. as a twin-shell or V-blender, and discharged into
a bin (usually portable), which then feeds a
TABLETING PROCESS chute to the tableting process. As an alternative
to batch blending, in-bin blending is a trend that
A tableting press consists of an upper press, a is gaining popularity. The unmixed material is
die, and a lower press. Rotary presses are often placed in a portable bin, which may contain
used because of their high production capacity. internal baffles, and is then tumbled. This
A double-sided rotary press consists of a eliminates the batch blender and the potential
rotating multistation die table that produces two for segregation during transfer form the blender
tablets per station for each revolution. The die to the portable container.
must be fed at two places approximately 180°
apart to ensure that the dies are always full. This In direct-compression formulations, there is a
is usually accomplished by feeding the press wide particle-size distribution. Usually the
with a Y-branch or pantleg chute from a single active drug is at the fine end of the range. Such
supply hopper. a wide particle-size range can easily result in
significant segregation.
Direct compression is a tableting process in
which the bulk material consists of a mixture of MAINTAINING RELIABLE FLOW
individual components; however, each
individual particle is a distinct ingredient. In A bulk solid storage container is often referred
some tableting processes, granulation is to as a bin. Bins can be either fixed or portable
sometimes used to improve the flow properties and generally consist of a vertical-walled
of the material and to reduce the potential for cylinder section followed by a converging
segregation. Whether wet or dry granulation is hopper section. The cylinder cross-section may
used, the end result is a bulk material in which be round, rectangular, or another shape, but it
each particle is theoretically uniform in has a constant cross-sectional area. The hopper
chemical composition and is ready for the section, on the other hand, may be conical,
tableting process. However, granulation pyramidal, or wedge-shaped with a changing
involves extra processing steps and added cross-sectional area. The intersection of the
equipment costs. In direct compression, no cylinder and hopper is called the transition
granulation step is used. In a survey of 58 point.
pharmaceutical companies reported in
Pharmaceutical Technology, the overwhelming When a bulk solid flows out of a bin, one of two
choice for tablet manufacturing was direct flow patterns will develop: funnel flow or mass
compression (1). flow. Funnel flow occurs when the hopper walls
are either too shallow or too rough for material
Most direct-compression formulations consist of to slide along them (see Figure 1a). As a result,
three basic types of ingredients: the material along the walls is stagnant, while
• an inert carrier (e.g., lactose) to provide material flows preferentially through a funnel-
volume for final dosage; shaped channel directly above the outlet. The
• a filler (e.g., microcrystalline cellulose) to resulting first-in, last-out flow often leads to
form tablets; and particle segregation (described below). If the

2
 Fig. 1: Flow patterns of bulk solids flowing out of a bin. To achieve mass flow, the hopper walls must be
sufficiently smooth and steep to allow the
a. Funnel Flow b. Mass Flow material to slide along them. In addition, the
outlet must be large enough to prevent a stable
arch from forming. Both the required hopper
angle and the minimum outlet size can be
determined by material tests (2). Material tests
are required because information about the
material composition, particle size, etc., is not
Flowing sufficient to determine the geometry of a bin to
Flowing
Material Material obtain mass flow. The process conditions
(temperature, humidity, time of storage at rest in
the container, etc.) must be taken into account in
the testing.

Although other designs are available, there are

two common designs for portable containers in
the pharmaceutical industry: those with conical
Stagnant hoppers and those with pyramidal hoppers.

Bins with pyramidal hopper sections are often

selected because they have more volume
material is cohesive, arching and ratholing are relative to height, assuming the width of the
common occurrences, resulting in no flow or pyramid is the same as the diameter of the
erratic flow and possibly incomplete discharge. conical bin.
Fine powders may fluidize as they fall through a
rathole, which may cause flooding and Pyramidal bins are usually funnel flow,
significant bulk density variations. primarily because of the valley formed at the
intersection of the hopper walls. This valley is
Funnel flow is suitable only for coarse, free- shallower than the walls, which often prevents
flowing, nondegrading particles, where flow of material in the corners. This is
segregation is unimportant. Although this is compounded by material converging into the
suitable for some applications, it rules out the valley from both directions. To have a mass
vast majority of pharmaceutical products. flow design, the valleys of a pyramid must be at
least as steep as a cone of the same wall
Mass flow, the alternative to funnel flow, is material. Therefore, when comparing mass flow
characterized by a first-in, first-out flow pattern designs, a conical hopper is more efficient than
in which all of the material is in motion a pyramidal hopper.
whenever any is withdrawn from the container
(Figure 1b). This eliminates ratholing and Attaining mass flow does not mean the velocity
flooding and provides reliable, complete profile in the bin will be uniform. In fact, there
discharge. Segregation is generally minimized are always velocity gradients in a mass flow
(described later in this article) and the bulk hopper section. The magnitude of these
density at the outlet is consistent. gradients is related to the bin geometry and wall

3
friction. More specifically, the closer the hopper
angle is to the mass flow limit, the slower the • A sufficiently large mean particle size. The
material moves along the walls relative to the tendency to segregate by sifting decreases
material in the center. Therefore, in addition to substantially in particle sizes <500 mm (#35
providing a margin of safety to ensure mass U.S. mesh). However, some sifting can
flow, a steeper hopper also has a lower velocity occur in mean particle sizes of <200 mm
gradient through the material. (#70 U.S. mesh) for particle-size ratios as
low as 2:1.
In the cylinder section of a mass flow bin, the
velocity profile is constant; that is, material • Free-flowing material. For sifting to occur, it
along the vertical wall moves at the same is essential that the particles be free to move
velocity as material in the center. However, as relative to one another. This allows the
the material level drops below roughly a half smaller particles to sift through the larger
diameter above the transition point, the hopper particles. With cohesive materials, the fine
below causes a velocity gradient that can be particles are bound to one another and do
seen as a deformation of the material’s top not fall through the voids created by the
surface. This behavior has important coarse particles.
consequences for segregation and bin design.
• Interparticle motion. If particles are
SEGREGATION MECHANISMS stationary or moving with a uniform
velocity, they are essentially locked
Five primary mechanisms are responsible for together, and their tendency to segregate
most particle-segregation problems (3). Of these becomes almost nonexistent, even for
five, only three typically occur with materials that are highly prone to
pharmaceutical powders: sifting, entrainment of segregation. Interparticle motion can be
air (fluidization), and entrainment of particles in caused by vibration of the container during
an airstream. filling of the bin or by a velocity gradient
through the flowing material.
Sifting
It is essential that all four of the above
Sifting is a process by which smaller particles conditions be present for sifting segregation to
move through a matrix of larger ones. It is by occur. If any one of the four is absent, the
far the most common method of segregation. mixture will not segregate by this mechanism.
Experiments and actual field observations have Sifting segregation is common in
identified four conditions that must be present pharmaceutical plants. It often occurs during
for sifting to occur: filling of a bin or hopper, especially while
discharging a blender. A concentration of fine
• A difference in particle size between the particles develops under the fill point while the
individual components. Sifting has been larger particles roll or slide to the periphery of
found to occur with particle-size ratios as the pile (Figure 2). If a funnel flow pattern
low as 1.3 to 1. In general, the larger the develops during emptying, the fines will be
ratio of particle sizes, the greater the discharged first as the center channel is drawn
tendency for particles to segregate by down, followed by the coarse particles that
sifting. initially moved to the periphery of the bin. In

4
 Fig. 2: Sifting segregation during filling. occur when filling a hopper. 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 the bin, scattering
them in a way that bears no resemblance to the
calculated trajectories.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

A segregation problem can be identified several

High ways. Often, as tablets are produced, samples
High concentration are evaluated for active ingredient
concentration of coarse
of fines
concentration, tablet hardness, dissolution rates,
etc. In an effort to obtain a random sample,
tablets are sometimes selected haphazardly after
addition, as the fines flow through the center the entire batch has been produced.
channel, the stationary coarse particles act as a
screen and allow the fines to fall down vertically Tablets must be sampled at regular intervals
through the void spaces. Eventually, these reach during production to trace the variation to the
the hopper wall, and the last material to exit the segregation pattern within the batch. Therefore,
bin may, in fact, be all fines. if tablets are selected randomly after a batch is
produced, tablet quality can be evaluated, but
Entrainment of air (fluidization). these data cannot be used to trace the source of
the variability.
Fine particles generally have a lower
permeability than coarse particles and, The use of a thief to take samples from portable
therefore, tend to retain air longer. Thus, when a bins and other locations presents additional
mixture of coarse and fine particles is concerns. The simple act of inserting the thief
discharged into a hopper, a vertical segregation into the bulk solid causes interparticle motion,
pattern often develops, caused by the coarse which separates the fines from the coarse
particles being driven into the bed as the bin is particles. Even if segregation within a bin is
filled while the fine particles remain fluidized evaluated with precision, the ultimate mix of
near the top surface. Segregation by this material is highly dependent upon the flow
mechanism can also occur when a source of air pattern. If sifting segregation occurs during fill
is introduced into the hopper. Segregation by air (which occurs with most pharmaceuticals), the
entrainment often develops in mixtures that bin will look segregated based on thief samples.
contain a significant percentage of particles During discharge, if the bin is funnel flow, the
<100 mm in size. fines will be drawn out first, followed by the
coarse. If the bin is mass flow, the material is
essentially reblended upon discharge. Therefore,
Entrainment of particles in an airstream.
the segregation that occurs during fill is
relatively unimportant. The material being
The finer the particle size, the longer it may
discharged is important, however, and must be
remain suspended in an airstream such as might

5
evaluated. This is best accomplished by taking Change the design of the equipment.
full stream samples during discharge. Inserting a
small container into the material stream is The flow pattern in a mass flow bin is first-in,
subject to side-to-side variations, thereby first-out, whereas in a funnel flow bin the
skewing the results. pattern is first-in, last-out. Thus, if particles
have segregated from side to side while the bin
SOLUTIONS TO SEGREGATION is filling (e.g., by the mechanisms of sifting or
PROBLEMS particle entrainment), a mass flow pattern will
tend to minimize segregation upon discharge by
Two main techniques can be used to decrease a recombining the center and side material,
material’s segregation tendencies: change the whereas a funnel flow pattern will increase
material or change the design of the equipment. segregation.

Change certain characteristics of the Although mass flow in general is far superior to
material. funnel flow in minimizing segregation, there are
advantages to certain mass flow designs. For
Most highly segregating materials are free- any mass flow design, all the material is in
flowing and, therefore, the particles separate motion when any material is withdrawn.
from one another easily. Thus, one obvious However, different velocity gradients exist in
method of decreasing a material’s segregation different mass flow designs.
tendencies is to increase its cohesiveness by, for
example, adding water or oil. However, it must The effects of the velocity gradient in the
be recognized that if the cohesiveness is hopper are apparent once material is withdrawn
increased too much, flow problems such as and the level drops below roughly one-half
arching or ratholing may develop, resulting in diameter above the transition point. Because
greater disruption to the process. material flows faster in the center, an angle of
repose may form where material slides from the
Another technique is changing the particle-size perimeter to the center of the bin. As the hopper
distribution. For example, if the sifting angle approaches the mass flow limit, this
mechanism is causing the segregation, changing occurs sooner (higher in the cylinder) and is
the particle size ratios of all components to more pronounced. This interparticle motion
within 1.3 to 1 or decreasing the mean particle results in sifting segregation, such that the
diameter to <100 mm will reduce or eliminate material at the end of a batch shows more
sifting segregation. If the particles are nearly variability than the material at the beginning.
uniform in size, differences in fluidization and There are two ways to avoid this problem: either
particle entrainment tendencies will be minimal maintain a constant level in the bin or minimize
as well. the velocity gradient in the hopper.

However, changing characteristics of materials If maintaining the material level in a bin is

is usually difficult, if not impossible, in the practical (often not the case for the
pharmaceutical industry. Unlike most other pharmaceutical industry, which operates
industries, lengthy approval steps must be taken principally on a batch basis), then maintaining a
to change the formulation of a product. level of one diameter in the cylinder section
usually results in a uniform velocity profile

6
across the top surface. This in turn eliminates which is the theoretical limit for mass flow; the
the sliding on the top surface. In addition, the angle of the second hopper is 15°, which is 10°
velocity gradient in the hopper is reduced if a steeper than that required for mass flow. As
level is maintained in the bin. If the hopper illustrated in Figure 3, the hopper with the
below is well away from the mass flow limit, steeper angle has a lower velocity gradient.
then this level could be reduced to as little as Using a numerical analysis of the flow within
one-half diameter. the bins, these gradients can be calculated. The
velocity in the center of the bin with the 25°
On the other hand, if the bin is operated such hopper is 2.67 times the average velocity,
that it is emptied completely after each fill, the whereas the velocity at the wall is 0.42 times the
velocity gradients in the hopper must be average (16% of the velocity at the center). On
minimized. This can be achieved by making the the other hand, the bin with the 15° hopper has
hopper angle steeper than the mass flow limit. velocities of 1.35 and 0.74 times the average
However, this means that the hopper must take velocity at the center and at the wall,
up more headroom for the same volume. respectively; thus, the velocity at the wall is
Headroom of a stationary bin comes at the 55% of the velocity at the center. This results in
expense of plant layout. Taller portable bins are less interparticle motion during discharge, so
difficult to handle because of ceiling and door less sifting segregation occurs.
heights and positioning onto existing equipment.
Mass flow will not correct segregation in bins
As an example of these velocity gradients, with vertical striations, which can occur by the
consider two mass flow bins, each with conical fluidization segregation mechanism during
hoppers, holding the same blend of equal filling. For instance, if the powder is being
volume and fabricated of the same material. The pneumatically conveyed into a hopper, it is
only difference between the two is the hopper generally preferable to use tangential entry into
angle. The angle of the first hopper is 25°, the side rather than going in at 90° to either the
sidewall or the top. Tangential entry will reduce
the tendency for vertical segregation to develop.
Fig. 3: Velocity gradients (to scale) in two mass flow Another successful technique is to extend a
containers of equal volume. pneumatic line into the center of a bin and then
direct it upward to a deflector plate. This will
decrease particle velocity and allow a symmetric
pattern when particles fall from the surface.
Once vertical striations have been eliminated,
mass flow can be used if the resulting
segregation pattern shows some side-to-side
variation.

As an alternative to a steeper hopper, three basic

types of inserts are available: inverted cone (or
pyramid), bullet, and Binsert“ (Jenike &
Johanson, Inc., Westford, MA).

15°
25°

7
 Fig. 4: Inverted Cone Fig. 5: Bullet insert Fig. 6: Cutaway of antisegregation Binsert® portable
container

Inverted cone Bullet

An inverted cone (or pyramid) (Figure 4) is A bullet-type insert (Figure 5) has an inverted
intended to expand the flow channel in a funnel cone on the top and is followed by a conical tail
flow bin, thereby increasing the “live” volume. section. The top of the bullet is generally placed
This insert will not convert a funnel flow bin to above the transition point in the hopper. The
mass flow, but at best will cause more material bullet, if properly designed, can be used to
to move during withdrawal. If the inverted cone convert a funnel flow bin to mass flow. In
is sized and placed correctly, a bin that had a addition, the velocity gradients are reduced in
tendency to rathole may flow reliably. comparison to a similar mass flow bin, thereby
reducing segregation. The primary disadvantage
There are several disadvantages to this type of of a bullet insert is the loss in bin volume.
insert. First, the design is very sensitive. Small
changes in the insert position, surface finish, or Binsert®
bulk material often lead to very different flow
channel shapes. Second, the inverted cone itself An alternative to a traditionally steep mass flow
may impede the flow if it is not properly bin design is the Binsert“, consisting of a
positioned. Third, and most important to the “hopper within a hopper” in which the velocity
pharmaceutical industry, the angle of repose that pattern is controlled by the bottom hopper
forms under the cone can cause segregation. (Figure 6) (4,5). It is possible to design such a
This is compounded by a higher velocity around system to provide a completely uniform velocity
the insert than at the side walls. Inverted cones profile, even when the material level drops into
are therefore not recommended as a means of the hopper section. This arrangement provides
assisting flow or reducing segregation. an absolute minimum level of segregation.
Alternatively, by changing the geometry at the
bottom of the hopper, a velocity profile can be

8
developed in which the center section moves particles directly under the fill point, and the
faster than the outside, providing in-line gravity larger particles rolled or slid to the periphery of
blending of the materials. the hopper. As the hopper was discharged, it
exhibited a funnel flow pattern because the
The Binsert“ provides mass flow using hopper converging hopper walls were not steep enough
angles half as steep as required for a hopper or smooth enough for material to slide along
without a Binsert“. This reduces the headroom them. As a result, the fines came out first,
required for a given container volume. followed later by the coarse particles. Because
the fines were high in active drug, severe quality
CASE HISTORIES OF TABLETING control problems occurred at the tableting press.
PRESS FLOW PROBLEMS
Wall friction tests on a smooth stainless steel
The following examples are taken from the surface (2B finish sheet) showed that the conical
pharmaceutical industry. The solution to each hopper walls could be no shallower than 15°
problem was to change the equipment, as from vertical for mass flow to occur. Not only
opposed to changing the material. would this require more headroom than was
available, but segregation would not be
Example 1: Segregation caused by sifting. eliminated if a straight, conical mass flow
This first example involved a direct- hopper were used. As the level dropped down in
compression formulation in which the particle- the hopper section, material at the center would
size distribution was as shown in Table 1. flow faster than it did at the walls.

Obviously this material met the first two criteria The most practical solution to this problem was
for sifting segregation (a difference in particle to design the hoppers with a Binsert“. This
size and a sufficiently large mean particle required no additional height or loss of volume.
diameter). It was also a free-flowing material In addition, a completely uniform velocity
because its moisture content was low, so all that profile (minimizing interparticle motion) was
was needed for sifting segregation to develop provided, even as the level dropped well into the
was interparticle motion. This occurred as the hopper section.
material dropped from a twin-shell blender into
a portable hopper. During the filling process, the This set of portable hoppers has been in
pile that formed had a concentration of finer operation now for many years and has produced
excellent-quality tablets.
Table 1: Particle-size distribution Example 2: Segregation caused by
U.S. Standard Cumulative Weight fluidization. An example of segregation caused
Mesh % Passing by air entrainment occurred in a surge bin for a
16 92 pharmaceutical tableting press that was being
20 81 filled by a dense-phase pneumatic conveying
30 73 system through a vertical downspout at the top
40 66
60 58 center of the bin (Figure 7). The mixture
80 55 consisted of a fine powder (the active
120 50 ingredient) and inert filler materials with larger
170 41 particles. As a result of fluidization during
230 28

9
 Fig. 7: Example 2 - segregation caused by fluidization. Fig. 8: Example 3 – portable bin and Y-branch above
tableting press; original configuration (left) and revised
configuration (right)

Plan view

Butterfly
Layer of fines valve
35°

Lined to 7'-0
Elevation
provide
mass flow

Original Configuration Revised Configuration Tableting machine Tableting machine

filling of the bin, the fine active ingredient Example 3: Segregation caused by particle
became concentrated in a layer at the top, entrainment in an airstream and fluidization.
causing severe quality control problems when it An example of a particle-entrainment problem
exited the bin over a short period of time. The occurred in a facility handling a material that
severity of this problem was lessened somewhat was dry blended (in 1000-kg batches) before
by the funnel flow pattern that developed upon being placed in a portable hopper. To maintain
discharge as a result of natural mixing of the complete batch integrity, the entire system,
fines from the top surface with the rest of the including the Y-branch down to the tableting
material. press (Figure 8), was cleaned after each portable
hopper was emptied. The segregation pattern
This problem was corrected by orienting the that developed was one in which the fines came
pneumatic conveying line to enter the bin out near the end of each batch. This was
tangentially. In addition, because the tangential surprising because samples of the batch exiting
entry created some side-to-side segregation, a the blender and in the portable hopper before
liner was installed on the hopper walls to pressing were found to be quite uniform.
provide a mass flow pattern. However, upon closer inspection, we found that
fines appeared on the top surface just after the
It is important to recognize that simply butterfly valve was opened at the bottom of the
installing the liner to produce a mass flow portable hopper. This was caused by material
pattern without correcting the entry-line rapidly dropping into the Y-branch, which
orientation would not have solved this displaced the air. Because this was essentially a
segregation problem. Indeed, whenever sealed system, the air had no place to go but up
segregation consists of a vertical layering of through the portable hopper. The fluidizing
particles, mass flow will always make the effect of this airstream carried some of the fines
segregation more pronounced. to the top surface, leaving a vertical pattern of
segregation.

10
This problem was corrected by installing a vent The portable bin, the Y-branch, and the surge
line from the Y-branch to the top of the hopper hoppers were funnel flow because the sloping
to allow most of the air to bypass the hopper and wall surfaces were too rough and shallow to
avoid passing through the material. The inlet to allow the material to flow along them.
the chute consisted of a cone that connected to Additionally, the constant-pitch feed screw drew
the portable bin. The outlet of the cone was material preferentially from the back of the
sized smaller than the outlet of the bin to reduce hopper, which forced a funnel flow pattern in
the rate of discharge, and hence the rate of air the bin independent of the hopper. As expected,
displacement. The cone also provided an the coarsest raw ingredient was observed around
annulus to connect the vent line. The annulus the periphery of the surge bins as a result of
was sized large enough to keep the air velocity sifting segregation.
in the line low, preventing particle entrainment
in the vent airstream. Essentially, each piece of equipment contributed
to the segregation problem and required
The existing portable bins, which were funnel modification. Appropriate hopper and chute
flow, contributed to the segregation problem. A angles were determined by tests on the material.
conical Binsert® was used to convert these bins
to mass flow; wall friction tests indicated that a The surge bins were replaced with a hopper
smooth liner alone would not have been section integrated with the Y-branch (Figure 9).
sufficient. An inlet distributor was added to
spread the incoming stream, further reducing
Fig. 9: Revised configuration
sifting segregation during filling.

Example 4: Segregation caused by sifting. vent to top

Three major raw ingredients, each with a of tote
different mean particle size, were placed
individually into a pyramid-shaped portable bin.
The bin was tumbled at ≤400 revolutions to mix
the material, and the batches were stored until mitered joint
use. The Y-branch fed two separate surge D minimum D
hoppers, each 12-in. diameter with a 40° offset
transition hopper that converged to a 3 in. x 1 in.
slotted outlet. A 1-in. diameter constant-pitch
screw then fed the tableting press. The hoppers
had numerous dents, probably caused by an
mitered joint
operator’s efforts to reinitiate flow.

The main problem was that the weight of the

tablets varied at the end of each batch and they
were deficient in the amount of the finest
ingredient. Therefore, the last 100 kg of material
in each batch had to be discarded, resulting in an front view side view
annual loss of tens of thousands of dollars.

11
This chisel hopper is discharged by a mass flow Fig. 10: Typical mass flow screw feeder
(increasing capacity) screw (Figure 10). With
any mass flow design, it is essential that the
feeder be designed to draw material from the
entire outlet, otherwise funnel flow will result.

The Y-branch was made steeper to allow flow

along the surface, and the joints were mitered to
eliminate stagnant zones of material.
Additionally, a vent line at the Y-branch inlet,
similar to that in Example 3, was added to avoid
particle entrainment in the airstream.

These modifications were implemented and by

themselves provided an order of magnitude
improvement in quality. Additional
recommended modifications are currently being Understanding the primary mechanisms of
considered, including: segregation (sifting, fluidization, and particle
• Using mass flow portable bins; entrainment) can lead to proper designs that
• Using a baffle in the portable bins to avoid segregation. Segregation with existing
introduce significant shear deformation equipment can be corrected by changing either
during tumbling, which would reduce the the material characteristics or the equipment.
mix time; and
• Milling each of the materials to a similar Properly addressing material handling problems
particle size, which would reduce the ensures improvement in the tablet quality and
amount of sifting segregation. often results in savings in labor and handling
cost. High quality and efficiency usually
CONCLUSIONS translate into a competitive advantage.
To manufacture quality tablets, it is essential to REFERENCES
deliver well-blended material consistently. To
do this, the portable bins that feed the presses 1. R.F. Shangraw and D.A. Demarest, “A
must be designed to provide reliable, Survey of Current Industrial Practices in the
nonsegregated material. Whether avoiding Formulation and Manufacture of Tablets and
problems in a new facility or correcting Capsules,” Pharm. Technol. 17 (1), 32-44
problems in an existing system, the first step is (1993).
to understand the material behavior. With the
results of bulk material flow tests, one can 2. J. Marinelli and J.W. Carson, “Solve Solids
determine if a bin will provide mass flow or Flow Problems in Bins, Hoppers and
funnel flow. Because mass flow is preferred, Feeders,” Chemical Engineering Progress
funnel flow bins can often be converted to mass 88 (5), 22-28 (1992).
flow by providing a smoother wall surface (e.g.;
polishing or lining the hopper walls) or by 3. J.W. Carson, “Overcoming Particle
installing a bullet insert or BINSERT®. Segregation in the Pharmaceutical and

12
 Cosmetic Industries,” presented at Interphex
USA ’88, New York, July 1998.

4. D.S. Dick and R. J. Hossfeld, “Versatile

BINSERT® System Solves Wide Range of
Flow Problems,” presented at the Powder
and Bulk Solids 12th Annual Conference,
Rosemont, IL, May 1987.

5. J.W. Carson and D.S. Dick, “How Bin

Retrofits Can Correct Flow Problems,”
presented at AIChE Spring National
Meeting, Houston, TX, 4 April 1989.

6. J.W. Carson, T. A. Royal, and D. J.

Goodwill, “Understanding and Eliminating
Particle Segregation Problems,” Bulk Solids
Handling 6 (1, 139-144 (1986).

7. J.W. Carson, “Towards a Better

Understanding of the Storage and Flow of
Bulk Materials,” presented at Bulk 2000:
Bulk Material Handling towards the Year
2000, London, October 1991.

8. R. Perry and D. Green, Perry’s Chemical

Engineers’ Handbook (McGraw-Hill, New
York, 6th ed., 1984), pp.8-63 to 8-64.

13