This article was downloaded by: [Ryerson University]

On: 30 November 2014, At: 15:28

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Particulate Science and Technology: An

International Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upst20

Methods for Minimizing Segregation: A

Review
a a
P. TANG & V. M. PURI
a
The Particulate Materials Center Department of Agricultural and
Biological Engineering , University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Published online: 17 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: P. TANG & V. M. PURI (2004) Methods for Minimizing Segregation: A
Review, Particulate Science and Technology: An International Journal, 22:4, 321-337, DOI:
10.1080/02726350490501420

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02726350490501420

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Particulate Science and Technology, 22: 321–337, 2004
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Inc.
ISSN: 0272-6351 print/1548-0046 online
DOI: 10.1080/02726350490501420

Methods for Minimizing Segregation: A Review

P. TANG
V. M. PURI
The Particulate Materials Center
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

Segregation, as a common problem in particulate material industries, has been studied

by many researchers from different science and engineering disciplines within academia
and numerous industries. Various patterns and factors influencing segregation, as well
as corresponding methods to minimize segregation, are discussed in this article.
Universal methods used to minimize segregation mainly include improvement of
material properties (i.e., narrowing size distribution spread, reducing absolute size, and
avoiding irregularly shaped particles), proper selection of handling equipment and
operational parameters (i.e., lowering free-fall height and employing mass flow bins),
and proper control of material handling environmental conditions (i.e., minimizing
vibration and maintaining humidity). For various material handling processes such as
filling=deposition, discharging, conveying, and mixing, appropriate methods exist. For
instance, various inserts have been used to minimize segregation during filling or dis-
charging processes. Based on detailed review in this article, four fundamental segre-
gation mechanisms—trajectory, sieving, fluidization, and agglomeration—have been
identified. In addition, the current limitations identified precluding advancement
of research on segregation include: (1) application-oriented research that limits
researchers from capturing the larger picture of segregation; (2) use of ideal experi-
mental materials that prevent the application of test results to industrial processes; and
(3) all segregation measurements conducted so far being restricted to time-independent
conditions described by a coefficient that is clearly not applicable to the entire time-
varying process. To overcome these limitations, the second-generation primary
segregation shear cell (PSSC-II) with novel and flexible design features models the
sieving and percolation segregation mechanisms. This new approach could serve as an
example to develop similar testers and much needed multi-scale constitutive models for
the other three fundamental segregation mechanisms.

Keywords: segregation pattern, segregation mechanism, segregation minimization

Introduction
Segregation is simply defined as demixing or reverse mixing (Popplewell et al., 1989),
or as one component (or ingredient) of a particulate mixture that is separated from

The authors would like to thank the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the Pennsylvania
Agricultural Experiment Station for providing funding for this project.
Address correspondence to P. Tang, Particulate Materials Center, Department of Agricultural and
Biological Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. E-mail:
[email protected]

321
preclude from: loại trừ khỏi
 322 P. Tang and V. M. Puri

the other component(s) (or ingredients). Segregation is known to cause numerous

problems during handling, processing, manufacturing, or unit operations of parti-
culate materials. For instance, segregation has been shown to cause large variations
in food product packages due to varying bulk density values (Prescott & Carson,
2000). In the pharmaceutical industry, a single batch of powder with the value of
hundred of thousands of dollars could be discarded only because the variation of the
amount of active ingredient(s) for five tablets does not meet the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) standard.
phổ cập
Due to its importance and ubiquitous presence anywhere particulate materials
are involved (Shinohara, 1997), segregation has been studied over many years by
researchers from various disciplines, e.g., engineering disciplines including agri-
cultural, chemical, material, mechanical, mineral, and food, and science disciplines
including physics, pharmacy, and materials. Even though segregation has been
investigated through different methodologies such as experimentation, simulation,
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

and modeling (continuum-based and discrete-based) (Ottino & Khakhar, 2001),

there are still many unanswered questions, such as the existence of ‘‘universal’’
mechanisms of segregation, their measurement and quantification, and the feasibility
of developing a unified model (Rosato & Blackmore, 2000).
However, these theoretical issues have not prevented engineers from developing
techniques to prevent and minimize segregation. (such as sieving and fluidization segre-
gation). No comprehensive review article that summarizes the state-of-the-art of this
topic could be found in the literature. Therefore, the objective of this article was to review
methods that have been used to prevent, reduce, or eliminate segregation of various types.
The article is organized in the following manner. First, classification or patterns
of segregation are introduced. Second, factors that influence segregation are dis-
cussed. Third, various techniques employed for primary patterns of segregation are
summarized. Finally, in light of current advancements, some of the key promising
approaches are discussed, followed by a few concluding remarks.

Segregation Mechanisms or Patterns

Segregation has been classified differently depending on variables of choice. For
example, based on physical properties of particles, segregation may be classified as
size, density, or shape segregation (Venables & Wells, 2001). Depending on energy
input, segregation may be classified as vibration, gravity, or shear segregation
(Rosato et al., 2002). Also, based on particle movement direction, segregation may
be classified as vertical, i.e., top-to-bottom, or horizontal, i.e., side-to-side, segre-
gation (Prescott & Hossfeld, 1994). Segregation may be classified as hopper, drum,
or chute segregation with respect to the devices applied to particulate material
processing (Khakhar et al., 2001; Vallance & Savage, 2000; Shinohara et al., 2002).
The most commonly used classification approach appears to be segregation
mechanism. Depending on segregation mechanisms, 13 patterns of segregation have
been identified: trajectory, rolling, displacement, percolation, sieving, air current,
fluidization, agglomeration, concentration-driven displacement, push-away, impact=
bouncing, embedding, and angle of repose (McGlinchey, 1998; Mosby et al., 1996; de
Silva et al., 2000).
A closer observation of some of the segregation patterns, such as push-away,
displacement=float migration, and embedding, suggests that these do not occur
commonly in general powder handling, processing, or unit operations, and some
 Methods for Minimizing Segregation 323

patterns may be considered a special case of other patterns. For instance, percolation
and displacement segregation could be considered a special case of sieving segre-
gation since the commonality of these patterns is that the small particles move down
relative to large particles. These three patterns also belong to ‘‘top-to-bottom seg-
regation,’’ i.e., large particles relatively move up while the small particles move
down. Rolling segregation could be considered a special case of trajectory segrega-
tion since large particles in these two cases move further away from the small, i.e.,
small particles in the center are surrounded by large particles. These two patterns
also belong to ‘‘side-to-side segregation.’’ Fluidization and air current segregation
could be considered as one, since both of them are caused by the presence of fine
particles. These two segregation patterns belong to ‘‘top-to-bottom segregation,’’
i.e., fine particles are at the top level while the coarse particles are at the bottom level,
and in many cases, they occur concurrently. The difference between two ‘‘top-
to-bottom segregation’’ patterns, fluidization and sieving segregation, is that, for the
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

former, fine particles end up at the top and the coarse particles at the bottom,
whereas, for the latter, the coarse particles are situated at the top and the fines at the
bottom.
Previous researchers (Carson et al., 1986; Johanson, 1996) had simplified the
13 segregation mechanisms into 5 primary mechanisms of segregation, which are
trajectory, sifting, fluidization, air current, and angle of repose. The current authors
suggest a new classification approach based on particle size, i.e., depending on the role
of particle size in the mechanism of segregation. The four proposed primary patterns
of segregation are: trajectory (large particles), sieving (small particles), fluidization
(fine), and agglomeration segregation (cohesive fine), as shown in Figure 1.
The advantage of this proposed new classification method is the ease of
understanding and application, i.e., to identify the segregation pattern and quickly
determine solutions. For instance, trajectory segregation patterns mostly appear in
those situations where the large particles are in flight or free fall or have relatively
high rolling or moving velocity, such as during heap flow or chute flow. Sieving
segregation patterns mostly appear in those situations where small particles move
through void spaces formed by large particles due to external energy input such as
vibration and shear motion, e.g., a belt conveyor or height of particle mixture below
the transition point between a bin and hopper. Fluidization segregation patterns
occur only when fine particles appear in the mixture and=or free-fall height exists,
such as in pneumatic conveying.
For each industry or specific unit operation, it is possible to have more than one
pattern of segregation. For example, in the pharmaceutical industry, the prevalent
segregation patterns include sieving, fluidization (Prescott & Hossfeld, 1994), and

Figure 1. Schematic of proposed four primary segregation patterns.

 324 P. Tang and V. M. Puri

agglomeration segregation. To prevent or minimize segregation, it is necessary to

understand the possible factors that may influence these segregation patterns, in
addition to knowing the mechanism of segregation.

Factors Influencing Segregation

There are numerous factors influencing segregation. Generally, these factors belong
to one of the following four areas: material properties, device and operation para-
meters, handling processes, and environmental conditions. In the following para-
graphs, each one of these areas is critically reviewed.

Material Properties
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

The material properties of particles contributing to segregation mainly include

particle size, size distribution or size ratio, concentration of fine (or coarse) particles,
shape, density, morphology, surface texture, cohesivity, elasticity, brittleness,
adhesion, chemical affinities, and ability to absorb moisture. Some material type-
related properties such as magnetic properties for powdered metal materials and
electrostatic charge for dielectric materials also impact segregation. However, phy-
sical properties such as size ratio (or size distribution), absolute size (or mean size),
concentration of fines (or coarse), particle shape, and density have gained greater
attention than others due to their more significant impact on segregation. Therefore,
the effect of these factors on segregation are summarized below. It should be pointed
out that the above material properties are actually also associated with materials’
flowability (Roberts et al., 1993).

Absolute Particle Size. A minimum absolute=mean particle size ranging from 70 to

200 mm exists for sieving segregation to occur (Prescott & Carson, 2000; Thomson,
1997). Segregation decreases with absolute particle size below 500 mm (Williams &
Khan, 1973). Harnby (2000) explained that, as particle size decreases, instead of
gravity, various interparticle forces such as mechanical, van de Waals, electrostatic,
air drag, and capillary forces due to surface tension can potentially dominate.
While there is quantitative evidence, there is no literature discussing the quan-
titative relationship between absolute size and segregation. For a given size ratio, the
authors have carefully studied and determined that segregation intensity and dis-
tribution are likely to be significantly different for differing absolute particle sizes.

Particle Size Ratio. Generally, segregation increases when size ratio is increased for
free flowing materials (Bridgwater, 1994; Sommier et al., 2001; Duffy & Puri, 2002).
A minimum size ratio of 2:1 to 3:1 is necessary for sieving segregation to occur
(Johanson, 1996).
Duffy and Puri (2002) examined effect of a series of size ratios (5:1, 9:1, and
11:1) of a binary mixture of glass beads on percolation segregation using a first-
generation primary segregation shear cell (PSSC-I). The PSSC-I was designed to
measure the mass discharge rate and spatial distribution of mass discharge data of
fines traveling through a bed of coarse particles. Two mechanisms were observed in
percolation segregation. The larger size ratios exhibited an initial free-fall, i.e.,
convective, then a diffusive behavior, whereas, the smaller size ratio did not exhibit
the initial discharge but primarily diffusive behavior.
 Methods for Minimizing Segregation 325

Particle Size Distribution and Continuous Mixture. There seems to be no literature

available to quantitatively study the effect of particle size distribution on segregation
(Drahun & Bridgwater, 1983). Based on an analogy of size ratio, a common viewpoint
accepted by most researchers is that segregation is more likely to occur for wide size
distributions than for narrow size distributions (Bates, 1998; Thomson, 1997;
Johanson, 1996).
Shinohara et al. (2001) studied the effect of the number of components, i.e., one
size interval is considered as one component, on segregation pattern in a two-
dimensional silo by using glass beads. They reported that segregation initially
increased with increase of components from two to three, i.e., size range becomes
wider, and then decreased with the number of components from three to four.

Fine Particle Concentration. Segregation varies with different concentration of fine

particles even when the particle size ratio is the same. Sieving segregation becomes
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

more significant when fine particle concentration is lower, for instance, 15–30%,
whereas, fluidization segregation becomes significant when fine particle concentra-
tion is higher, for instance, over 60–80% (Williams, 1963; Lawrence & Beddow,
1969; Drahun & Bridgwater, 1983; Shinohara & Golman, 2002; Swaminathan &
Kildsig, 2002). Segregation starts to decrease and approaches zero at the level of
60% of fines concentration (Lawrence & Beddow, 1969).

Particle Shape. Those mixtures with different particle shapes (for instance, coarse
particles are spherical but fine particles are irregular) are easier to segregate than
those with similarly shaped particles (for instance, both fine and coarse particles are
spherical) (Swaminathan & Kildsig, 2002; Johanson, 1996; Shinohara, 1979). Spe-
cifically, segregation is significantly higher for a binary mixture of irregular (such as
acicular and angular) shaped coarse particles with spherical-shape fine particles than
when using both coarse and fine particles that are spherical in shape (Tang et al.,
2003). The possible reasons include: (1) irregularly shaped particles can readily lodge
in the interstitial void spaces, and (2) void spaces formed from irregularly shaped
coarse particles are larger than those for spherical-shape particles (Yi et al., 2001).
Compared with irregularly shaped particle mixtures (i.e., both fine and coarse
particles are irregular), spherical-shape mixtures (i.e., both fine and coarse particles
are spherical) are harder to mix and more readily segregated due to higher flowability
(Massol-Chaudeur et al., 2002; Campbell & Bauer, 1966). Generally, there is
agreement that the effect of particle shape on segregation is smaller in comparison
with the size ratio effect (Lawrence & Beddow, 1969; Drahun & Bridgwater, 1983;
Swaminathan & Kildsig, 2002). However, the authors believe that the cumulative
effect of size ratio and particle shape could become significant based on the data
from a primary segregation test device (Tang et al., 2003).

Particle Density. Dense particles usually are concentrated near the center point and
are surrounded by less dense particles while they are discharged and free-fall for a
certain height (Holmes, 1934; Syskov & Lyan, 1960). Unlike size segregation, for
density segregation, particles are unable to pack into static layers under flowing
layers of particles while forming a heap (Shinohara & Miyata, 1984). For monosized
particles in a vibration bed, such as a tablet machine hopper, the heavier particles
sink to the bottom of the mix, while the lighter ones rise to the top (Venables &
Wells, 2001).
 326 P. Tang and V. M. Puri

Segregation rate is higher for those fine particles that have higher particle density
(Tang et al., 2003), and it generally reaches a maximum value with increase in
number of components (Shinohara et al., 2002). Although researchers such as
Lawrence and Beddow (1969), Harris and Hildon (1970), and Vallance and Savage
(2000) argued that the effect of particle density on segregation is far weaker than that
contributed by particle size, researchers such as Drahun and Bridgwater (1983) and
Tang et al. (2003) still recommended that, to a certain extent, i.e., larger free-fall
height, the effects of particle density should not be neglected or overlooked.

Flowability of Particles. Segregation is closely related to the flowability of the

components of a mixture (Johanson, 1996). Segregation occurs most frequently in
free flowing granular materials having a wide particle size distribution (Thomson,
1997). Powders containing cohesive and noncohesive components can segregate in
such a pattern that the cohesive components tend to move together in relatively thick
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

unsegregated layers or patches when sliding in a chute or on a pile. For cohesive

powders, the scale of segregation is small, but the intensity of segregation can be high
(Harnby, 2000). This is caused by small agglomerates of individual mixture ingre-
dients retaining their structure throughout the mixing process. In summary, how-
ever, no literature providing a quantitative relationship between the flowability and
segregation could be found.

Device or Operational Parameters

The device or operational parameters that are mainly related to segregation are:
shear strain, shear rate (or energy input), fall height, feed rate (filling=discharging),
heap size, hopper size, hopper angle, and device surface finish. Because parameters
such as shear stress and shear strain are more closely associated with special seg-
regation test devices (Bridgwater, 1994; Duffy & Puri, 2002), these devices are not
addressed in this article. The remaining parameters are discussed below.

Free-fall Height. For particles of sizes greater than 250 mm having different densities,
segregation decreases with increase in free-fall height (Syskov & Lyan, 1960;
Lawrence & Beddow, 1969; Drahun & Bridgwater, 1983). In the case of size dif-
ference, side-to-side segregation may occur, i.e., the momentum of coarser particles
increases as the free fall-height increases, and they tend to break the surface on the
top of the heap, whereas the fine particles bounce off the free surface and settle down
nearer the edge of the heap. According to Mosby (1996), fine particles less than
250 mm are generally independent of the height of fall.

Feed Rate. Generally, segregation decreases with increase in feed rate (Holmes, 1934;
Shinohara & Miyata, 1984; Shinohara, 1997). Lawrence and Beddow (1969) reported
that segregation is reduced for reduced time to fill a die. Drahun and Bridgwater (1983)
argued that there is no effect of feed rate on segregation while feed rate is low.

Size of Heap. Qualitatively, segregation is considered to increase with increase

in heap size (Holmes, 1934; Peacock, 1938). However, it is hard to quantitatively
estimate the effect of heap size on segregation (Mosby, 1996).

Mass and Funnel Flow Hopper. The concept of mass flow and funnel flow was first
developed by Jenike in 1954 (Jenike, 1954). Mass flow has a first-in, first-out flow
 Methods for Minimizing Segregation 327
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

Figure 2. Comparison of mass flow and funnel flow (Mosby, 1996); (a) mass flow pattern,
(b) funnel flow pattern.

pattern, whereas funnel flow has a first-in, last-out flow pattern (Figure 2). Materials
with a side-to-side segregation pattern will remix during discharging if they are in a
mass flow bin, whereas segregation becomes intense if the bin is designed to dis-
charge in funnel flow mode (Markley & Puri, 1998; Mosby, 1996; Prescott &
Hossfeld, 1994; Sleppy & Puri, 1996).
The velocity profile is generally uniform in the cylinder section of a mass flow
bin. However, the velocity in the center could be faster than that along the walls if
the height of the material is below approximately a half-diameter above the transi-
tion point. Prescott and Hossfeld (1994) noted that velocity in the center could be up
to five times that at the wall, which leads to significant velocity gradient. Conse-
quently, an interparticle motion exists such that sieving segregation can occur. This
is why the material at the end of a batch shows more variability than the material at
the beginning (Sleppy & Puri, 1996).

Handling Processes
Segregation occurs differently in different unit operations such as storage (fill-
ing=discharging), conveying (pneumatic=mechanical conveyor), mixing, deposition,
and packing. Due to the amount of literature, a detailed discussion for this category
is provided in the Unique Methods to Minimize Segregation section below.

Environmental Conditions
Environmental conditions such as vibration, relative humidity, residence time, and
temperature also influence segregation. In particular, vibration and relatively
humidity are widely studied and therefore are briefly discussed here.
Vibrations may be applied intentionally to consolidate a powder into a die or
mold, or to aid the movement of a powder from a hopper or chute; on the other
hand, vibrations may occur inadvertently as a result of machinery rumble (Harwood,
1977). Vibration causes large particles to move upwards through a mass of finer
 328 P. Tang and V. M. Puri

particles (Williams & Shields, 1967). At a constant frequency, segregation increased

with an increase in acceleration (Ahmad & Smalley, 1973); however, with increasing
frequencies, the segregation was reduced. For powders with incipient cohesion,
segregation occurs only at critical vibration energy (Harwood, 1977).
Syskov and Lyan (1960) investigated the effect of the addition of water and oil
to a mixture of ore and coal. An increase in the moisture content from 2.2 to 6.9%
had little effect on segregation when the ore particle size was 2 to 3 mm. However,
addition of oil in the presence of fine ore reduces segregation. Williams and Khan
(1973) reported that segregation in free flowing sand could be reduced by adding a
small amount of water. By adding 2% of water, the segregation coefficient can be
reduced from 70% to less than 10%. In a tumbling mixer, the addition of 1% water
reduced the sample deviations from about 30% to less than 5%. Therefore, water
works as a binder that helps in preserving the matrix of the particulate mixture.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

Universal Methods to Minimize Segregation

Universal methods mainly include the improvement of material properties, proper
selection of device parameters, and proper control of material handling environ-
mental conditions. Each of these methods is discussed in detail in the ensuing
paragraphs.
The improvement of material properties can nearly prevent and generally
minimize all segregation patterns. Narrowing of the size distribution is perhaps the
most effective way to minimize size segregation, although it is often complicated and
expensive in practice (Mosby, 1996). However, one weakness to narrowing the size
distribution is that it may result in poor quality of compressed part or tablet due to
the lack of good packing structure. There are two ways to narrow the size dis-
tribution, either size reduction or size enlargement, i.e., granulation or agglomera-
tion (Pietsch, 2002; Venables & Wells, 2001). Segregation can be minimized by
ensuring that the particle size ratio is below 1.3:1 (Carson et al., 1986). Segregation
can also be minimized when absolute size of particles is decreased below 100 mm
(Williams & Khan, 1973). However, it should be noted that however in this case,
flowability issues may become significant (Harnby, 2000). Irregularly shaped parti-
cles should be avoided to minimize shape segregation. Eliminating acicular particles
can be achieved in different ways, such as recrystallization, milling, or granulation
using a fluid bed granulator or a spray dryer (Venables & Wells, 2001). It is possible
to find an appropriate balance between the size ratio and density ratio to minimize
density effect (Harris & Hildon, 1970; Drahun & Bridgwater, 1983).
There are different ways to change the flowability of materials so as to minimize
segregation. Increasing moisture content or adding a small amount of liquid (e.g.,
oil) can effectively decrease the flowability of particulate materials and thus reduce
segregation (Mosby, 1996; Johanson, 1996). If the cohesiveness is increased too
much, other flow problems such as arching or rat-holing in hoppers may replace
those of segregation (Carson et al., 1986). In addition, introducing a fine cohesive
component or promoting electrostatic charges on the fine components could change
the flowability of the particulate material (Johanson, 1996). Cohesive powders
exhibit little segregation once the powder is packed to its final bulk density
(Harwood, 1977).
Low free-fall height, small heap size, and a mass flow hopper should be con-
sidered during the selection and operation of the device and handling process. For a
 Methods for Minimizing Segregation 329

mass flow bin, a minimum height (approximately equal to half the diameter of the
bin) of material should be kept to achieve a constant and uniform flow. If possible,
various vibration sources should be avoided or isolated (Shinohara, 1997). Other
available techniques for different processes or equipment are discussed in the next
section.

Unique Methods to Minimize Segregation

Various segregation patterns may exist in different particulate material handling
processes (including filling=deposition, discharging, conveying, and mixing). Corre-
sponding to each handling process, common or unique methods may be available to
minimize segregation.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

Filling or Deposition
Three primary segregation patterns, i.e., trajectory, sieving, and fluidization, may
appear during the filling process (Mosby, 1996). Trajectory and sieving segregation
mainly occur due to the formation of a heap, whereas fluidization segregation
appears due to fine particles and=or the free-fall height. Therefore, the best way to
reduce segregation is to prevent a heap from forming or reduce the heap size and
free-fall height during the filling of large containers such as a rail car or silo (Clague
& Wright; 1973; Mosby, 1996; Shinohara, 1997). Currently, techniques used to
prevent heap formation or reduce heap size and free-fall height include the use of
various types of distributors and inserts.
Filling distributors can be classified as non-power based and power-based dis-
tributors. The non-power-based distributors include the conical distributor, star-like
cone, branch pipe, and conical sieve distributor (Garve, 1925, 1936), as shown in
Figure 3. With such distributors, the material will form either a ring or several small
heaps or flat layers instead of a large heap at the center of the bin. The power-based
distributors include the rotating tube and movable belt feeder (Garve, 1925). With
such equipment, loading materials in layers can be realized, i.e., without forming
a heap. The drawbacks of these devices include complexity of design, expensive
fabrication, and costly operation.
Inserts are classified as inclined chute, egg-box, and cylinder-in-cylinder inserts,
shown in Figure 3. An inclined chute is placed inside the silo such that, though a
heap is still formed, the center of the heap shifts as the silo fills up (Garve, 1925,
1936). To a certain extent, this technique also avoids a high free-fall, i.e., fluidization
segregation may be prevented. The egg-box insert divides the silo into small sections,
and heap size is thus reduced during filling (Peacock, 1938). Similar to the principle
of the egg-box insert, a cylinder-in-cylinder insert is employed to reduce the heap
size. In some cases, it may not be necessary to reduce the side-to-side segregation
pattern in a mass flow bin since the material will be reblended while discharging
(Prescott & Hossfeld, 1994).
Air or particle entrainment is the main factor that causes fines to fly away from
coarser particles. There are two possible ways to minimize fluidization segregation
during filling. One way is, as mentioned previously, to granulate the fines using
various granulation techniques such as fluid bed granulation, high-shear mixing, and
spray drying. The other way is to control the air current so that entrainment velocity
required for separating out the fines is not reached. If free-fall height is always kept
 330 P. Tang and V. M. Puri
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

Figure 3. Techniques or tools for minimizing segregation during filling; (a) conical distributor,
(b) conical sieve distributor, (c) branch pipe distributor, (d) rotating tube distributor, (e)
movable belt distributor, (f) filling chute, (g) egg-box insert, and (h) cylinder-in-cylinder insert.

to near zero, the air currents would not occur, i.e., fluidization segregation would be
minimized. Devices based on this concept are available commercially (such as
PharmaSok1, Jenike and Johanson Inc.).

Discharging
If one assumes that filling is a procedure where well-mixed particulate materials from
a smaller pipe are transferred into a larger container, discharging is then the reverse
 Methods for Minimizing Segregation 331

procedure, i.e., a well-mixed particulate material is transferred from larger container

into a smaller pipe. To keep the material well mixed during discharging, an effective
approach is the use of a mass flow hopper for a bin or silo (Bates, 1998; Mosby,
1996). A drawback is that a steep hopper angle makes the silo tall. Also, as discussed
before, a minimum height of particulate materials in a bin should be kept in order to
get a constant flow rate and uniform velocity profile in the hopper (Prescott &
Hossfeld, 1994). Alternative solutions are to use multiple outlets or a funnel flow
hopper combined with an insert.
Multiple discharge pipes are used to withdraw materials from different areas of
the bin and remix them at the outlet point (Thomson, 1997; Shinohara, 1997). For
effectively minimizing segregation, the multiple outlets should be located symme-
trically with respect to the fill point to avoid concentrations of fines in one hopper
section, which could cause plugging or downstream quality control problems
(Johanson, 1978; Carson et al., 1986).
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

Three types of inserts, i.e., conical insert, bullet-type insert, and cone-in-cone
insert, shown in Figure 4, used to minimize segregation during discharging are
introduced below.
The conical insert placed in a funnel flow bin can reduce segregation and enlarge
the flow channel, but cannot convert the funnel flow to mass flow (Garve, 1925; van
Denburg & Bauer, 1964). The weaknesses of using this type of insert include high
precision requirements relative to fabrication and installation such as insert position,
surface finish, and bulk material, which often lead to very different flow channel
shapes.
A bullet-type insert, which consists of two cones (face-to-face), can be used to
convert a funnel flow bin to mass flow (Prescott & Hossfeld, 1994). The primary
disadvantage of a bullet insert is the loss in bin volume.
A cone-in-cone insert can convert funnel flow bin, with hopper angle as large as
two times that required for mass flow, into mass flow (Prescott & Hossfeld, 1994)
without having the drawback of the bullet-type insert. The design criteria for the
cone-in-cone inserts are given by Eiksa et al. (1995).

Figure 4. Techniques or tools for minimizing segregation during discharging; (a) conical
insert, (b) cone-in-cone insert, and (c) bullet insert.
 332 P. Tang and V. M. Puri

Conveying
Pneumatic Conveying. Differences in acceleration and velocity could lead to size
fractions traveling at different rates along the conveying line (McGlinchey, 1998).
Conveying in dense phase with low velocity would substantially reduce this effect.
When conveying fine powders into a bin, it is preferable to use a tangential entry into
the side of a bin rather than one at 90 either to the side wall or the top. While this
may result in some side-to-side segregation of particles, it will minimize any top-
to-bottom striations, which are difficult to overcome. Another technique is to extend
the pneumatic line into the center of the bin and then direct it upward to a deflector
plate that will decrease particle velocity and allow a symmetric pattern when
particles fall from this surface (Carson et al., 1986; Prescott & Hossfeld, 1994).

Mechanical Conveying. 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
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

sieving on the belt while going over idlers. If this happens, the stream coming off the
conveyor belt should not be split for obvious reasons (Carson et al., 1986;
McGlinchey, 1998). Screw conveyors, scrapers, and en-masse conveyors generally
work at low speeds and if operating correctly, inline segregation is not generally
significant (McGlinchey, 1998).

Mixing
A good quality of mix can be obtained using a submerged-impeller type of mixer
rather than a tumbler mixer while using segregating materials (Harnby, 1967;
Alexander et al., 2003). Of three mixing mechanisms, i.e., diffusive, shear, and
convective mechanism (Lacey, 1954), the convective mechanism is most likely to
minimize segregation while mixing is in progress.
Ordered mixing can prevent segregation (Travers & White, 1971). The fine
particles in a mix are adsorbed onto ‘‘host’’ coarse particles, so-called ordered
mixing. In an ordered mix, the gravitational force is weak compared to the elec-
trostatic force. By giving particles opposite charges through triboelectrification, an
ordered mix may be stabilized (Venables & Wells, 2001). The size of the carrier
particle controls the size of the single ordered unit and, therefore, the level of seg-
regation and the homogeneity of the system. A homogeneous carrier particle size
avoids segregation (Hersey, 1977). Furthermore, carriers with higher surface
roughness have less potential to segregate than those with smoother surfaces
(Swaminathan & Kildsig, 2000).
Agglomeration segregation mainly occurs during mixing (Weinekotter & Gericke,
2000). Agglomerates form due to interparticle forces such as electrostatic, van der
Waals, and surface tension, all of which become strong for fine particle size smaller than
30 mm. Shear force must be employed to break up these agglomerates during mixing.
Usually, high speed impellers or knives are installed in the mixing chamber to do so.

Potential Opportunities
One commonality of the above methods to reduce segregation is that the majority of
them are qualitative or empirical. These methods are far from well understood;
consequently, it is not clear as to what the optimum solution is or how to efficiently
combine these methods. Yet another drawback of these methods is the level of
 Methods for Minimizing Segregation 333

difficulty to implement them. For example, as mentioned earlier, narrow size

distribution is beneficial to minimize segregation, but there is no effective way to
quantify the optimum size distribution for a specific powder when economics are
considered. Also, Muzzio et al. (2002) stated that in the pharmaceutical industry,
products and processes are designed largely by trial-and-error coupled with experi-
ence due to our incomplete understanding; therefore, the entire regulatory frame-
work needs to be reworked.
The reason why the majority of techniques are empirically based is that the
mechanism of segregation is still a riddle that researchers, to date, continue to
explore. If the true mechanism of segregation is understood, then one should be able
to explain the common features of different types of segregation. Thus, for instance,
differing and contradictory opinions on the effect of particle shape on segregation
would not occur.
The authors believe that the barriers that currently limit advancement of
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

research on segregation include application-oriented research methods, use of ideal

experimental materials, and time-independent variables. Each of these three factors
is addressed in detail below.
Application-oriented research methods limit researchers from capturing the
larger picture of segregation. The focus of most research has been on specific
applications or procedures involving powders such as rotating drum, hopper, chute,
compaction, blending, and filling=discharging. Sometimes, a wrong conclusion
might be drawn due to research method limitations. For instance, Drahun and
Bridgwater (1983) corrected a previous researcher’s conclusions on the effects of
density on segregation; they concluded that particle shape and surface texture have
little effect on segregation based on their free surface flow segregation test using
nonspherical tracer particles. Based on our current understanding, this conclusion is
not completely true (Tang et al., 2003).
Use of ideal experimental materials limits the applicability of test results. Var-
ious binary mixtures of cohesionless particles such as glass spheres, metal spheres,
and sands have been utilized as experimental materials. To a large extent, actual
particle mixtures are neither spheres, nor cohesionless, nor binary mixtures, and they
are likely far more complex than the experimental materials used in the laboratory.
Apparently, physical significance of research results based on materials other than
the real product will be limited, i.e., the principal limitation of using cohesionless
binary materials is that the research results cannot directly be applied to real
materials and processes.
All the measurements conducted so far are pertinent to time-independent vari-
ables such as a coefficient that is clearly not applicable to the entire handling pro-
cedure. For instance, Thomson (1997) argued that segregation is usually studied by
sampling from a model bin or from a full-size bin and by reporting the results on a
statistical basis. Other research methods such as simulation and modeling have
similar limitations. In other words, to capture the true mechanism of segregation,
innovative research methods should be adopted.
A second-generation primary segregation shear cell (PSSC-II) developed at
Pennsylvania State University has been shown to be a promising tool to overcome
the above barriers, such as quantifying different segregation patterns (caused by
factors such as size, density, and shape) (Tang et al., 2003). The design of this device
is not based on a specific unit operation or handling of powders but on the sieving
and percolation mechanisms that actually exist in a majority of powder handling
 334 P. Tang and V. M. Puri

processes. Based on test results, not only the effects of individual physical properties
of particles such as absolute size, size ratio, continuous distribution of mixture,
density, and shape on segregation can be quantified, but the relationship between the
input energy or particle flowability or other environmental or equipment-related
parameters can also be simulated and tested. For instance, segregation occurring
during transport of particulate materials using conveyor belts can be simulated with
adjustment of strain rate corresponding to belt velocity. As a short-range goal, a
quantitative relationship between material properties and segregation could be built
based on PSSC-II test results. If combined with other high-tech systems such as
computed tomography (CT) technology and noninvasive digital image processing
techniques, the variation of fine particles inside coarse particle beds can be observed
and evaluated. Then, as a long-term goal, it is possible to develop a powerful
mathematical model to accurately characterize segregation that not only includes the
test material variables but also incorporates other variables such as those related to
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

environment and device.

The successful development of the PSSC-II also indicates that it is possible to
develop devices to quantify other primary segregations such as fluidization and
agglomeration segregation not depending on specific handling processing but on
mechanisms. For instance, air pressure, air velocity, and fine particles are among
those crucial factors that cause fluidization segregation. A device to quantify flui-
dization segregation should be designed based on these factors instead of specific
processing operations such as filling or conveying.
With those devices that can quantify each of the primary segregation types, an
accurate and comprehensive technique or set of techniques based on the mathe-
matical model(s) could be formulated to minimize segregation associated with
different patterns. Thus, in-depth understanding of segregation mechanisms would
be attainable.

Conclusions
Four primary segregation patterns suggested are trajectory, sieving, fluidization, and
agglomeration segregation. Segregation is mainly affected by physical properties
of particulate materials, handling conditions, and environmental parameters. To
minimize segregation, various methods have been tried. The common methods
include improvement of physical properties, adjustment of handling steps or device
parameters, and using mass flow bin. For each process such as filling, discharging,
and conveying, different techniques might be employed. To find an optimum solu-
tion that minimizes segregation, the current barriers in the study of segregation
overcome are: (1) application-oriented research methods, (2) use of ideal experi-
mental materials, and (3) time-independent variables. The second-generation pri-
mary segregation shear cell developed by Tang et al. (2003) appears to provide an
innovative method to bridge the gap between current research and application
requirements.

References
Alexander, A., F. J. Muzzio, & T. Shinbrot. 2003. Segregation patterns in V-blenders. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 58: 487–496.
Ahmad, K. & I. J. Smalley. 1973. Observation of particle segregation in vibrated granular
systems. Powder Technol. 8: 69–75.
 Methods for Minimizing Segregation 335

Bates, L. 1998. User Guide to Segregation. Cheshire, U. K.; British Materials Handling Board.
Bridgwater, J. 1994. Mixing and segregation mechanisms in particle flow. In Granular mate-
rial: An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. by A. Mehta. New York; Springer-Verlag. pp.
161–193.
Campbell, H. & W. C. Bauer. 1966. Cause and cure of demixing in solid-solid mixers. Chem.
Eng. 73: 179–185.
Carson, J. W., T. A. Royal, & D. J. Goodwill. 1986. Understanding and eliminating particle
segregation problems. Bulk Solids Handling 6(1): 139–144.
Clague, K. & H. Wright. 1973. Minimizing segregation in bunkers. J. Eng. Ind. (B) 95(1):
81–85.
de Silva, S., A. Dyroy, & G. G. Enstad. 2000. Segregation mechanisms and their quantification
using segregation testers. In IUTAM Symposium on Segregation in Granular Flows, ed. by
A. D. Rosato, & D. L. Blackmore. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 11–29.
Drahun, J. A. & J. Bridgwater. 1983. The mechanisms of free surface segregation. Powder
Technol. 36: 39–53.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

Duffy, S. P. & V. M. Puri. 2002. Primary segregation shear cell for size-segregation analysis of
binary mixtures. KONA Powder Part. 20: 196–207.
Eiksa, O. E., J. Mosby, & G. G. Enstad. 1995. Experimental investigations on the use of
BINSERT’s in order to obtain mass flow in silos. Paper presented at PARTEC95, 3rd
European Symposium on the Storage and Flow of Particulate Solids, Nurnberg.
Garve, T. W. 1925. Segregation in bins. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 8: 666.
Garve, T. W. 1936. The segregation of granular materials in stockpiles (German). Keram.
Rundsch. Kunst-Keram. 44: 231–234.
Harnby, N. 1967. A comparison of the performance of industrial solids mixers using segre-
gating materials. Powder Technol. 1: 94–102.
Harnby, N. 2000. An engineering view of pharmaceutical powder mixing. Pharm. Sci. Technol.
Today 3(9): 303–309.
Harris, J. F. G. & A. M. Hildon. 1970. Reducing segregation in binary powder mixtures with
particular reference to oxygenated washing powders. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 9:
363–367.
Harwood, C. F. 1977. Powder segregation due to vibration. Powder Technol. 16: 51–57.
Hersey, J. A. 1977. Preparation and properties of ordered mixtures. Aust. J. Pharm. Sci.6:
29–31.
Holmes, C. W. H. 1934. Colliery Eng. 11: 40.
Jenike, A. W. 1954. Flow of Solids in Bulk Handling Systems. Salt Lake City: Utah Engineering
Experiment Station, University of Utah.
Johanson, J. R. 1978. Know your material—How to predict and use the properties of bulk
solids. Chem. Eng. Oct.: 9–17.
Johanson, J. R. 1996. Predicting segregation of bimodal particle mixtures using the flow
properties of bulk solids. Pharm. Technol. Eur. 8(1): 38–44.
Khakhar, D. V., A. V. Orpe, & J. M. Ottino. 2001. Continuum model of mixing and size
segregation in a rotating cylinder: Concentration-flow coupling and streak formation.
Powder Technol. 116: 232–245.
Lacey, P. M. C. 1954. Developments on the theory of particle mixing. J. Appl. Chem. 4:
257–268.
Lawrence, L. R. & J. K. Beddow. 1969. Powder segregation during die filling. Powder Technol.
2: 253–259.
Markley, C. & V. M. Puri. 1998. Scale-up effect on size-segregation of sugar during flow.
Trans. ASAE 41(5): 1469–1476.
Massol-Chaudeur, S., H. Berthiaux, & J. A. Dodds. 2002. Experimental study of the mixing
kinetics of binary pharmaceutical powder mixtures in a laboratory hoop mixer. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 57: 4053–4065.
 336 P. Tang and V. M. Puri

McGlinchey, D. 1998. Assessment of segregation in industrial processes. J. Powder Bulk Solids

Technol. 22: 54–56.
Mosby, J. 1996. Investigations of the segregation of particulate solids with emphasis on the use
of segregation testers. Ph. D. diss., Telemark College, Department of Technology.
Mosby, J., S. R. de Silva, & G. G. Enstad. 1996. Segregation of particulate materials—
Mechanisms and testers. KONA Powder Part. 14: 31–42.
Muzzio, F. J., T. Shinbrot, & B. J. Glasser. 2002. Powder technology in the pharmaceutical
industry: The need to catch up fast. Powder Technol. 124: 1–7.
Ottino, J. M. & D. V. Khakhar. 2001. Fundamental research in heaping, mixing, and segre-
gation of granular materials: Challenges and perspectives. Powder Technol. 121: 117–122.
Peacock, H. M. 1938. The design or adaptation of storage bunkers to prevent size segregation
of solids. J. Instit. Fuel 11: 230–239.
Pietsch, W. 2002. Agglomeration Processes: Phenomena, Technologies, Equipment. Wiley-VCH
Verlag.
Popplewell, L. M., O. H. Campanella, V. Sapru, & M. Peleg. 1989. Theoretical comparison of
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

two segregation indices for binary powder mixtures. Powder Technol. 58: 55–61.
Prescott, J. K. & R. J. Hossfeld. 1994. Maintaining product uniformity and uninterrupted flow
to direct-compression tableting presses. Pharm. Technol. 18(6): 99–114.
Prescott, J. K. & J. W. Carson. 2000. Analyzing and overcoming industrial blending and
segregation problems. IUTAM Symposium on Segregation in Granular Flows, ed. by
Rosato, A. D. and D. L. Blackmore. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 89–101.
Roberts, A. W., L. A. Sollie, & S. R. de Silva. 1993. The interaction of bulk solid char-
acteristics and surface parameters in surface or boundary friction measurements. Tri-
bology Int. 26(5): 335–343.
Rosato, A. D. & D. L. Blackmore. 2000. In. IUTAM Symposium on Segregation in Granular
Flows, ed. by A. D. Rosato, and D. L. Blackmore. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
pp. 11–29.
Rosato, A. D., D. L. Blackmore, N. Zhang, & Y. Lan. 2002. A perspective on vibration-
induced size segregation of granular materials. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57: 265–275.
Shinohara, K. 1979. Mechanism of segregation of different shaped particles in filling
containers. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 18(2): 223–227.
Shinohara, K. 1997. Segregation of particles. Powder Technology Handbook, 2nd ed. By, ed.
K. Gotoh, H. Masuda, and K. Higashitani. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 383–393.
Shinohara, K. & S. Miyata. 1984. Mechanism of density segregation of particles in filling
vessels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 23(3): 423–428.
Shinohara, K. & B. Golman. 2002. Particle segregation of binary mixture in a moving bed by
penetration model. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57: 277–285.
Shinohara, K., B. Golman, & T. Nakata. 2001. Size segregation of multicomponent particles
during the filling of a hopper. Adv. Powder Technol. 12(1): 33–44.
Shinohara, K., B. Golman, & T. Mitsui. 2002. Segregation pattern of multi-component par-
ticles of different densities during the filling of vessel. Powder Handling Process. 14(2):
91–95.
Sleppy, J. A. & V. M. Puri. 1996. Size-segregation of granulated sugar during flow. Trans.
ASAE 39(4): 1433–1439.
Sommier, N., P. Porion, P. Evesque, B. Leclerc, P. Tchoreloff, & G. Couarraze. 2001.
Magnetic resonance imaging investigation of the mixing-segregation process in a phar-
maceutical blender. Int. J. Pharm. 222(ER2): 243–258.
Swaminathan, V. & D. O. Kildsig. 2000. The effect of particle morphology on the physical
stability of pharmaceutical powder mixtures: The effect of surface roughness of the
carriers on the stability of ordered mixtures. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 26(4): 365–373.
Swaminathan, V. & D. O. Kildsig. 2002. Polydisperse powder mixtures: Effect of particle size
and shape on mixture stability. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 28(1): 41–48.
 Methods for Minimizing Segregation 337

Syskov, K. I. & T. Lyan. 1960. Investigation of the process of segregation in ore-coal mixtures.
Coke and Chem. U.S.S.R. 2: 5.
Tang, P., V. M. Puri, & P. H. Patterson. 2003. Design, development, and performance of
second generation primary segregation shear cell for size-segregation. Paper presented at
Particulate Systems Analysis 2003, Sept. 10–12, Harrogate, U.K.
Thomson, F. M. 1997. Storage of particulate solids. In Handbook of Powder Science and
Technology, 2nd ed. by M. E. Fayed, and L. Otten. New York: Chapman and Hall. pp.
365–463.
Travers, D. N. & R. C. J. White. 1971. The mixing of micronized sodium bicarbonate with
sucrose crystals. J. Pharm. Pharm. 23: 260–261(S).
Vallance, J. W. & S. B. Savage. 2000. Particle segregation in granular flows down chutes. In
IUTAM Symposium on Segregation in Granular Flows, ed. by A. D. Rosato, and
D. L. Blackmore. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 31–51.
van Denburg, J. F. & W. C. Bauer. 1964. Segregation of particles in the storage of materials.
Chem. Eng. 71: 135–142.
Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 15:28 30 November 2014

Venables, H. J. & J. I. Wells. 2001. Powder mixing. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 27(7): 599–612.
Weinekotter, R. & H. Gericke. 2000. Mixing of Solids. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Williams, J. C. 1963. The segregation of powders and granular materials. Fuel Soc. J. 14:
29–34.
Williams, J. C. & G. Shields. 1967. Segregation of granules in vibrated beds. Powder Technol.
1: 134–142.
Williams, J. C., & M. I. Khan. 1973. The mixing and segregation of particulate solids of
different particle size. Chem. Eng. 269: 19–25.
Yi, H., F. Li, B. Mittal, V. M. Puri, & C. F. Mancino. 2001. Measurement of bulk mechanical
properties and modeling the load-response of rootzone sands. Part 1: Round and angular
monosize and binary mixtures. Part. Sci. Technol. 19(2): 145–173.