Powder Technology, 243

@ Ekevier SequoiaS-k, Lausanne- Printedin the Netherlands

A Kinematic Model for the Flow of Granular Materials

R. M. NEDDERMAN and TJ.TeZcN

Department of Chemical Engineering. University of Cambridge. Pembroke Street, timbridge (Gt. Britain)

(ReceivedJune 30,197s; in revised form October 16,197s)

SUMMARY presence of stress discontinuities. This is in

A purely kinematic model involving only
one experimental constant is proposed for the
description of the velocity field in a granular
material discharging from a hopper. Experi-
mental measurements have been made on
velocity distributions in a two-dimensional
hopper and excellent agreement with the
model is found.
INTRODUCTION
The commonest school of thought for the
theoretical prediction of velocity distributions
in granular materials is that adopted by
Spencer [l], Jenike 123, Drucker [3],
Drescher and de Jong 141, de Jong 153,
Pariseau [S] , James and Bransby [7] and
many others. This is based on plasticity theory
in which the stress distribution in the static
material is first calculated and from this the
velocity distribution is obtained. Though the
principles of the method have been discussed
in detail, little progress has yet been made in
accord with our observations.
Our attention has recently been drawn to
the work of Litwiniszyn [lo] in which he
considers that the particles are confined to a
series of hypothetical cages of width 2cuand
height p as shown in Fig. 1. When a particle
falls out of cage A it can be replaced either by
that in cage B or by that in cage C with proba-
bilities p and q respectively. Within the bulk
of the materialp and q are equal and the prob-
ability, P, of the particle in a particular cage
being in motion is given by the solution of
aP a2P
- =jy-
ay ax2
where B = a2/2p.
Litwiniszyn shows that P is proportional to
the displacements of the particles which, pro-
vided they are not too large, will be related to
the vertical velocity u. This latter step is, how-
ever, open to question_
A_
L

the prediction of velocities in specific cases.

Extensive stress analyses have been carried
out by Home and Nedderman [8] for con- I

verging hoppers. They find that the material

G?
is intersected by many stress discontinuities,
yet in the experimental determination of the -- B __c___,
velocity field described below there was n J 1 I
evidence of any velocity discontinuities. If &he . /
velocities are indeed a result of the stress dis-
-- - - - --z-p

tribution it is hard to imagine circumstances I .

in which a continuous velocity field would X-L x i-

result from a discontinuous stress field.

Mullins [9] proposes an alternative approach
to the prediction of velocity distributions by
model&g the flow as the upward diffusion of
voids by random processes. The appropriate- x
F

ness of the model is not obvious but the veloc-

ity predictions are continuous even in the Fig. 1. Litwiniszyns stochastic model.
244

This equation is identicaI in form to Mullins

[9] except that P is replaced by J, the flux of
material, and indeed the two approaches have
5 1
much in common. Both are stochastic in form
and both can be used to predict velocity dis-
tributions that are independent of the stress
field.
Both Mullins [9] and Litwiniszyn [lo]
present some slight experimental evidence to
support their theories. Lines of coloured ma-
terial were placed in a packed bed of granular 2
material and the displacement of these lines
was recorded after a finite amount of flow had
taken place. In our experiments we fmd that
there is a protracted transient in the flow while
the voidage is changing from that of the initial
packed state to that appropriate to the flowing
state. It is only after this dilation phase has
been completed that the velocity distribution
becomes steady. The displacements reported
by Mullins and Litwiniszyn are combinations
of those occurrin g during the dilation phase
and those occurring in steady flow and their
interpretation is not straightforward_
In this paper we present a third model for Fig_ 2. Schematic diagram of the apparatus_ (1) Pers-
pex reservoir, (2) glass walls (2.2 cm apart), (3)
the flow. It is of great simplicity, and like
wooden walls, (4) aluminium orifice plate, (5) multi-
those of Mullins and Litwiniszyn it is indepen- ple orifice plate, (6) shutter.
dent of the stress field. In contrast to these
models no reference is made to stochastic
process and the model is best described as a glass plates, which was held constant at 2.2
kinematic model. We also present experi- cm, and hopper width to denote the dis-
mental determinations of the velocity fields. tance between the wooden sidewalls, which
These were obtained by continuous tine pho- was varied from 12 cm to 30 cm.
tography and we believe that they represent A continuous flow of glass ballotini was
the velocities in the steady state unencum- achieved by placing a large reservoir on top of
bered by transient effects. the hopper. By this means the hopper could
be kept full of glass ballotini for a period equal
to at least 3 mean residence times. The mate-
APPARATUS AND E)(PERIlUENTAL ANALYSIS rial passed from the reservoir to the hopper
through a plate containing several orifices. By
A twodimensional, plane-strain, flat-bot- this means the material was subjected to con-
tomed hopper was set up to observe and pho- siderable shear and became highly dilated.
tograph the flow of 1.5 - 2.0 mm glass ballot- The material used contained about 5% by
ini at various hopper widths and orifice sizes. volume of randomly distributed black ballot-
The hopper consisted of two parallel sheets ini of the same size. These contrasted clearly
of float glass 1.5 X 0.6 m held 2.2 cm apart with the transparent ballotini and it was pos-
by two highly polished wooden spacers which sible to distinguish and follow individual
formed the side walls of the hopper as shown black particles on the cm& fii.
in Fig. 2_ The wooden spacers were placed at Table 1 shows the combinations of hopper
various distances apart to give a range of hop- widths and orifice sizes for each of the five
per widths, and interchangeable orifice plates ICUllS.

made of aluminium were used to give a vari- The hopper was photographed with a cine-
ety of orifice sizes. We use the phrase hopper camera running at 8 or 16 frames per second,
thickness to denote the distance between the depending on the flow rate, and filming was
 245

TABLE 1

Run No. Hopper width (cm) Orifice size (cm)

1 30.5 1-l x 2.2

2 30.5 2.2 x 2.2
3 20.3 1.1 x 2.2
4 20.3 2.2 x 2.2
5 12.7 2.2 x 2.2

started as soon as the orifice was opened. The

original intention had been to observe the ini-
tial opening-up of the flowing region and the
erosion of the stagnant zone. From the cin6
fiIm it was clear that there was an extended
transient period of about 50 s before the stag-
nant zone boundary reached its final position
and the velocities became steady. The veloci-
ties recorded in this paper were measured only
after steady flo-w had been established. All the
films had been taken before we became aware Fig. 3. Vertical trajectories of individual particles.
of Litwiniszyns work. We believe that the x0 = initial distance from the centre line.
analysis of results that had already been ob-
tained provides a more objective test of the
theory. title as it crossed this level was calculated.
The movement of the black marker parti- Thus experimentally determined velocity pro-
cles was followed by projecting the film onto files at various heights were obtained for com-
the screen of an X - Y data logger. Thus the parison with theory.
coordinates of a particle could be obtained as Qualitative observations of the results show
a function of time. The coordinates of some that the hopper may conveniently be divided
150 - 200 particles per run were recorded for into four sections as shown in Fig. 4. In the
the full period of each particle remaining in
the field of view. The resulting values were
stored in the departmental computer for fur-
ther analysis.
Second, third and fourth-order polynomials
of y verssus t, x versus t and vice versa were
fitted to the data by the method of least
squares. Normally, third-order polynomials
were found to be quite satisfactory as can be
seen in Fig. 3. It is also clear from Fig. 3 that
the flow is smooth. There is no etidence of
any velocity discontinuities nor of any signifi-
TRANSITION
cant velocity fluctuations_ This is in complete -I-- -

contrast with the work of Bransby and Blair-

Fish [ 111 and Levinson ef al. [12] and may
be attributable either to the smoothness of
the glass beads or to operation in the steady
state with material being supplied to the top
of the hopper in a dilated state.
Vertical and horizontal velocities were ob-
tained by differentiating the polynomials.
About 10 levels some 2 - 3 cm apart were se-
lected arbitrarily and the velocity of each par- Fig. 4. Qualitative diagram of the flow regions.
246

lower part of the hopper the flow is con- Thus we expect the horizontal velocity u to
verging towards the orifice between stagnant be a function of the gradient of the particle
zones within which the velocity is too small velocity, au/ax,
to be measured and probably genuinely zero. au
We call the flowing part the converging flow
zone. At large distances above the orifice the
u=f -
t ax 1
velocity is uniform and this is described as the The simplest non-trivial form of this equa-
plug flow zone which is separated from the tion is
converging zone by a transition zone. Apart av
from the stagnant zone the zone boundaries u=-_B-
are ill-defined, one zone merging gradually ax
into the next. The stagnant zone boundary on
where B is a constant which, for want of a
the other hand is clear-cut and reproducible.
better name, we will call the kinematic
It is also noteworthy that the stagnant zone
constant.
boundary is not straight. Combining this with the continuity equa-
tion for an incompressible material (since
voidage changes are not large),
KINEMATIC MODEL
au au
+-=o (4)
We propose a model in which the particles Z ay
immediately above the orifice fall out of the
hopper and that the particles in the layer above yields
slide into the vacant space, jostling one an- au
other for position. The next layer similarly _ =Bg2 (5)
slips into the newly created space. This model ay
is purely kinematic, it being assumed that the This is exactly the equation obtained by
weight of each particle is sufficient to cause Mullins and is of the same form as that ob-
the motion which is therefore unaffected by tained by Litwiniszyn, though in the latter
any stress gradients_ case the dependent variable is probability, not
Consider three particles as shown in Fig. 5. velocity. Indeed, the mathematical formula-
tion of the proposed model as expressed in
eqns. (3) and (5) is identical to Mullins. The
present model does not, however, give any
information of the magnitude of B, in con-
trast to Litwiniszyns model, which predicts
that B = cy2/2p _

ch
1 I r
0
kc
The form of eqn. (3) is the simplest pos-
sible version of the general relationship of
eqn. (2). It has no theoretical justification
must therefore be confirmed
the experimental evidence-
or rejected on
and

The kinematic constant B has the dimen-

-1 v I
-tv-*I
1 sions of length and is therefore unlikely to be
a universal constant. Much more probably it is
proportional to some length scale typical of
the situation. Possible parameters with the
x-*..
appropriate dimensions include the bin width,
the spacing between the glass plates, the
Fig_ 5. Proposed kinematic model.
width of the converging flow zone, the orifice
size and the particle size. Examination of the
If the two particles, A and B, in the lower model shows that the last of these is the most
layer have different velocities there will be a probable candidate, and indeed Litwiniszyns
tendency for particle C to move sideways in model predicts this. Nonetheless, the other
the direction of the faster falling particle_ quantities require investigation.
 247

Equation (5) has the form of the well- Substituting into eqn. (5) yields
known diffusion equation, for which solu-
P 2
tions are available in a great many geometrical _ = _ =-_x 2
(10)
situations; see, for example, Crank [13], and BY x
Mullins quotes several of these of relevance to where the separation constant is put in the
hoppers. _Lwosolutions are of particular inter- form --X2 since Y(y) must tend to zero as
est and are discussed below. y + =_
Hence we obtain
Similarity solution Y = A~-X=BY
In the converging flow zone, the influence (lla)

of the walls will be slight and the velocity field and

may be approximated to the flow towards a
X=CcosXx+Dsinhx (lib)
hypothetical point sink some small distance
below the orifice as shown in Fig. 4. In this By symmetry, D = 0 and, from the bound-
case a similarity solution is applicable, result- ary condition au/ax = 0 on x = fa, we obtain
ing in sin Xa = 0 and hence the eigen-values are given
Q by
e-%1413Y
v=
&zp
nir
h, = - (12)
a
where Q is the volumetric flow rate per unit Hence
thickness of hopper and y is vertical distance
measured from the hypothetical point sink. In v = v,, + CA,e-*BYcos X,x (13)
actual practice the difference between y* and
y is small, except very close to the orifice, and The constants A, must be obtained from
will be neglected. The velocity v. on the cen- the remaining boundary condition, namely
tre line (x = 0) is given by the specified distribution of v on y = 0. Ide-
ally this will be obtained from some theoreti-
Q cal velocity profiIe through the orifice but, in
(7)
v =dw the absence of this, some assumption must be
made. Two extreme cases will be considered
and hence eqn. (6) can be rewritten in the hope that the true solution will he be-
v = v. e-===l/4BY tween them. In fact very little difference is
(8) found for reasons that will be discussed below.

Product solution Case 1. Plug fZow through

orifice
At the best, the similarity solution can only If we assume that the velocity is uniform
apply to the converging flow zone and a more across the orifice with velocity VI, then the
rigorous solution must be obtained for the rest boundary condition at y = 0 is
of the flow field. Since there can be no flow
through the walls, u = 0 on the walls, and v = v, o< 1X1-0
hence from eqn. (3),
v=o b< [xl<a
aV
-=O on x=&a where the orifice width is 26. From conti-
ax
nuity,up = VI b/a, and hence
where 2u is the hopper width.
v,b nzsIx
These boundary conditions being homoge- v(u=O)- 7 = XA,
n cos- (14)
neous make a product solution possible. Since a
the velocity field tends to a plug flow field as With the usual techniques of Fourier anal-
y + -, a solution of the type ysis (multiplying by cos nrx/a and integrating
for 0 to a), we find
v = VP +X(x) Y(y) (9)
2V, _ nnb
A, = - sin - (15)
is sought. nir a
248

Hence secondly there is little difference in the values

of A, for the lower harmonics since
2v, nsb 4V,a nab
- sin - z _ l-cos -
nirx nn a bn2n2 a
niib
X sin - cos - (16) for small values of nnb/a. With b/a = 0.1 this
a a
makes the coefficients of the first harmonics
very close indeed.
and from u = -Bau/ax, Thus we have the important theoretical
=v, --niTBy,a _ nsrb n7rx result that, except very close to the orifice,
u=z -e sm - sin - (17) the velocity distribution is almost independent
n a X a
of the velocity profile through the orifice.

Case 2. Triangular velocity profile through ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

orifice
As a contrast to plug flow, a triangular Within the converging flow zone we expect
velocity profile was also considered_ To main- eqn. (8) to be valid, and this enables us to ob-
tain the same plug flow velocity, the profile tain values of the kinematic constant, B, from
the experimental values of the vertical ve-
2~=2V+--;j O< /xl<b locity_
Equation (8) can be written as
iJ=O b< lxI<a
In u = In u0 - -
was used as the boundary condition at y = 0. 4BY
Using the same techniques, we find that the Thus if the natural logarithms of the mea-
constants A, are given by sured velocities at a specified value of y are
4Vla nsrb plotted against x2, a straight line of slope
A, = - l-cos - (18) -1/4By should result.
bn2r2 a
At any level the velocities range from ue at
and hence the centre to zero in the stagnant zone. Since
the logarithm of a small number is large and
u= v, b
- +
4Vla e-n;;By/2
negative, there is considerable scatter of points
I2
,, bn2x2
a
on the In u versus x2 plot for the smallest
nirb Illi-X values of u. Thus it was necessary to ignore
x I-cos - cos - (19) velocities obtained in or immediately adjacent
a a
to the stagnant zone. Best straight lines were
4VrB fitted to the remaining points by the method
u=x-e --nz7P9Y[L2
of least squares and hence, knowing the value
n bm
of y, the kinematic constant B was determined.
nTix Figure 6 shows a typical set of results with the
sin - (20) corresponding best straight line. It can be seen
a that a value for the slope, and hence B, can be
obtained to considerable precision.
When the experimental value of B is used in This method will only predict B accurately
eqns. (16) and (19), it is found that the pre- within the converging flow zone. Above this,
dicted values of u are barely distinguishable. too large a value of B will be obtained. The
At 8 cm above the orifice the difference in the fact that this method will over-predict B can
predicted centre line velocities is 3%, and the be seen by considering the extreme case of the
velocities are within 1% of each other for plug flow zone where u is constant and hence
Ix 1 > 1 cm. At higher levels the differences 1/4By = 0. An infinite value of B will result.
are even smaller_ The reasons for this are two- The values of B were obtained at between 5
fold. First, the higher harmonics die away and 7 levels in each of the 5 runs, which re-
very r~prdly because of the e- factor, and presented different combinations of orifice

size and hopper width. The resulting 33 deter-
minations are presented in Table 2. It can be
seen that higher than average values of B were
found above the top of the converging flow
zone, as expected. If these values are ignored,
the remaining 27 determinations are seen to
be highly consistent, having a mean value of
0.45 cm with a standard deviation of +0.02
cm. We believe that this consistency provides
strong evidence in favour of the kinematic and
stochastic models, but does not of course dis-
tinguish between them. A constant value of I3
is most unlikely to occur if the flow is deter-
mined by the effects of plasticity.
As mentioned above, B has the dimensions
of length and is probably proportional to
some length scale of the system. Clearly, from
Table 2, B is not proportional to height, to the
width of the hopper or the width of the con-
verging flow zone, nor it is related to the ori-
fice size. The two remaining length scales,
hopper thickness and particle size, were not
varied, but the latter seems to be the more
likely candidate. Indeed, Litwiniszyns model
predicts that B = a2/2p, where 2or and p are
the cage dimensions. Though it is not explicitly
stated, it is implied that there is only one par-
ticle per cage and, hence, 2cz s p s d where d
is the particle diameter. Thus B is predicted to
be of the order d/8. This is strictly the value
of B in the equation predicting displacements,
but it cannot be far removed from the B in
the velocity equation. However, the experi-
249
mental values of B are two to three times the
particle diameter, which must cast doubt on
the validity of the cage model. The experi-
mental results quoted by Mullins, though per-
haps not altogether reliable, also give B equal
to about twice the particle diameter, and he
produces a qualitative explanation for this.
There is evidence from Table 2 of a gradual
increase in B in height. The possibility cannot
therefore be ignored that B depends on some
other parameter such as void fraction as well
as the particle size.
The analysis described above confirms that
the kinematic model predicts the velocities in
the converging flow zone satisfactorily, but in
order to confirm that the model is also valid
in the transition zone the full theoretical solu-
tion, eqns. (16) and (19), must be used. Ve-
locity profiles were predicted using values of
B of O-4,0.5 and 0.6 cm to span the mean
value of Table 2. Figure 7 shows the velocity
-5
-:
;5
._
c:
Fig. 7. Profiles of vertical velocity given by the simi-
larity and the product solutions_ B = 0.5 cm. - - -
Product soln., - similarity soln.
profiles predicted by both the similarity solu-
tion, eqn. (S), and the product solution, eqn.
(16), using the value of B = 0.5 in relation to
the experimentally determined velocities_ Fig-
ures 8 and 9 provide a comparison between the
vertical velocity profiles obtained at the same
height with two different hopper widths for a
given orifice size. Figures 10 and 11 together
with Figs. 7 and 8 indicate that there is sub-
250

Fig. 8. Profiles of vertical velocity in the converging

flowzone. ---- B= 0_4cm;--- B=0_5cm;
-B=0_6cm.

Fig_ 9. Profiles of vertical velocity in the transition

zone. - - - m B = 0.4 cm;--- B = 0.5 cm;-
B = 0.6 cm.

stantial agreement with theory at four levels,

two of which are in the converging flow zone
and the other two in the transition zone.
These results also confirm the conclusion
from Table 2 that B seems to increase slightly
with height from a value of about 0.45 cm at
Y = 8 cm to somewhat over 0.6 cm at y = 20
cm. The results from the other runs are very
 251

_06 ,,,!I .,,l.,,,l,,..i,.,,l..,,I... I,,.!l_.,,.i,,,.

I

-10. -8 -6. -. -2 0 2 L. 6 B 10

Xfcm.

Fig. 12. Profiles of horizontal velocity in the transi-

I~,,~l~~,.I,,,.1,,,.l..,,l,,,,I,,,,I,,.,1,,., tion zone. - - * - B=0_4cm;--- B=0_5cm;
-10 -8 -6 -
- B=0_6cm.
-2 0 2 6 B TO.

X,Crn

Fig. 10. Profiles of vertical velocity in the transition

zone. - - - - B=O_4cm;--- B=0_5cm;----
B = 0.6 cm.

-.

Fig. 13. Profiles of horizontal velocity in the con-

verging flow zone. - - * - 3 = 0.4 cm;--- B = 0.5
cm- . - B = 0.6 cm_

zone and one within the converging flow zone

Fig. 11. Profiks of vertical velocity in the converging near to the orifice. Since the horizontal com-
flow zone. - - - - B= 0.4 cm;--- B = 0.5 cm;
ponent of the velocity is smah compared with
- B = 0.6 cm.
the vertical component, more experimental
scatter is evident. Nonetheless, substantial
similar and confirm that the model gives an agreement between theory and experiment
accurate prediction of the velocity profiIes can be seen, with the exception that the the-
provided some slight increase in B with height ory -mder-predicts the values of u in the vicin-
is allowed. it- - F the maximum, though the position of
Figures 12 and 13 show the horizontal the maximum is correctly predicted. It can
component of the velocity predicted from also Le seen that the experimental scatter is
eqn. (17) and the experimentally determined greatest in the vicinity of the maximum, sug-
values for two levels, one in the transition gesting some instability in that region, which
252
is of course the region of maximum velocity
gradient, au/ax.
On the evidence of Table 2 and Figs. 7 - 13
we believe that the kinematic model, though
clearly lacking perfection, provides a much
more accurate description of the flow than
would be given by any model based on the
concepts of plasticity. The experimental
results do not enable us to distkiguish between
the kinematic model and the two stochastic
models_ We do, however, feel that it is a more
realistic model and is capable of refinement if
necessary_ The physical bases of the stochastic
models seem somewhat abstract, and further-
more Litwiniszyns model predicts a value for
B roughly an order of magnitude too small.
The model will, however, only be justified if
it predicts the velocity distributions in other
situations, and experiments are under way to
check this as well as to investigate the rela-
tionship between B am3 particle diameter.
Though the kinematic model predicts the
observed velocities with considerable accuracy,
these differ markedly from those found by
Levinson et al. 1123 and Bransby and Blair-
Fish [ll] _ This clearly requires explanation.
The principal difference between our experi-
ments and those of other workers is that we
concemsd ourselves only with the steady flow
of a dilared material. Almost all other flow mea-
surements have been concerned with the early
stages of the motion of a material that had
been relatively compacted_ When a densely
packed material begins to flow, dilation will
take place in the vicinity of the initial failure
surfaces. This material will therefore weaken
locally and subsequent motion will take place
preferentially along the same failure surfaces.
Thus in the initial stages of the motion the
material will divide itself into more or less
rigid blocks separated by narrow failure zones.
In this type of flow, velocities that fluctuate
with respect to time and position must be ex-
pected, and it is not until the whole of the
material has become dilated that steady flow
will occur.
There is yet a third flow mode that can oc-
cur in a granular material, and this is when the
motion is caused by the movement of some
solid object such as a blade through the mate-
rial. Under these circumstances the concepts
of plasticity might well be relevant.
We believe that these three flowing modes
are fundamentally different and require sep-
arate explanations. We propose the kinematic
model solely for the steady flow under gravity
of a dilated material.
CONCLUSION
A kinematic model involving only one em-
pirical constant has been prepared for the pre-
diction of velocity profiles in granular mate-
rials. Thirty-three determinations of this ccn-
stant have been made, of which 27 yield sub-
stantially the same value; the remaining deter-
minations were all obtained in regions where a
reliable estimate was not to be expected. This
is believed to give strong support to the model.
The value of the kinematic constant obtained
has been used to predict velocity profiles
which in all cases have approximated closely
to the measured velocities.
The experiments cannot distinguish between
the proposed model and that of Mullins, since
these result in identical equations. Nor can
they dismiss Litwiniszyns model if the ques-
tionable extension from displacement to ve-
locity is accepted_ All three models are, how-
ever, either kinematic or stochastic in form
and make no reference to the stress distribu-
tion within the material. We therefore con-
cluded that free-flowing granular materials
discharging from hoppers are not driven by
the stress field, as has usually been assumed,
but move simply by the particles in one layer
slipping into the spaces vacated by the layer
beneath.
It would seem that granular materials are
like the Ancient Mariners ship:
But why drives on that ship so fast
Without or wave or wind?
The air is cut away before
And closes from behind.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEtNTS
We wish to thank the Wolfson Foundation
for financial support for this project.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
4 Fourier series constant
hopper half-width
: kinematic constant
b orifice half-width
d particle diameter
 253

P probability density 2 A. W. Jenike, Utah Univ. Eng. Exp. Stn. Bull_ 108
Q volumetric flowrate/thickness of hopper (1961).
horizontal velocity 3 D. C. Drucker, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Mech. of Soil
U
Vehicle Systems, 1961_
v, piug fIow veIocity at the orifice 4 A. Drescher and G. De Josselin de Jong, J. Mech.
v vertical velocity Phys. Solids, 20 (1972) 337_
vo centre-line vertical velocity 5 G. De Josseiin de Jong, Geotechnique, Zl(l971)
plug fIow velocity 551.
UP
6 W. G. Pariseau, Powder Technol., 3 (1969) 218.
X horizontal rectilinear coordinate
7 R. C. James and P. L. Bransby, Geotechnique, 21
x0 initial horizontal position (1971) 61.
Y vertical rectilinear coordinate 8 R. M. Home and R. M. Nedderman, Powder
a cage half-width Technol., 19 (1978) 243.
eigen-value 9 W. W. Mullins, Powder Technol., 9 (1976) 29_
L
10 J. Litwiniszyn, Bull. Acad. Pal. Sci., Ser. Sci.
P cage height
Tech., 9 (1963) 61.
11 P. L_ Bransby and P. M. Blair-Fish, Powder
Technol., 11(1975) 273.
REFERENCES 12 M. Levinson, B. Shmutter and W. Resnick,
Powder Technol., 16 (1977) 29.
1 A. J. M. Spencer, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 12 (1964) 13 J. Crank, Mathematics of Diffusion, Oxford Univ.
337. Press, London, 1975.