No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Secondary flows drive triboelectric powder charging in pneumatic conveying
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 March 2025
Abstract
Highly resolved simulations reveal the fundamental influence of a carrier fluid’s flow dynamics on triboelectric powder charging. We found that particles transported through a square-shaped duct charge faster than in a channel flow caused by secondary flows that led to more severe particle–wall collisions. Specifically, particles with a Stokes number of 4.69 achieve 85 % of their equilibrium charge approximately 1.5 times faster in duct flow than in channel flow. Also, charge distribution is more uniform in a duct cross-section compared with a channel cross-section. In channel flow, particles are trapped near the walls and collide frequently due to limited movement in the wall-normal direction, causing localized charge buildup. In contrast, duct flow promotes better mixing through secondary flows, reducing repeating collisions and providing uniform charge distribution across the cross-section. Upon charging, electrostatic forces significantly reshape particle behaviour and distribution. Once the powder achieves half of its equilibrium charge, particles increasingly accumulate at the wall, leading to a reduced concentration in the central region. These changes in particle distribution have a noticeable impact on the surrounding fluid phase and alter the overall flow dynamics. These findings open the possibility for a new measure to control powder charging by imposing a specific pattern.
- Type
- JFM Papers
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Baytekin, H.T., Patashinski, A.Z., Branicki, M., Baytekin, B., Soh, S. & Grzybowski, B.A. 2011 The mosaic of surface charge in contact electrification. Science 333 (6040), 308–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilici, M.A., Toth, J.R.I.I.I., Sankaran, R.M. & Lacks, D.J. 2014 Particle size effects in particle-particle triboelectric charging studied with an integrated fluidized bed and electrostatic separator system. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85 (10), 103903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Board, J.A., Causey, J.W., Leathrum, J.F., Windemuth, A. & Schulten, K. 1992 Accelerated molecular dynamics simulation with the parallel fast multipole algorithm. Chem. Phys. Lett. 198 (1), 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutsikakis, A., Fede, P. & Simonin, O. 2023 Quasi-periodic boundary conditions for hierarchical algorithms used for the calculation of inter-particle electrostatic interactions. J. Comput. Phys. 472, 111686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, Y., Zhang, H. & Zheng, X. 2024 Turbulence modulation by charged inertial particles in channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 990, A2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darve, E. 2000 The fast multipole method: numerical implementation. J. Comput. Phys. 160 (1), 195–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, H.-Q., Karasawa, N. & Goddard, W. 1992 Atomic level simulations on a million particles—the cell multiple method for Coulomb and London nonbond interactions. Chem. Phys. 97, 4309–4315.Google Scholar
Duff, N. & Lacks, D.J. 2008 Particle dynamics simulations of triboelectric charging in granular insulator systems. J. Electrostat. 66 (1-2), 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornari, W., Kazerooni, H.T., Hussong, J. & Brandt, L. 2018 Suspensions of finite-size neutrally buoyant spheres in turbulent duct flow. J. Fluid Mech. 851, 148–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuks, N.A., Sutugin, A.G. & Soo, S.L. 1971 Topics in Current Aerosol Research. 1st edn. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Genge, M.J. 2018 Electrostatic levitation of volcanic ash into the ionosphere and its abrupt effect on climate. Geology 46 (10), 835–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glor, M. 2003 Ignition hazard due to static electricity in particulate processes. Powder Technol. 135-136, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosshans, H. 2023 Influence of weak electrostatic charges and secondary flows on pneumatic powder transport. Can. J. Chem. Engng 101 (5), 2347–2360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosshans, H. & Papalexandris, M. 2016 Large Eddy simulation of triboelectric charging in pneumatic powder transport. Powder Technol. 301, 1008–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosshans, H. & Papalexandris, M.V. 2017
a Direct numerical simulation of triboelectric charging in particle-laden turbulent channel flows. J. Fluid Mech. 818, 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosshans, H. & Papalexandris, M.V. 2017
b A model for the non-uniform contact charging of particles. Powder Technol. 305, 518–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosshans, H. & Papalexandris, M.V. 2017
c On the accuracy of the numerical computation of the electrostatic forces between charged particles. Powder Technol. 322, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosshans, H., Bissinger, C., Calero, M. & Papalexandris, M. 2021 The effect of electrostatic charges on particle-laden duct flows. J. Fluid Mech. 909, A21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A., Clercx, H. & Toschi, F. 2018 Effect of particle shape on fluid statistics and particle dynamics in turbulent pipe flow. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 41 (10), 1–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Hockney, R.W. & Eastwood, J.W. 1988 Computer Simulation Using Particles. CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huser, A. & Biringen, S. 1993 Direct numerical simulation of turbulent flow in a square duct. J. Fluid Mech. 257 (-1), 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, M.R., Lane, S.J. & Gilbert, J.S. 2000 Volcanic plume electrification: experimental investigation of a fracture-charging mechanism. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 105 (B7), 16641–16649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jantač, S. & Grosshans, H. 2024 Suppression and control of bipolar powder charging by turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett 132 (5), 054004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John, W., Reischl, G. & Devor, W. 1980 Charge transfer to metal surfaces from bouncing aerosol particles. J. Aerosol Sci. 11 (2), 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P.L., Bassenne, M. & Moin, P. 2020 Turbophoresis of small inertial particles: theoretical considerations and application to wall-modelled large-eddy simulations. J. Fluid Mech. 883, A27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinzing, G.E. 2018 A review of pneumatic conveying status, advances and projections. Powder Technol. 333, 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J., Moin, P. & Moser, R. 1987 The turbulence statistics in fully developed channel flow at low Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 177, 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kok, J.F. & Renno, N.O. 2008 The effects of electric forces on dust lifting: preliminary studies with a numerical model. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 142, 012047.Google Scholar
Konopka, L. & Kosek, J. 2017 Discrete element modeling of electrostatic charging of polyethylene powder particles. J. Electrostat. 87, 150–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korevaar, M.W., Padding, J.T., Van der Hoef, M.A. & Kuipers, J.A.M. 2014 Integrated DEM–CFD modeling of the contact charging of pneumatically conveyed powders. Powder Technol. 258, 144–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacks, D. & Levandovsky, A. 2007 Effect of particle size distribution on the polarity of triboelectric charging in granular insulator systems. J. Electrostat. 65 (2), 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacks, D.J. & Troy, S. 2019 Long-standing and unresolved issues in triboelectric charging. Nat. Rev. Chem. 3 (8), 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., McLaughlin, J.B., Kontomaris, K. & Portela, L. 2001 Numerical simulation of particle-laden turbulent channel flow. Phys. Fluids 13 (10), 2957–2967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, E.W.C., Yao, J. & Zhao, Y. 2012 Pneumatic transport of granular materials with electrostatic effects. AIChE J. 58 (4), 1040–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowell, J. & Truscott, W.S. 1986 Triboelectrification of identical insulators. I. An experimental investigation. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 19 (7), 1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowell, J. & Truscott, W.S. 1986 Triboelectrification of identical insulators. II. Theory and further experiments. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 19 (7), 1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masuda, H., Komatsu, T. & Iinoya, K. 1976 The static electrification of particles in gas-solids pipe flow. AIChE J. 22 (3), 558–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, T.A. & Harrison, R.G. 2006 Electrification of volcanic plumes. Surv. Geophys. 27, 387–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuyama, T. 2018 A discussion on maximum charge held by a single particle due to gas discharge limitation. In AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1927, 020001. AIP Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuyama, T., Ogu, M., Yamamoto, H., Marijnissen, J.C.M. & Scarlett, B. 2003 Impact charging experiments with single particles of hundred micrometre size. Powder Technol. 135-136, 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mei, R. 1992 An approximate expression for the shear lift force on a spherical particle at finite Rynolds number. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 18 (1), 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motoori, Y., Wong, C. & Goto, S. 2022 Role of the hierarchy of coherent structures in the transport of heavy small particles in turbulent channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 942, A3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ndama, A.T., Guigon, P. & Saleh, K. 2011 A reproducible test to characterise the triboelectric charging of powders during their pneumatic transport. J. Electrostat. 69 (3), 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nomura, T., Satoh, T. & Masuda, H. 2003 The environment humidity effect on the tribo-charge of powder. Powder Technol. 135-136, 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohsawa, A. 2011 Statistical analysis of fires and explosions attributed to static electricity over the last 50 years in Japanese industry. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 301, 012033.Google Scholar
Ozler, G., Demircioglu, M. & Grosshans, H. 2023 Effect of drag force modeling on the flow of electrostatically charged particles. Adv. Powder Technol. 34 (2), 103951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltonen, J., Murtomaa, M. & Salonen, J. 2018 Measuring electrostatic charging of powders on-line during surface adhesion. J. Electrostat. 93, 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivas, M.A. & Iglesias, T.P. 2007 On permittivity and density of the systems (tetraglyme + dimethyl or diethyl carbonate) and the formulation of
$\triangle\varepsilon$
in terms of volume or mole fraction. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 39, 1546–1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
$\triangle\varepsilon$
in terms of volume or mole fraction. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 39, 1546–1556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarRokhlin, V. 1990 Rapid solution of integral equations of scattering theory in two dimensions. J. Comput. Phys. 86 (2), 414–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rokkam, R.G., Fox, R.O. & Muhle, M.E. 2010 Computational fluid dynamics and electrostatic modeling of polymerization fluidized-bed reactors. Powder Technol. 203 (2), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, S.D. 1982 Ray casting for modeling solids. Comput. Graph. Image Process. 18 (2), 109–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruan, X., Gorman, M.T. & Ni, R. 2024 Effects of electrostatic interaction on clustering and collision of bidispersed inertial particles in homogeneous and isotropic turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 980, A29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffman, P. 1965 The lift on a small sphere in a slow shear flow. J. Fluid Mech. 22 (2), 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sardina, G., Schlatter, P., Brandt, L., Picano, F. & Casciola, C.M. 2012 Wall accumulation and spatial localization in particle-laden wall flows. J. Fluid Mech. 699, 50–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt, N., von Pidoll, U., Markus, D., Klausmeyer, U., Papalexandris, M.V. & Grosshans, H. 2017 Measurement of electrostatic charging during pneumatic conveying of powders. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 49, 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinbrot, T., Ferdowsi, B., Sundaresan, S. & Araujo, N.A.M. 2018 Multiple timescale contact charging. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2 (12), 125003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watano, S. 2006 Mechanism and control of electrification in pneumatic conveying of powders. Chem. Engng Sci. 61 (7), 2271–2278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Fairweather, M., Mortimer, L.F., Zhao, Y. & Yao, J. 2023 Mechanisms of particle preferential concentration induced by secondary motions in a dilute turbulent square duct flow. Phys. Fluids 32 (12), 123313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, W. & Gu, Z. 2015 Electrification of particulate entrained fluid flows—Mechanisms, applications, and numerical methodology. Phys. Rep. 600, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao, Y. & Capecelatro, J. 2018 Competition between drag and Coulomb interactions in turbulent particle-laden flows using a coupled-fluid–Ewald-summation based approach. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3 (3), 034301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, J. & Nysten, B. 2018 Contact electrification and charge decay on polyester fibres: a KPFM study. J. Electrostat. 96, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, J., Vanderheyden, B. & Nysten, B. 2018 Dynamic charge transfer between polyester and conductive fibres by Kelvin probe force microscopy. J. Electrostat. 96, 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H., Cui, Y. & Zheng, X. 2023 How electrostatic forces affect particle behaviour in turbulent channel flows. J. Fluid Mech. 967, A8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, H., Castle, G.S.P., Inculet, I.I. & Bailey, A.G. 2003 Bipolar charging of polydisperse polymer powders in fluidized beds. IEEE Trans. Ind. Applics. 39 (3), 612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar