Five models and eq\1ationsJorthe.predictic;>nof the tbertnal conduc~"ities of powders in the
literature are compared with the data obtainedill the experiments of the authors. Anew modified
ntodel for the. correlation of the experimental data is presented.
Key words: differential scanning calorimetry, porosity, solid content, specific heat, thermal
conductivity.Mechanical Engineerin

Barlow, Joel W.

Xue, Samuel S.

English

Five models and eq\1ationsJorthe.predictic;&gt;nof the tbertnal conduc~&quot;ities of powders in the
literature are compared with the data obtainedill the experiments of the authors. Anew modified
ntodel for the. correlation of the experimental data is presented.
Key words: differential scanning calorimetry, porosity, solid content, specific heat, thermal
conductivity.Mechanical Engineerin

Texas ScholarWorks

Models for the Prediction of the ThermalConductivities of PowdersSa.tn#el·••S•.·•• XlicandJoelW.J3iarlQwChernicalEngineering.·DeparttnentUniversityofTexasatAustinAugust 12, 1991AbstractFive models and eq\1ationsJorthe.predictic;>nof the tbertnal conduc~"ities of powders in theliterature are compared with the data obtainedill the experiments of the authors. A new modifiedntodel for the.correlation of the experimental data is presented.Key words: differential scanning calorimetry, porosity, solid content, specific heat, thermalconductivity.IntroductionKnowledge of thetherrnal properties, especially thermal conductivity, k, of powders isessentialtothestudyofrnany technicaLprocesses, including Selective Laser Sintering (SLS).This papel"reviewsrnodels forpredictingk found in the literature and compares the<predictions ofthesemodelswithexperirnental measurements on powder beds comprising a variety of materials,including various polymers, glass, and tin.Literature ReviewFive models for predictingtheth¢rmal conductivities ofpowders are reviewed here.. All of themodels attempt to predictthe variation in k withl;)edporosity from the properties of the solid and ofair. The models differ somewhatfrom one another by the "mixing rules" employed.lvIa:K"'tl1-E\l9~CniMJQ4el.Thismodel was first derived by James Clerk Maxwell for thepleIDctionof the electrical conductivity of heterogeneous media. A. E\1cken (1940). suggested itsuse for predicting the thermal conductivity of powders and loose materials. It reads as follows:1 - (1 - akJkJek = k s:-----------1 + (a - l)e(1)when the solid content of the powder.is greater than 50% by volume,where a = 3ks/(2ks+ ka), k is the thermal conductivity of the powder bed, ks and ka are thethermal conductivities of the solid and the air at the same temperature respectively, and e is theporosity·ofthe volume fraction of air.When the solid content of the powder is less than 50%:k = 1 - (1 - akw'ka'>(1 - e) (2)1 + (a- 1)(1 -e)where a = 3ka/(2ka+ ks).These equations are derived for small values of e and (1- e), and their extension to e or (I-e)values near 0.5 may be questionable.62Yaili-Kunii Model Yagi and Kunii (1957) proposed a model for porous beds of metals andother materials with high thermal conductivities. They considered interparticle radiation transfer aswell as conduction to be important. Their model, at low temperatures where radiation transferbetween particles is not important, takes the form,k =~kS<1 - e)/(I+epkJktJ (3)whereep = 0.02_10(2.-(8 -0.3» , ~ ~ 1.0, and the other symbols are as defmed above.Yagi and Kunii considered ks, ka , and porosity in their treatment. But the present writersnoticed that when powders of low porosities (e.g. porosity =0.605, or 0.(87) were used, theirmethod gave too low values, and for some powders (e.g. glass powders), their method gave toohigh (two or three tirn.es higher) values.~~~~t!lW~rlQJ~~~~M~~ These authors (1986) provide two set of equationsfor the prediction of thermal conductivities of granular materials. The fIrst set of equations is forsmall cubic dispersions in the continuous medium, while the volume fraction of these dispersionsare not very small.(5b)(5a)(4a)e<0.5e>0.50< (I-e) < 0.52/3k =ki1 + 3.844(I-e) )2/3k =ks(1 - 1.545e) 0 < e < 0.5 (4b)These authors thought the natural loose and granular materials are mixtures of ,.0Ud and gasphases where each of the phases occupies a large volume fraction (0.2 to 0.8) of the sample. Inthis situation neither of the phases (solid or gas) provides the continuous medium. The authorssuggested the following set of equations to consider for the case of a loose, granular, two-phasesystem which consists of small volume fractions of solid or gas phase in the effective continuousmedium (so as to produce porosities ranging between 0.2 and 0.8):2/3k =kec(1 + 3.844(0.5-e) )2/3k = kec(1 - 1.545(e-0.5) )In the above equations,kec is the thermal conductivity of the effective continuous medium,1/2kec =0.6132(kJ.cJIt has been found by the present writers that generally Eqns. (4a) and (4b) gave higher valuesthan the actual data, and Eqns. (5a) and (5b) gave very low values.Heiji Enomoto. et al. Model. In their experiments, the effective thermal conductivities of coalpowder and itaconic acid were measured as a function of the porosity and the particle size, as wellas the temperature. For a sample ofcoal powder, they got the correlating equation:k = (0.006T +(5-0.006T)(I-e) +20Dp -1.5)-0.0001 (6)where k is the bed conductivity, callcm-sec-K, T the temperature, K, and Dp the particle size, em.The correlation is limited to 0.35;5;e;5;0.6, Dp between 0.004 and 0.015 cm, and temperaturebetween 300 and 370 K.The thermal conductivity of the solid is not clearly shown in Equation (6) although it maybe included in the constants of the correlation. Despite this, Equation (6) is found to predict k forplastic powder beds about as well as the 'other models. This may suggest that the effectiveconductivity of the powder is a strong function of the conductivity of the gas and not of the solid63Deissler-Boe~li ModeL The authors of this article gave a summary of results of theirinvestigation of effective thermal conductivities of powders:1) The effective conductivity of the powder is a strong function of the conductivity of the gas.For instance, the effective conductivity of magnesium oxide powder in helium was about five timesthat for the same powder in argon.2) The effective conductivity of a powder becomes nearly independent of pressure at someratio of mean free path of gas molecules to a characteristic dimension of the powder particle. For allof the powders investigated the breakaway pressure could be predicted by an equation based on thekinetic theory of gases.3) A reasonably good correlation of the data was obtained by plotting the ratio of effectiveconductivity to gas conductivity st the ratio of solid conductivity to gas conductivity forvarious porosities. A relaxation so ution for heat flow through spheres in cubical array (porosity =0.475) was in reasonable agreement with the group of data for porosities from 0.42 to 0.50.The Fig 8 of that article is appended below.~. SCLID/I410 ..-420 .....420 ""JO.473 55.413 5547"3 SS.500 55.500 SS500 SS500 55,...- ~. souo GAl:-.-0 0.3100- :a1O0 3600- J60:;: 3600 .405,,..405¢ 405-0 405~Fig. 1. The graph of Deissler et al. for the correlation of their experimental effective thermalconductivities of powders in various gases and comparison with solution for spheres.The present writers found that the thermal conductivities found from the curve of this graphwere a little higher than the actual data we collected.T n n In all the calculations for the k of air with the change oftemperature for the various mo els, the present writers used the following relationship from thehandbook:ka =5.86-10-5 + 1.7639-10-7T caV(cm-sec-°C) (7)where T,oC is between 0 and 400°C.The temperature dependency of kts of the solid was either measured directly by the authors ortaken from the literature. In using these varying values for the solid thermal conductivities, a betterapproximation to the experimental data of the authors by the models in literature is often seen, thanjust using the solid thermal conductivity data from literature. For some of the calculations, arelationship found by tests done on polystyrene: ks =3.203-10-4+ 1.9193-10-6T caV(cm-sec-°C). (T [=] °C) was used for approximation of the k of the solid polymer (B.C. Bernhardt,"Processing of Thermoplastic Materials"(1959),pp.630-631). For polycarbonate solid, thefollowing relationship between k and temperature was found by the experiments of the authors.64following relationship between k and temperature was found by the experiments of the authors.The authors used a solid polycarbonate cylinder with a hole drilled at the center for the placementof a thennal couple, and proceeded with the same procedure mentioned above for the measurementof the k of powder beds to measure the k of the solid. The equation found by the authors for thepolycarbonate solid cylinder was : ks := 0.0985 + 0.OO36696T - 0.00005011'2+ 1.7639·10-7T3where k is W/m-K, and T in °C. Specific heats were measured directly and found also toincrease with increasing temperature.solid tin, the data of the change of k acco~' to temperature was taken from Perry'sChemical Engineers' Handbook, 6th Edition, edited by rry and Green.Experimental WorkDifferential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) was used to obtain the specific heats. An unsteadyheat transfer technique was developed for measuring bed thermal conductivity, Xue (1990). Asynopsis of methods of measurement is given here.SA sapphire sample was used each time as a standard after the baseline had been run. The testedstandard and samples were held at two limiting temperatures (between these two limits, thesamples were tested the specific heats) for several minutes during every run. Each time, a lineis drawn at the bases of the held temperature rea . The heights of the curves above this line atvarious temperatures were proportioned to the spe heats of the sapphire and the samples at thetern eratures.n 'nM mntsAn unsteady state method for the measuring of the thennal conductivities of powders has beenused. cylindrically symmetric aluminium tube, open at one end was frrst packed with the samplepowder. A thermal couple was placed at the center of the tube from the opening above. ThisJilled-tube was to a constant temperature a thermostat. Subsequently, the measuring tubewas placed a was held constantly at a higher temperature, and the temperaturedevelopment at of the measuring tube was recorded by a computer. Small changes inbath temperatures, typically 10°C, were used and the thermal properties were assumed constantwithin that ch to permit simplified analysis. The thermal diffusivity of the sample powderwas calculated from the temperature changing profile according to time at the center of the tube,and subsequently thermal conductivity was calculated from the specific heat and the bulk density ofthe sample powder.Results and Discussionsummarize comparisons between observed bed thermal conductivities and thosepre:Q1ctea by models above for polycarbonate (PC), (vinyl chloride) (PVC), rubbermodified poly(styrene-co-acrylonitrile) (ABS), nylon, glass, and tin powders. With the exceptionof tin powder beds, Figure 7, all thermal conductivities are observed to increase with increasingtemperature as a result of ka, Equation (7), and ks both increasing with increasing temperature.Generally for the non-metal powders, the Maxwell-Eucken, Enomoto, and Y .-Kunli modelsmost consistently predict k values near those which are experimentally observed. e Deissler andSaxena models, generally yield the most inaccurate predictions. .Even within these generalities,however, there are exceptions. For example, the Deissler model does a better job of p kfor PC beds than does either the Maxwell-Eucken or Enomoto models. The k of the tin owderbed is fairly 'cted by all except the Maxwell-Eucken and Saxena models. s to benoticed that all the models predict the increase of k according to increasing temperature, which isnot the case for' wder acco to our experiments. (k decreases from 0.994 W1m-Kat 41°Cto 0.412 W/m-K a .5°C, according to our experiments.)65k of FC Com"area with Vanous E:::ns. k 0 f PVC POwder Com"ared with E::;ns.________-.:';111". II ilL 1-:--3C!!O;u-i I ! ! ! . 1~1l1L.uum ..·"III"""·..'"....,..•........·.. .. ••i I •••••••••••~ItIL: a:_ ••••~. : iii i 1 !I:.:8 iI~~. I..._..,..i----------eo~~~----I : .. _ ....__...._ ... _ .................;a~.Iaa.:6:.-... --I I !I:,:2+:-----------------:03_= 1....1;==i~:::=:$=;P;:~;- en-!I."......- ..& ..... '," ; ...~~~;-".......-:.:6 I .. io :..:.;.;;;.;.----I 8 ~i j80....; ..:0:00.12 ..,~I--.;.......:.--+-~~--+--:-..-~0.10tl:t:t;;~=::=t:IC::::!::;~\ I I I ! I I ••~ .~-;.I •••-"nnnmn"'........n ---o.ca I - ·,a -----4)8IS1l., ella. .I I ".~"··l i i . I _'h4'.lf'~"",-'" .~ I 1;-: I ~ i !I I jl; I_ O.C6""1-~.r-;..._.:...::;...:...-~-~I---~.--~! J..'I_.:..1_~I~1~~__..;...__..iMo.u_·''!.:Jnat.:~:.:..;1aa.~l_-_--_-:.lC ----i-~ I0.04 ~j-:.....-...:.-..:I-...:.---~-~-~--:I I'J·C2 ....1---..;..I----..;......----~Ia.co +;----.:.-----....;.-------30Figure 2. Comparisons ofexperimental and Figure 3. Comparisons of experimental andcalculated values ofk for polycarbonate calculated values ofk for PVC powder (e =powder (e = 0.4976) vs. temperature. 0.550) vs. temperature.I~ or ASS r:4Jwaer ':.:mcarea wnn . arIClUS :::::-:S. k of ~Jvton Powaer C.:maarea ','91ft the :::::"5....., -:-.---.......--~----~--~---:":0 "II .&•.1""-i-l----"--I·-----I..............1 ...............1;J-8t$Il..........- ........, 11:-"""""-' I"",auunu',' I l. ,~:.::8 I' .. '1"""" I ~.....iL....alo.........._,--....................I"'''T ·T~ I I,~i<·! . e'10080ao20~ I I, ,. I:' a I I i ~J....i Ie, : "" .... ..........rIIO'A"ul1.l. ..:.:3 ':.:S " .. ",;;,. ... .. 1C.l"""-. I .if.......... • • I I ~l i:1JGiI,.n-- I: ........ /1111 ....~ . I '<'\AJ*1PlII"'IO' ,. i:,. : ! 'Figure 4.Comparisons of experimental andcalculated values of k for ABS powder(e =0.605) vs. temperature.TCeClFigure 5. ColllParisons of experimental andcalculated values of k for nylon powder(e =0.687) vs. temperature.66k at Powder Compared wltn Various Eqns. k at Tin Powder Compared with Various Eqn,;0soi I I : i : " i ' I :! I i I: 1 i - !::;. _..l_ .. ..,;._.. ...;__ .: Sa.i.n 'II·.~ ;.",.nomoto EI' 11"",.1,S..$18'.' at"'''Y~~unll''~!~o ~i~I:---:'1,--:"',--:-,-------,-----,1 .....__-1_, , i f i30'4'-1----I~I -- i.............~·~euac........r .. ;.;;;;;;;;·;;;;;:;;;··-..'---iI I I2:0 -----.........------........---..................--I I I30ii)I I !I I500.20 ""!"""""....................................-_.................._ ..................---........- .....o.as+-------.........----------::0O.lS::l::::~j,0.10i( 'C} i( 'C}experimental and calculatedvalues for. glass powder (e = 0.584)vs. temperatureFigure 7.Comparisons of experimental andcalculated. values of k for tin powder (e =0.417)vs. temperatureIn an attempt to improve the prediction of bed thermalconductivities, we have selected andempirically revised the Yagi..Kuniimodel to increase the influence oftemperature through the effectof temperature. on ks· andka,and·to decreaseslightly·the.inf!uenc;eofporosity to yield,k =(6.3 + ks(l..e)x---------.. 1(8)where k is the effective thermal conductivity of the powder,ks is. the thermal conductivity.ofthe solid,kais the thermal conductivity ofthe gas (air) within the poWder at the .same temperature,the porosity ofthe pOWder, ande is the solid contentofthe powder.670.060.07: : : : :..................i ·..$,. ; .; $ ..! ! ! i !·········j···········t···········j···········t···········t·····i·::::~::o.os ··•···•..+········+··········1 ·····t:I··t'k'··(h1g~j" ...:::::::::I:::::::::::f:::::::::::1 =1tt~:1":'· :::0.090.080.030.04k of PVC Compared with the tIIew Equation0.1 -t----I---+---+---t--I---:I-0.02 -t----I---+---+---t--I---+_~ ~ ~ 00 w ~ ~T("C)Figure 9. k of PVC powder compared withthe curve obtained from Equation (8).0.00 +••..•.••.•+...•••.•..+, ~.k of PC Powder Compared with the New Equation0.08 -1---1---+---+---+--+--1-i~oW 0.065 + :; .;.yt::O.OSS -r--r--r--r--I::::=1:::::::::::=;:=:t-t~ ~ ~ 00 W ~ ~'We)Figure 8. k ofPC powder compared withthe curve obtained from Equation (8)900.092 ••••••+ ~ ; + ~ ; ~ .::::: :~::.1::::::J ..:..!.:::~::!:.:.~::l::::~::!::::::::l:::~: : : : t:I iii (W/m.K))C :::: .6. ~ (high):0.038 ······t..·····t········,········I"·· .~.~~towt(···k of Nylon Powder Compared with New Equationo.11 t"rT".....-t"1l'T"1""1r"'I"'M"TT"1.,..,..,.'T't'T........1'T"r.....-t"1l'T"1""1r"'I"'M"TT"1TfO(;:\k of AIS Pow••Compared with the New Eqi,latlon0.08tTl1"TT"I~"""'rTT"I""M'"I"TT"1"""""'T"I"T""""'1'TT'M'"t" ........T"tS2' 2',@0.0 i~~~0.0Figure 10. k of ABS powder compared withthe curve obtained from Equation (8).Figure 11. k of Nylon Powder compared withthe curve obtained from Equation (8).~80SO 60 70T("C)~0.2-t----I---+---t--1---+--+~k of Tin Powder Compared with the New Equation1.8 -t----I---I----+----I---+---+-1.6 .'ri••••••l .! !. l j .: : : : :1.4 ·········i-···········i···········+··········t···········1··········: : : : :1.2 ~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~r~:~:~:::Ir::::~:~:~::~;;;i.~;~~:l··: : ,:-.-ke : .0.8 ·········(·D·····J··········iii0.6 •..•....·:..•..•..••..:--a..·p·..d·..·..·....r......·..··:·..···....! ! !bl3c~ !0.4 ·········r···········r···········r··········! ...!J••,qfI.....~80so 00 70T("C)400.105 -t---+---+--t---1I--t--+30i::~ ~12 ·········t·······r········r-·······r···~·····~·~ \l.llS ••••••••••1•••••••••••010•••••••••••1..... ...~••••••••••·.I•••••••••~ 0.11 ••••••••..1. 1 .' ..1. .J _.!! a ~ (W/njI-K): ! --ke!: ..k of 01... Powder Compared with the New Equation0.125 -t---+---+--t---1--t--+Figure 12. k of Glass Powder compared. withthe curve obtained from Equation (8).Figure.13. k of tin powder compared withthe curve obtained from Equation (8)68ConclusionThe thermal conductivities of powders are smaller than those of their corresponding solids.Thethermal conductivities ofpolymerpowders and glass powder show an increase as the temperatureis raised.•••• The .thermalconductivity/oftinpo\Vderdecl"eas~~asthetemperatureis .raised. Theequation. introduced by the authors sho\Vsiabetterappr()xitnationto ~J.ltheexperimenta.l data thancan beobtainedfro.mtheliterature.•• Due/to.the large thetrnalexcursions normally seenin the. SLSprocess, the influence of temperature is possibly moreimportant to the· thermal •.• conductivity ofpowder beds. than the influence.ofporosity. Further studies in this realm are still to.be done.References1. Samuel S. Xue and Joel W. Barlow: "Thermal Properties of Powders" in the ~olidfi.nnF ... ric ti n Pr c . ,the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas(19 ),pp.179-185.Max Jakob: Heat Tmns{er, .Vol. I,Wiley, New York(1949), pp. 83-85.Maxwell,Ja:mes C.:Arrreatiseoni~l~tricit¥f1J1dl\1a,W1etisIn'vol. I,Oxford (1873), p365.4. A.• Eucken:".Allgemeine. Ges~tz;maBigkeitenfurdasWarmeleitvermogen .ver$qhied~nerStoffarten •• und Aggregatzustande," ·Pprschung ••aufdemQebie<tedesJnge<nieurwS?sens. ·vo1.11,No.1 (1940),pp.6-20.5.YagiandKunii:"Studies on Effective Thermal Conductivities in Packed Beds,"J. AlChE,vo1. 3, N0'i3 (1957),pp. 373-381.6. Saxena, Chohan and Gustafsson: "Effective Thennal Conductivity of Loose GranularMaterials,"J. Phys.]):Appl.•Phys. 19.(1986),pp.1625-1630.7. HeijiEn0ltl0to, •Tornoyuki Fuk1.lchi,. Hiroshil{iyohashi,Munesuke Kyo, and ShozoTanaka: "l\1easureltlentof Thermal Conductivity ofPo\V<iery Materials and.the Influence.oftheNo. 2. (1987),pp.85-90.8.R. G.iI)eissleran<iJ.•S.Boegij:'.'Anlnvestigation()fEff~ctive •'rherrn.a.1.Conductivities ofPowders.in Various Gases", "Tt:a,Psactionsioftht;.AS~,()Ctol)er(1958 ), 1'1'.1417-1425.York(1959),pp.630-631.10. DavidL. Swift: "The Thermal Conductivity ofSpherical M.etal PowdersJncluding theEffect of an.Oxide Coating", International Journal of/Heat and> Mass Transfer, Vo1.9(1966),pp.1061-1074.69

Models for the Prediction of the Thermal

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/2152/64283/2/1991-08-Xue.pdf

Models for the Prediction of the Thermal

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas ScholarWorks