When you say large containers, how large is large?

We have done several systems filling 45 gallon drums. We routinely vibrate the sides or bottom of the drum to increase the full weight. I have seen similar systems to fill square containers measuring about 1mx1mx1m.

I have seen ships & rail cars loaded with high speed slingers where the force of the trajectory is used to theoretically provide some initial compaction. I was never sure how effective it was. ■

Hi.

Only one industrial way, that i know, it's vibration. But i have seen only aplications for railway wagons. ■

Vibration consolidation is not usually employed when loading bulk tankers. Powder tanks (tubs) are larger than liquid tanks to accommodate the aerated powders which develop from the pneumatic conveyance to the point of loading as well as from the subsequent discharge into the tub. Tanks are pressure vessels, expensively built to a statutary code, ASME IIX, BS5500 or similar. They are certainly not designed to be shaken vigorously enough to settle the powder cargo. Some settlement takes place during transit of course but this should not be taken for granted. Rapid consolidation would imply that the transit settlement would have to finish during the loading period. This somewhat reduces the tanker life in terms of fatigue loading. Designers would have to apply a new regime of load cycles to new powder tanks, and chassis.

There is no way round this one. The present drawback of having to pressurise a larger volume at the unloading station will remain until the actual loading technique improves. ■

OK so we've discounted rapping. Powder entering the tanker has a lot of entrained air, the reason for the low density. Evacuating the vessel through a filtering manhole would help; if the other manholes were adequately sealed. We've had similar problems raised quite recently. Somewhere there are firms making silo vent manholes which could be adapted, I guess, for your application.

Yours is a strange material, heavy at 2.7 SG but requiring 60m^3 for 17Mg, i megagramme=1tonne. What is it that entrains so much air? ■

Continuing johngateley's question: 17 tonnes for 60 m^3 with 2,7t/m^3 it looks really strange. Maybe it's not a problem of density, maybe you have a case of broken stowage (an empty space under the top of container)? What angle of repose of your cargo? ■

Please consider it as joke, but I think it can work indeed.

Load your trailer up to full capacity, and make a short run over the bumpy road. Then load it again. ■