Abstract

Vibrating flip-flow screens (VFFS) are widely used to separate high-viscosity and fine materials. The most remarkable characteristic is that the vibration intensity of the screen frame is only 2–3 g (g represents the gravitational acceleration), while the vibration intensity of the screen surface can reach 30–50 g. This effectively solves the problem of the blocking screen aperture in the screening process of moist particles. In this paper, the approximate state of motion of the sieve mat is realized by setting the discrete rigid motion at multiple points on the elastic sieve mat of the VFFS. The effects of surface energy levels between particles separated via screening performance were compared and analyzed. The results show that the flow characteristics of particles have a great influence on the separation performance. For 8 mm particle screening, the particle’s velocity dominates its movement and screening behavior in the range of 0–8 J/m2 surface energy. In the feeding end region (Sections 1 and 2), with the increase in the surface energy, the particle’s velocity decreases, and the contact time between the particles and the screen surface increases, and so the passage increases. When the surface energy level continues to increase, the particles agglomerate together due to the effect of the cohesive force, and the effect of the particle’s agglomeration is greater than the particle velocity. Due to the agglomeration of particles, the difficulty of particles passing through the screen increases, and the yields of various size fractions in the feeding end decrease to some extent. In the transporting process, the agglomerated particles need to travel a certain distance before depolymerization, and the stronger the adhesive force between particles, the larger the depolymerization distance. Therefore, for the case of higher surface energy, the screening percentage near the discharging end (Sections 3 and 4) is greater. The above research is helpful to better understand and optimize the screening process of VFFS.

Highlights

  • For traditionalFor screening equipment such as circularsuch vibrating screensvibrating and linear vi- and linear vibrating screens, the vibration parameters of the screen surface are consistent with the brating screens, the vibration parameters of the screen surface are consistent with the vivibration response of the screen frame

  • The mean square error (MSE) of a period and the relative error (RE) of maximum amplitude in the time domain are used to evaluate the change between the measured amplitude and the Fourier series analysis result

  • Of Vibrating flip-flow screens (VFFS) is realized by setting the multi-point rigid motion of the sieve mat

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The vibration response of the sieve mat agitates the particle bed to deagglomerate the agglomerated particles This drives the fine particles to flow down the bed and pass through the screen to become the undersized product. Soldinger further extended the model after considering the material loading effect and the screening efficiency of different size particles [7]. Cleary et al quantitatively investigated the particle flow and screening performance of an industrial double-deck banana screen with different accelerations based on DEM simulation [8,9]. Dong et al simulated the screening process with the discrete element method and studied the influence of rectangular aperture shapes, with different aspect ratios, on material movement and screening efficiency [11]. The effects of different adhesion levels on particle flow and screening performance on VFFS were compared and analyzed, which is helpful to better understand and optimize the screening process of the VFFS

Contact Model of Particles
The DEM Model
Structures ofsieve the VFFS
Simulation
Effect of Surface Energy Level on Separation Performance
The Yield of Each Section of VFFS
The Yield Accounted for Size Fraction in Different Sections
Within
The Screening Percentage of Different Size Fractions of Different Sections
Findings
4.4.Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.