XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1993
and underflow for each particle group, utilizing the solid
volume fraction. These data are then employed to estimate
D50 and Ep using Eq. (1), mirroring the approach taken
in the experiment (Starrett &Galvin, 2023). Table 2 pres-
ents the values of D50 and Ep obtained by regression of the
CFD results using Eq. (1).
In Figure 7, the fitted partition curve is presented
alongside the raw data points obtained from CFD as well as
the corresponding experimental results (Starrett &Galvin,
2023). The CFD data aligns with the experimental results
for particle sizes 100 µm and smaller, explaining the simi-
larity of D50 and Ep to that of the experiment (Table 2).
The simulated partition for 150 µm particles does not
match the experimental results. This discrepancy may be
an artifact of the mono particle size simulations conducted
herein and warrants further investigation.
The presented CFD-derived partition curve should
be interpreted with a degree of caution at this stage, given
Figure 6. Distribution of solid volume fraction as a function of particle size: (a) after 60 sec, (b) after 120 sec
Table 2. The values of D
50 ,E
p and I for CFD and experiment
(Starrett &Galvin, 2023)
Partition curves D50, µm Ep
CFD 85.7 9.5
Experiment 85 9
Figure 7. Comparison of CFD predicted partition curve with
the experimental results (Starrett &Galvin, 2023)
and underflow for each particle group, utilizing the solid
volume fraction. These data are then employed to estimate
D50 and Ep using Eq. (1), mirroring the approach taken
in the experiment (Starrett &Galvin, 2023). Table 2 pres-
ents the values of D50 and Ep obtained by regression of the
CFD results using Eq. (1).
In Figure 7, the fitted partition curve is presented
alongside the raw data points obtained from CFD as well as
the corresponding experimental results (Starrett &Galvin,
2023). The CFD data aligns with the experimental results
for particle sizes 100 µm and smaller, explaining the simi-
larity of D50 and Ep to that of the experiment (Table 2).
The simulated partition for 150 µm particles does not
match the experimental results. This discrepancy may be
an artifact of the mono particle size simulations conducted
herein and warrants further investigation.
The presented CFD-derived partition curve should
be interpreted with a degree of caution at this stage, given
Figure 6. Distribution of solid volume fraction as a function of particle size: (a) after 60 sec, (b) after 120 sec
Table 2. The values of D
50 ,E
p and I for CFD and experiment
(Starrett &Galvin, 2023)
Partition curves D50, µm Ep
CFD 85.7 9.5
Experiment 85 9
Figure 7. Comparison of CFD predicted partition curve with
the experimental results (Starrett &Galvin, 2023)