XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 3723
each showcasing different voidage values. Among these
arrangements, the loosest configuration is cubic, with a
voidage of 47.64%, featuring the fewest spheres in contact.
On the other hand, the rhombohedral arrangement repre-
sents the densest configuration, with a voidage of 25.95%.
It’s worth noting that under vigorous shaking and vibrat-
ing, the minimum voidage of mono-sized balls for a ran-
domly formed arrangement is reported to be 35.9%.
Impact of Ball Size Distribution
The static voidage of Bond’s proposed BSDs was also mea-
sured, and a comparison of these static voidage values is
shown in Figure 6. It’s evident from the figure that BSD1
exhibits the minimum static voidage, while BSD7 shows
the maximum. Additionally, according to Table 3, BSD7
demonstrates the highest dynamic voidage (ranging from
41.22% to 48.98%), whereas BSD1 has the lowest dynamic
Figure 4. The combined influence of mill rotating speed and mill filling on balls’ dynamic voidage. (a) BSD1 (b) BSD2 (c)
BSD3 (d) BSD4 (e) BSD5 (f) BSD6 (g) BSD7
Previous Page Next Page