3844 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
Figure 7 shows that there is little error between the
velocity vectors from PEPT and DEM. This is evident from
the relatively short length of the vectors which implies that
the magnitude of the vectors themselves are low -viz. very
little difference in velocity after the subtraction operation.
The shorter vectors are represented in blue according to the
legend which represents small velocity values.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this study was to compare kinematic quantities
derived from PEPT to those obtained from DEM simu-
lations. PEPT experiments and DEM simulations showed
good correlation when comparing both the solids fraction
and velocity. The cataracting region was not represented
well in both cases. At a viscosity of 0.011Pa.s, velocity data
produced from DEM simulations were more closely corre-
lated with PEPT experiments than the solids fraction data.
trend is consistent at higher viscosities, namely 0.03 and
0.22 Pa·s.
Preliminary observations highlight an intricate inter-
play between the dynamics of drum speed and water-
glycerol interactions, influencing the behaviour of the
free surface among the glass beads. Alternative approaches
will be required to delineate the free surface at elevated
viscosities. This interplay, which is currently under investi-
gation in the DEM simulations, holds significant implica-
tions for understanding the impact of slurry viscosity on
tumbling mill grinding efficiency. Further insights from the
ongoing DEM study will enhance our understanding of
these complex interactions and contribute to a more com-
prehensive characterisation of the system dynamics.
REFERENCES
Alizadeh, E., Bertrand, F., Chaouki, J., 2014. Comparison
of DEM results and Lagrangian experimental data for
the ow and mixing of granules in a rotating drum.
AIChE Journal 60, 60{75}.
Cleary, P.W., Sawley, M.L., 1999. Three-dimensional mod-
elling of industrial granular flows, in: Second interna-
tional conference on CFD in the minerals and process
industries, CSIRO Melbourne, Australia. pp. 95–100.
Colagrossi, A. and Landrini, M., 2003. Numerical sim-
ulation of interfacial flows by smoothed particle
hydrodynamics. Journal of Computational Physics,
191(2):448–475.
Cundall, P.A., Strack, O.D., 1979. A discrete numerical
model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29, 47–65.
Figure 6. DEM glass bead velocity vector results at various speeds at a viscosity of 0.011Pa·s
Figure 7. DEM-PEPT glass bead velocity vector comparison results at various speeds and a viscosity of
0.011Pa·s
Figure 7 shows that there is little error between the
velocity vectors from PEPT and DEM. This is evident from
the relatively short length of the vectors which implies that
the magnitude of the vectors themselves are low -viz. very
little difference in velocity after the subtraction operation.
The shorter vectors are represented in blue according to the
legend which represents small velocity values.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this study was to compare kinematic quantities
derived from PEPT to those obtained from DEM simu-
lations. PEPT experiments and DEM simulations showed
good correlation when comparing both the solids fraction
and velocity. The cataracting region was not represented
well in both cases. At a viscosity of 0.011Pa.s, velocity data
produced from DEM simulations were more closely corre-
lated with PEPT experiments than the solids fraction data.
trend is consistent at higher viscosities, namely 0.03 and
0.22 Pa·s.
Preliminary observations highlight an intricate inter-
play between the dynamics of drum speed and water-
glycerol interactions, influencing the behaviour of the
free surface among the glass beads. Alternative approaches
will be required to delineate the free surface at elevated
viscosities. This interplay, which is currently under investi-
gation in the DEM simulations, holds significant implica-
tions for understanding the impact of slurry viscosity on
tumbling mill grinding efficiency. Further insights from the
ongoing DEM study will enhance our understanding of
these complex interactions and contribute to a more com-
prehensive characterisation of the system dynamics.
REFERENCES
Alizadeh, E., Bertrand, F., Chaouki, J., 2014. Comparison
of DEM results and Lagrangian experimental data for
the ow and mixing of granules in a rotating drum.
AIChE Journal 60, 60{75}.
Cleary, P.W., Sawley, M.L., 1999. Three-dimensional mod-
elling of industrial granular flows, in: Second interna-
tional conference on CFD in the minerals and process
industries, CSIRO Melbourne, Australia. pp. 95–100.
Colagrossi, A. and Landrini, M., 2003. Numerical sim-
ulation of interfacial flows by smoothed particle
hydrodynamics. Journal of Computational Physics,
191(2):448–475.
Cundall, P.A., Strack, O.D., 1979. A discrete numerical
model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29, 47–65.
Figure 6. DEM glass bead velocity vector results at various speeds at a viscosity of 0.011Pa·s
Figure 7. DEM-PEPT glass bead velocity vector comparison results at various speeds and a viscosity of
0.011Pa·s