XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 487
the effect of the charging baffle’s pitch, defined as the height
of one complete helical turn (360°), on the contact dynam-
ics. For the preliminary validation of the optimisation
approach, the baffle’s height was kept constant at 4.5 cm.
The pitch angle, determining the helical tightness, varied
across designs. Five distinct pitches were assessed (Figure 5),
all under a consistent particle inlet velocity of 0.08 m/s. The
purpose of this was to demonstrate the validity of the opti-
misation method, not to find a universally optimal design.
It is important to note that choice of particle and charger
materials, particle size, charger geometries, and inlet flow
rates may produce different optima.
Each baffle design underwent testing using the DEM
model with 150 PTFE particles, averaging 3.18 mm in
radius. The analysis tracked the net particle-particle and
particle-wall contact areas and recorded the residence times
within the charger.
The results, shown in Figure 6, reveal that while there
are significant differences in particle-particle contacts
among the designs, the particle-wall contacts are less dis-
tinct. The 9 cm design notably exhibited a minimum in
particle-wall contacts, and the 4.5 cm pitch design showed
marginally higher efficiency compared to the 6 cm pitch.
However, the differences between the 6 cm, 3.6 cm, and
Figure 4. A comparison of a baffle comprising two 90° segments against a continuous
180° baffle (95% confidence intervals indicated)
Figure 5. CAD renderings of baffles designs with varying pitch (inset) evaluated in this
study. The pitch angles are 180°, 270°, 360°, 450°, and 540°, respectively
the effect of the charging baffle’s pitch, defined as the height
of one complete helical turn (360°), on the contact dynam-
ics. For the preliminary validation of the optimisation
approach, the baffle’s height was kept constant at 4.5 cm.
The pitch angle, determining the helical tightness, varied
across designs. Five distinct pitches were assessed (Figure 5),
all under a consistent particle inlet velocity of 0.08 m/s. The
purpose of this was to demonstrate the validity of the opti-
misation method, not to find a universally optimal design.
It is important to note that choice of particle and charger
materials, particle size, charger geometries, and inlet flow
rates may produce different optima.
Each baffle design underwent testing using the DEM
model with 150 PTFE particles, averaging 3.18 mm in
radius. The analysis tracked the net particle-particle and
particle-wall contact areas and recorded the residence times
within the charger.
The results, shown in Figure 6, reveal that while there
are significant differences in particle-particle contacts
among the designs, the particle-wall contacts are less dis-
tinct. The 9 cm design notably exhibited a minimum in
particle-wall contacts, and the 4.5 cm pitch design showed
marginally higher efficiency compared to the 6 cm pitch.
However, the differences between the 6 cm, 3.6 cm, and
Figure 4. A comparison of a baffle comprising two 90° segments against a continuous
180° baffle (95% confidence intervals indicated)
Figure 5. CAD renderings of baffles designs with varying pitch (inset) evaluated in this
study. The pitch angles are 180°, 270°, 360°, 450°, and 540°, respectively