490 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
this section, we extend the our approach to explore the
feasibility and adaptations required for the tribocharger in
lunar applications.
Using the approach described above, the baseline
design and DEM process parameters were modified to con-
sider a tribocharger on the lunar surface. The lunar grav-
ity, 1/6th that of Earth’s, was used. Several modifications
were made to the initial design to accommodate the lower
gravity. First, the baffle length was increased, and the flow
velocity reduced to accommodate bouncing and provide
more opportunities for particle-wall interactions. The inlet
was placed further away from the top of the baffle to prevent
erroneous and problematic interactions between bouncing
particles and newly generated particles. A comparison of
the designs employed are found in Figure 9.
The simulation outputs using these parameters are
found in Figure 10, with error bars indicating 95% con-
fidence intervals. Note that both the particle-wall and
Figure 9. CAD renderings of baffle designs with varying pitch (inset) evaluates the pitch angles are 180°,
270°, 360°, 450°, 540°, 630°, and 720°, respectively
Figure 10. Summary of the net particle-particle and particle-wall contact area accumulated per second for
each charger design
this section, we extend the our approach to explore the
feasibility and adaptations required for the tribocharger in
lunar applications.
Using the approach described above, the baseline
design and DEM process parameters were modified to con-
sider a tribocharger on the lunar surface. The lunar grav-
ity, 1/6th that of Earth’s, was used. Several modifications
were made to the initial design to accommodate the lower
gravity. First, the baffle length was increased, and the flow
velocity reduced to accommodate bouncing and provide
more opportunities for particle-wall interactions. The inlet
was placed further away from the top of the baffle to prevent
erroneous and problematic interactions between bouncing
particles and newly generated particles. A comparison of
the designs employed are found in Figure 9.
The simulation outputs using these parameters are
found in Figure 10, with error bars indicating 95% con-
fidence intervals. Note that both the particle-wall and
Figure 9. CAD renderings of baffle designs with varying pitch (inset) evaluates the pitch angles are 180°,
270°, 360°, 450°, 540°, 630°, and 720°, respectively
Figure 10. Summary of the net particle-particle and particle-wall contact area accumulated per second for
each charger design