Jahan I 2015

Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Powder Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec
Investigation of screening performance of banana screens using

LIGGGHTS DEM solver
M. Jahani, A. Farzanegan , M. Noaparast
School of Mining Engineering, University College of Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 28 February 2015
Received in revised form 30 April 2015
Accepted 9 May 2015
Available online 15 May 2015
Keywords:
Simulation
Discrete Element Method
Banana screens
DEM software LIGGGHTS
Screening performance
a b s t r a c t
Deeper understanding of screening performance of banana screens helps mineral processing engineers to control
and optimize them. In this article, screening performance of banana screens using a DEM (Discrete Element
Method) solver LIGGGHTS is investigated. An industrial double-deck banana screen with ve panels and two
laboratory single-deck banana screens with three and ve panels are simulated. Effects of design parameters
including incline angle of each panel, vibration amplitude and vibration frequency on screening performance
of both the industrial screen and laboratory screens are studied. Also, the effects of operational parameters
including simulation time and feed particle size distribution on screening performance of the industrial screen
are examined. Simulation results are expressed in terms of recognized and comprehensible quantities for
engineers, i.e., screen efciency and screening recovery. To validate simulation results, a parameter named
partition number is dened. Comparison of the partition numbers of simulations related to the laboratory screens
with those available in the literature demonstrates a good agreement which validates the DEM simulations and
the used software. Also, the results indicate that the industrial and laboratory screens show a totally different
behavior with respect to changes in design parameters.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The processing of granular materials is central to the mineral processing industry. One of the critical stages commonly employed in the
treatment of these materials, is the separation of constituent parts
based on size by screening processes. The better understanding of
such processes is critical in optimizing these industrial activities, as
screens are often inefcient in their action which leads to poor separation and quality issues that impact the production of nal products
[1]. Screening and sieving have been widely used in various industries,
as a unit operation for large-scale separation of particles according to
size, and in laboratories, as a tool for the analysis of particle size distribution, usually at a small scale [2,3]. Mineral processing equipment
performs best when the feed material consists of a narrow particle
size distribution. Thus, in many cases it is customary to subject the
feed material to a size separation stage prior to another processing
operation [5]. Screening is the most widely used sizing method at
commercial scale [6]. Among the major factors which inuence the
performance of screening operations, particle-to-aperture ratio, particle
size and shape, nature of the screening surface, feed rate, feed composition, and vibratory motion are important. Of these variables, the effect of
the vibratory motion is the least quantied [5].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 9122898806; fax: +98 2188631202.
E-mail address: farzanegan@ut.ac.ir (A. Farzanegan).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2015.05.016
0032-5910/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Laboratory banana screens are specially designed vibrating screens

in which the slope of the screen changes from steep at the feed end to
at at the discharge end in order to maintain a constant bed thickness.
This is normally realized by a combination of multi-panels having different incline angles [4]. While these kinds of screens can double the
capacity in the mineral processing, their control and optimization
under different conditions is an important issue for their applications,
which requires fundamental understanding of this screening process
[4]. Industrial double deck banana screens consist of one or more curved
decks tted with screen panels having square or rectangular openings
and often used for high capacity size separation of iron ore, coal and
aggregates [7]. These screens have many adjustable parameters and
are much less well understood than conventional at vibrating screens.
The screen structure is usually vibrated with frequency around 15 Hz. A
dense stream of particles is loaded onto the upper end of the screen.
They accelerate down the steeper early panels of the screen and slow
as the panel angle decreases towards the discharge end. The material
discharging from the top of the deck is the oversize and may become
a coarse product or be crushed and recycled to the screen feed. The
material falling through the deck openings can be further separated by
an additional deck below [8]. On the lower deck this material undergoes
further sorting to return a product stream via the exit chute with undersized material passed to the underow. All multi-deck screens are difcult to sample for intermediate products. Banana screens are more
difcult because the screen cut size varies with the slope of the deck
M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247
[7]. The screen performance can strongly affect the overall circuit
performance [8].
Simulation has become a common tool in the design and optimization of industrial processes [911]. The continuous increase in computing power is now enabling researchers to implement numerical
methods that do not focus on the granular assembly as an entity, but
rather deduce its global characteristics from observing the individual
behavior of each grain [12]. Due to their highly discontinuous nature,
one should expect that granular media require a discontinuous simulation method. Indeed, to date the Discrete Element Method (DEM) is the
leading approach to those problems [12]. Because of its inherent advantages in analyzing granular materials, DEM has been developed rapidly
in recent decades and is used widely in mineral processing engineering
[1315]. The Discrete Element Method is a powerful numerical tool for
simulating the mechanical behavior of systems with a large number of
particles based on particles' motion and interactions and their representation as rigid geometric bodies, commonly having spherical shape [16,
17]. Whereas simulations with spherical particles can include millions
of particles, using non-spherical particles is still not an easy task. Whereas for spherical particles the geometry is described by the radius and the
interaction forces can easily be calculated by contact laws like Hertzian
contact, for non-spherical particles the geometry representation and
calculation of contact forces are much more complex [16,18]. DEM is
based on the Lagrangian approach and treats granular material as an
assemblage of distinct particles, each governed by physical laws [19,
20]. Each particle interacts with its neighbors through particle-toparticle contacts which can be formed or broken at each time step [17,
19,2123]. In recent years, the drastic increase in affordable computational power has allowed DEM simulations to become a versatile tool
for industrial applications [24]. Recent advances in discrete element
modeling have resulted in this method becoming a useful simulation
tool that can provide detailed information not easily measured during
experiments [25]. With the maturing of DEM simulation, it is now
becoming possible to run simulations of millions of particles with
complex shapes and inter-particle cohesive forces in tolerable times
on single processor, desktop computers [9,2426].
There are no general models that are applicable to complex screening processes used in the industry, including the process of screening
by the banana screens [4,27]. The insight into understanding the complex screening process requires that studies be carried out on a particle
scale. While this is often difcult to realize with the existing experimental techniques, numerical simulation based on DEM is an effective way
to perform such studies. However, its application to screening operation
is rather preliminary, limited to simple processes [2,3,9,23]. Cleary and
Sawley [23] and Cleary [9] presented a three dimensional model of
spherical particle separation on a periodic section of an inclined at
screen. Cleary [24] presented a comparison of different separation
performances obtained using spherical and non-spherical particles on
the same screen. Li et al. [3] performed DEM modeling of non-periodic
screens, but these were limited to two dimensions, small numbers of
circular particles with little or limited size variation. Recently Cleary
et al. [8,28] performed extensive DEM analysis of the performance of a
full industrial scale iron ore scalping double-deck banana screen using
super-quadric shaped particles. They analyzed transport and separation
on each deck and the identication of the specic contributions of each
panel for a range of peak accelerations. They also analyzed power
consumption, particle degradation and screen wear. At the same time,
Dong et al. [4] have presented a numerical study of the particle ow
on a banana screen as a function of vibration parameters including
frequency, amplitude, and type of vibratory motion. DEM was used for
that study and the role of each parameter on screening efciency was
determined [4]. They used DEM to evaluate the inuence of deck vibration and particle speed on separation of a laboratory single-deck banana
screen. They used spherical particles and the grate openings were represented as long slots rather than having square or rectangular openings.
They investigated 3 and 5 panel variants for this conguration [4].
33
Finally, Delaney et al. [1] have made detailed comparison of predicted

separation efciency of DEM using spherical particles with careful and
well characterized experiments in a at horizontal laboratory scale
vibrating screen for a range of ow rates (or bed depths).
LIGGGHTS is an open-source software package for modeling granular material by means of DEM. LIGGGHTS stands for LAMMPS Improved
for General Granular and Granular Heat Transfer Simulations and is
based on LAMMPS[29]. LAMMPS (Large-scale Atomic/Molecular
Massively Parallel Simulator) is an open-source classical molecular
dynamics package for simulating the dynamics of interacting atoms. It
also includes coarse-grained particles and interaction potentials, so it
can model materials at the mesoscale as well [30]. LAMMPS has been
written in C++ and can run either on a single processor or a multiprocessor system in parallel. In parallel processing, LAMMPS can run
very large problems (tens of thousands of processors, billions of
particles) and achieve high parallel efciencies of 90% or more [30].
Open source codes represent a viable alternative to existing commercial
software [31,32].
DEM simulations may involve particle collisions, particles with
enduring contacts, or both. It is therefore extremely difcult to truly
validate DEM simulations. Attempts to quantitatively validate
DEMsimulations by comparing with experimental data are often frustrated by uncertainties in terms of the experimental data and the fact
that frequently the simulated particles are spheres and the experimental particles are non-spherical[33]. To date, the validation of DEM simulations for screening has been very limited, with 2D DEM simulations
being shown to have some qualitative agreement [2,3]. However, no
detailed 3D comparisons with experimental systems have been performed to assess the accuracy of the DEM model [1].
In this study, the Discrete Element Method was employed to directly
simulate the screening process of banana screens. The screening process
was simulated in three dimensions through an open source code,
LIGGGHTS. In order to conduct the DEM simulations, the original open
source code of LIGGGHTS was modied by the authors. In this work,
we used the same geometries for the laboratory scale three-panel and
ve-panelsingle-deck banana screens as used in Dong et al. [4] as well
as we used the same geometry for the full industrial scale double-deck
banana screen as used in Cleary et al. [8,28] and Fernandez et al. [7].
Considering that screening is one of the most important operations in
mineral processing plants, as well as regarding that the simulation
results should be in such a way that to be understood by the engineers
of that eld in order to help them in operation optimization and control,
therefore, the simulation results should be expressed in terms of screen
efciency which is a recognized and comprehensible quantity for them.
However, in most of the previous researches conducted on the (banana)
screens often the simulation results either were expressed qualitatively
which are not usable for engineers or were expressed quantitatively in
terms of parameters such as particle velocities and volume which limits
their use and application by engineers. Therefore, in this article the
simulation results in terms of screen separation efciency for laboratory
screens and based on screening recovery, i.e., the product of mass (%) of
under process materials by screen separation efciency, for industrial
screens were expressed. Also, the effect of screen design parameters
including changing incline angle of each panel, screen vibration amplitude, and screen vibration frequency on screening recovery of a fullindustrial scale double-deck banana screen and on separation efciency
of laboratory scale three-panel and ve-panelsingle-deck banana
screens was simultaneously investigated and compared. Additionally,
the effect of operational parameters including increasing simulation
time and changing feed particle size distribution on screening recovery
of the industrial double-deck banana screen was investigated. In this
article, in order to validate the simulation results, a parameter named
partition number was used [4]. The DEM simulations as well as the
used software were validated against data available in the literature
[4] by making a detailed quantitative comparison between the partition
numbers of the simulations conducted by LIGGGHTS software for
34
laboratory three-panel and ve-panel banana screens and the partition

numbers of the conducted simulations under similar conditions by
Dong et al. [4].
force between two granular particles, when the distance r between

two particles of radii Ri and Rj is less than their contact distance d =
Ri + Rj. There is no force between the particles when r N d:
2. DEM simulation

F kn ni j n vni j kt ti j t vti j :
2.1. The DEM solver LIGGGHTS

With the development of DEM theory, many DEM codes such as
Trubal and GRANULA were developed, becoming important tools for
DEM research. After the 1990s, commercial DEM software began to
appear: UDEC, 3DEC, PFC2D, and PFC3D. In particular, PFC2D and
PFC3D, with their advantages of fast calculation speed and effective
simulation of large deformation, have been used widely in particle
material analysis [13]. However, the core code of a commercial DEM
software is a black box for software users and thus limits their ability
to extend applications. Although commercial software is convenient, it
is usually costly and often limits a researcher's ability to modify and
improve the existing code-base. A common solution is for researchers
to write code to perform a specic simulation. This has led to the
appearance of some open source DEM codes such as LMGC90, YADE,
and LIGGGHTS[13].
For the DEM simulations, we developed a version of the LIGGGHTS
package adapted to our needs. LIGGGHTS is an open source software
package for modeling granular material by means of the Discrete
Element Method [29,34,35]. LIGGGHTS stands for LAMMPS Improved
for General Granular and Granular Heat Transfer Simulations and is
based on LAMMPS (Large Atomic and Molecular Massively Parallel
Simulator), an open source Molecular Dynamics code by Sandia
National Laboratories for massively parallel computing on distributed
memory machines [36,37]. LAMMPS is a parallel particle simulator at
the atomic, meso-, or continuum-scale. If coarse-grained granular particles are simulated, this method is termed DEM as will be discussed in
the next section [29,35]. LAMMPS offers implementations for both
linear (Hooke) and non-linear (Hertz) granular potentials. LIGGGHTS
improves these features for granular simulations, comprising geometry
import from CAD les and a moving mesh capability, features for
particle insertion and packing, multiple contact models, non-spherical
particle handling by means of the multi-sphere method, a bonded
particle model, wall-stress analysis and wear prediction, and a six
degree-of-freedom capability for rigid bodies [29]. Both LIGGGHTS and
LAMMPS run on single processors or in parallel using message-passing
techniques (MPI) and a spatial-decomposition of the simulation
domain. The code is designed to be easy to modify or extend with
new functionality [29,35]. Both LIGGGHTS and LAMMPS are distributed
as open source codes under the terms of the GNU General Public License
[38]. In LIGGGHTS software application, it is possible to program userdened contact models but there is no user interface and all the code
has to be scripted to describe the simulation process. Visualization of
simulations is possible by translating the data of LIGGGHTS with PIZZA
and loading them into ParaView [39].
2.2. The Discrete Element Method (DEM)
The Discrete Element Method is a numerical technique used to
predict the behavior of collision dominated particle ows. Each particle
in the ow is tracked and all collisions between particles and between
particles and boundaries are modeled. The DEM variant used here is
sometimes called a soft particle method. The particles are allowed to
overlap and the extent of overlap is used in conjunction with a contact
force law to give instantaneous forces from knowledge of the current
positions, orientations, velocities and spins of the particles [40]. Here
we have used the HertzMindlin's contact force law. It states that the
repulsive force resulting from a collision is calculated from the amount
of normal overlap, n and tangential overlap t (soft-sphere approach)
[41]. This granular model uses the following formula for the frictional
The rst term is the normal force (Fn) between the two particles and
the second term is the tangential force (Ft). The normal force has two
terms, a spring force and a damping force. The tangential force also
has two terms: a shear force and a damping force. The shear force is a
history effect that accounts for the tangential displacement (tangential overlap) between the particles for the duration of the time they
are in contact.
The quantities in the equation are as follows:
elastic constant for normal contact
d r = normal overlap (overlap distance between the two
particles)
viscoelastic damping constant for normal contact
normal relative velocity (normal component of the relative
velocity of the two particles)
elastic constant for tangential contact
tangential overlap (tangential displacement vector between
the two spherical particles which is truncated to satisfy a
frictional yield criterion)
viscoelastic damping constant for tangential contact
tangential relative velocity (tangential component of the
relative velocity of the two particles).
kn
nij
n
vnij
kt
tij
t
vtij
Static friction is obtained by keeping track of the elastic shear displacement throughout the lifetime of the contact. The magnitude of
tij (the tangential overlap) is truncated as necessary to fulll a local
Coulomb yield criterion: Ft Fn, where is the graingrain friction coefcient. Therefore, the contact surfaces are treated as sticking when
Ft b Fn, and as slipping when the Coulomb yield criterion is satised
[42].
Considering that the shear modulus (G) can be calculated from
Young's modulus and Poisson ratio, the HertzMindlin contact model
depends on the following material parameters [41]:
Coefcient of restitution, e
Young's modulus, Y
Poisson ratio,
Coefcient of static friction, s
Coefcient of rolling friction, r.
The maximum overlap between particles is determined by the
stiffness kn of the spring in the normal direction. Typically, average
overlaps of 0.10.5% are desirable, requiring spring constants of the
order of 104106 N/m in three dimensions. The normal damping
coefcient n is chosen to give the required coefcient of restitution e
(dened as the ratio of the post-collisional to pre-collisional normal
component of the relative velocity) [43].
For the HertzMindlin model, the kn, kt, n, and t coefcients are
calculated as follows from the material properties:
kn
4 p
Y R n
3
r
5 p
Sn m 0
6
n 2
kt 8G
p
R n
r
5 p
t 2
St m 0:
6
The following equations can be dened for two particles in contact

(Eqs. (6)(12)):
p
Sn 2Y R n
trajectory, based on the force and torque balances [29,35,44,45]. For

each particle, the translational motion and rotational motion, which
can be described by Newton's second law of motion, are respectively
determined by:
X
m
X
p
St 8G R n
ln e
q
2
ln e 2

11 2
12 2
1
Y1
Y2
Y
1
22 1 11 22 2 12
G
Y1
Y2
10
1
1
1
R R1 R2
11
1
1
1
m m1 m2
12
35
13
14
where v is the vector of a particle velocity, F is the contact force acting

on a particle, m and g are the mass of a particle and the gravitational
acceleration, is the vector of angular velocity, and M and I denote
the moment caused by the tangential force and the moment of inertia.
By knowing the various forces (contact and gravitational forces) acting
on particles, the velocity and the trajectory of each individual particle
are computed by integration with time. This allows all particles to be
registered in a predened domain and, therefore, the interactions
between particles and with boundaries can be precisely calculated
using the local particle and boundary properties [2,3].
3. Banana screen geometry and simulation conditions
where Y is the Young's modulus, G is the shear modulus, is the Poisson

ratio, e is the coefcient of restitution, m is the mass and R is the radius
of a particle. The subscripts 1 and 2 stand for the two particles in
contact.
Industrial applications place heavy demands on the geometrical
capabilities of DEM codes and can affect computational performance.
Boundary objects are dened here, for three dimensions, by triangular
surface meshes. These meshes can be produced using any reasonable
mesh generator from solid models generated in suitable CAD packages.
This provides enormous exibility in specifying three-dimensional
environments with which the particles interact [911,43].
In DEM, particles are traditionally approximated by disks or spheres,
in two and three dimensions, respectively. These shapes are preferred
because of their computational efciency. The contact is always on the
line joining the center of each particle and is as simple as comparing
the distance between their centers to the sum of their radii [24,26].
The shape of the granular material in DEM is usually assumed to be
spherical for ease of contact detection or calculation of contact force,
although particles in the screening process have completely irregular
shapes. The best solution for considering particle shape in DEM is to
model the exact particle shape. However, this is very difcult because
the calculation load becomes extremely large, hence not suitable to
simulate granular ow in the screening process, because there are
innumerable particles involved in this process [2,3].
The drawback of the DEM method is that the time step has to be
chosen extremely small because the contact force exhibits a very stiff
behavior. Depending on the material properties and the particle size
the time step size can be as low as 106 s for an accurate simulation
[44]. Thanks to advancing computational power, the DEM has become
more and more accessible lately. On actual desktop computers, simulations of up to a million particles can be performed. On very large
clusters, the trajectories of hundreds of millions of particles can be
computed [29,35,44].
DEM method uses an explicit numerical scheme to trace the motion
of individual particles according to their interaction with each other [4,
27]. In the frame work of the DEM, all particles in the computational domain are tracked in a Lagrangian way, explicitly solving each particle's
In this work, laboratory scale single-deck banana screens with three

and ve panels and a full-industrial scale double-deck banana screen
are simulated (Fig. 1). The laboratory screens are according to the
dimensions described in Dong et al. [4] and the industrial screen is
according to the dimensions described in Cleary et al. [8,38] and
Fernandez et al. [7]. The detailed geometrical and operational conditions
and material properties for the laboratory screens and the industrial
screen are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
In the literature [4,7,8,27,28], for both industrial and laboratory
screens, the particles were fed continuously. However, for laboratory
screen simulations all particles should be fed at once (not continuously),
because the actual operation is in batch mode and all feed particles are
placed on the screening surface before starting screening process. For
this reason, in previous studies [4,27], the simulations conducted for
laboratory screens were not able to accurately predict the real process
performance.
Since in laboratory screen simulation trials performed by the authors
all particles are presented into screening surface at once, thus, all particles undergo screening process during simulation time. In these screens,
a simulation begins by discharging the mixture of particles from the
feed end, with a certain size distribution and feed ow rate. The particles that reach the mesh will be either sieved or ow along the screen
to the discharge end [4,27]. The simulation termination time is when
all particles have been processed and entered oversize or undersize
product. Here, in the simulations conducted for the laboratory screens,
simulation time is considered 2.5 s. Fig. 2 demonstrates snapshots of
the simulations of the three-panel and ve-panel banana screens at
the middle and end of the simulations. Also, the number of particles
remaining on and passing through each panel at the end of simulations
as well as the total number of overscreen and underscreen particles and
their mass (%) are observable.
In the industrial screen simulations because the operation is continuous, particles enter the screen gradually in several stages. Thus, during
simulation run only part of particles undergo screening process and by
increasing simulation time the number of particles which undergo
screening process increases. The data are monitored to determine if a
macroscopically steady state is achieved, at which point the inlet ow
rate (feed ow rate) equals the outlet ow rate (which is the sum of
the ow rates of the underow and overow) for each size group of
particles [4,27]. In previous studies [4,27], the steady state concept
was proposed for the laboratory screens but there is no steady state in
laboratory screens because the operation is in batches and operation
36

Table 1
Parameters used for the DEM simulations of the laboratory screens.
Screen width (mm)
Aperture size (mm)
Wire length (mm)
Open area (%)
Particle size, d (mm)
Feed rate (number/s)
Feed size distribution (%)
Feed height (mm)
Vibration frequency, f (Hz)
Vibration amplitude, A (mm)
Vibration motion
Particle density (kg/m3)
Young's modulus (N/m2)
Poisons ratio
Coefcient of restitution
Sliding friction coefcient
Rolling friction coefcient
9.0
1.0
5.0
17
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.1
0.9
150 244 440 900 1640
12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
30
15 (525)
2.0 (1.03.0)
Linear, 45 with horizontal line
1400
5 104a
0.45
0.3
0.5
0.01
0.6
5560
12.5
0.45
26,320
25.0
a
Note that Young's modulus in the simulations is much smaller than that of real coal
(~10 MPa). As the time step in DEM is inversely proportional to the hardness, a smaller
Young's modulus can reduce simulation time considerably.
the holes or due to insufcient residence time, are discharged from the
end of the top deck. A stream of these oversize particles is then collected
by the top deck chute where they are slowed and allowed to ow down
onto the overscreen conveyor [8]. The bottom deck has a similar overall
structure, with a banana shape parallel to the top deck and ve sets of
panels along its length. The panel angles are the same as for the top
deck. Unlike for the top deck where the feed material enters at the
start of the top deck, material falls onto the bottom deck along its entire
length. This means that the loading and ow on the bottom deck are
substantially different to the top deck. The bottom deck is fully enclosed
and it is extremely difcult to photograph or measure anything about
the dynamics of this critical part of the screen responsible for the separation of the screen product [8]. The material falling from above collects
on the bottom deck to form a owing bed which again accelerates down
the inclined slope of the cloth. Particles small enough can be trapped by
the holes and fall onto the underscreen conveyor which passes directly
under and parallel with the screen. Particles which are either too large
to pass through the bottom deck holes or do not have an opportunity
because of their location in the ow, discharge from the end of the
bottom deck. These particles are collected by the bottom deck chute
where they are slowed and dropped down onto the middle conveyor
[8] (Fig. 3). Also, the number of particles and their mass (%) on the
overscreen, middle, and underscreen conveyors as well as the mass
(%) of under process particles at the end of the simulation (13 s) are
observable in Fig. 3.
Fig. 1. 3D CAD geometry of the laboratory and industrial banana screens used in the simulations: (a) the laboratory 3-panel single-deck screen, with incline angles of panels 1, 2,
and 3 being 34, 22, and 10, respectively; (b) the laboratory 5-panel single-deck screen,
with incline angles of panels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 being 30, 22.5, 15, 7.5, and 0, respectively;
(c) the industrial 5-panel double-deck screen, with incline angles of panels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
being 33, 27, 21, 15, and 10, respectively.
must be treated as a dynamic process. The concept of steady state is

applicable only to continuous operations when they are not in a transition state. Here, only the data collected at the steady state will be used
for simulation result analysis. Fig. 3 demonstrates snapshots of the
simulations of the industrial double-deck banana screen at the steady
state at the time of 13 s for feed size distribution 1. Particles are fed
into the screen at the top end of the screen. In the simulations of the
industrial screen, we use a conveyor feeder to provide the feed stream.
As particles ow down along the top deck, they accelerate with some
particles smaller than the aperture size being trapped and falling
through to the bottom deck below. Particles that are not able to pass
through the screen deck, either because they are too big to pass through
4. Results and discussion

In overall, 67 simulations were performed in this research (Table 3).
The rst six simulations have been performed using a powerful supercomputer and other simulations were performed using a laptop PC.
Simulation of industrial screens such as the double-deck banana screen
studied here, is impossible with a single processor, hence we run our
simulations in parallel using a large number of processors and
message-passing techniques (MPI) as well as spatial-decomposition of
the simulation domain. In this study we used 24 processors in parallel.
In these simulations, efciency of the industrial and laboratory
screens under different operational conditions (Table 3), mass (%) of
materials on the industrial screen conveyors as well as mass (%) of
under process materials on the industrial screen (Table 4), screening
recovery of the industrial screen (Table 5), and overscreen and
underscreen mass (%) of the laboratory screens (Table 6) have been
calculated.
The reason for screening recovery calculation of the industrial screen
is that at the industrial scale (the continuous operation) the tonnage of
37
Table 2
Parameters used for the DEM simulations of the industrial screen.
Screen length (m)
Screen width (m)
Vibration frequency (rpm)
Vibration frequency (Hz)
Vibration amplitude (mm)
Vibration type
Particle density (kg/m3)
Young's modulus (N/m2)
Poisons ratio
Coefcient of restitution
Sliding friction coefcient
Rolling friction coefcient
Feed rate (t/h)
Particle size, d (mm)
Feed size distribution 1 (%)
Feed size distribution 2 (%)
Number of particles at 13 s (Feed 1)
6.1
2.4
1000 (5002000)
16.67 (8.3333.33)
14 (728)
Linear at 45
1400
5.0 106
0.45
0.3
0.5
0.01
1000
170
120
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
50
143
85
10.0
10.0
802
65
10.0
10.0
1794
54.5
10.0
10.0
3043
45.5
10.0
10.0
5230
38.5
10.0
10.0
8632
31.5
10.0
7.5
15,761
25
10.0
7.5
31,528
77
219
1234
2760
4682
8046
13,281
24,248
48,505
50
143
802
1794
3043
5230
8632
11,821
23,646
77
219
1234
2760
4682
8046
13,281
18,186
36,379
the screen output materials (the input to the other parts of the comminution circuit) is of signicant importance, therefore, screen efciency
alone cannot be a useful framework for evaluating the screen performance. Thus, when simulating the industrial units, the amount of
materials which in simulation time is under process should also be
considered and included in the recovery calculation (Table 4). Hence,
for the calculation of industrial screen recovery, rst, the total mass of
under process materials is divided by the input feed mass and the
resulting number which is the mass (%) of under process materials is
multiplied by screen efciency in order to obtain actual recovery of
the screening operation (Table 5). In here, considering that our purpose
is the comparison of screen recoveries under different operational
conditions, thus, our comparison will be relative as well. Hence, in this
research simulation 7 is considered as a default and with the assumption that the ratio of the mass of under process materials to the input
feed mass in this simulation (70.05%) is considered equal to unity, the
ratio of the mass of under process materials to the input feed mass in
other simulations is obtained as scaled (the relative mass) (Table 5).
Multiplying this dimensionless number by screen efciency, scaled
recovery of each screen is obtained. Thus, in this article when the term
screening recovery is used, it means the very scaled recovery.
4.1. Industrial double-deck screen
Fig. 4 demonstrates the effect of operational parameters i.e., simulation time and feed particle size distribution and also the effect of design
parameters i.e., incline angle of each panel, screen vibration amplitude,
and screen vibration frequency on screening recovery of the industrial
double-deck screen. In this gure, the simulation number parameter
is the number of simulations at Table 3.
According to Cleary et al. [8], Over time, there is an accumulation of
material in each part of the industrial double-deck banana screen until
the system reaches an equilibrium state. For this particular screen, the
time to reach equilibrium is 1320 s, which is more than 10 times the
minimum residence time of particles in this system. The approach to
equilibrium is evaluated by monitoring the number of particles, the
mass of particles and the kinetic energy of the particles. When these
have all become constant then the system is in equilibrium. Also
according to Table 3, the efciencies of top and bottom screens in simulations 14 are approximately the same. This means that the steady
state has been reached. Fig. 4a demonstrates the effect of simulation
20
10.0
7.5
61,578
Total
94,736
Total
46,183
Total
71,052
Total
16.5
10.0
17.5
109,663
238,224
168,715
366,503
191,911
293,255
295,250
451,166
time on screening recovery. As it can be seen, by increasing simulation

time from 13 s (simulation 1) to 20 s (simulation 2), screening recoveries of both top and bottom screens have respectively increased by about
16.44% and 13.71%. Also, by increasing simulation time from 13 s (simulation 3) to 20 s (simulation 4), screening recoveries of both top and
bottom screens have respectively increased by about 12.53% and
10.64%. In general, it can be said that by increasing simulation time,
recovery of both top and bottom screens of the industrial double-deck
screen increases. Fig. 4a also demonstrates the effect of feed particle
size distribution on screening recovery. As it can be seen, by changing
feed particle size distribution in simulations 1 and 3, screening recoveries of both top and bottom screens have respectively increased by about
3.54% and 7.24%. On the other hand, in simulations 2 and 4, screening
recovery of the top screen has almost remained constant and screening
recovery of the bottom screen has increased by about 4.17%. The
existing difference between the obtained results of the simulations 1
and 3 and simulations 2 and 4 indicates that by increasing simulation
time from 13 s to 20 s and as a result providing more opportunities to
the particles to pass through the screen apertures, the effect of the
distribution type on recovery of the top and bottom screens signicantly
decreases. In general, it can be said that the distribution 2 has no significant effect on top screen recovery, but increases bottom screen recovery by about 47%.
Fig. 4b demonstrates the effect of incline angle of each panel on
screening recovery. As it can be seen, screening recovery of the bottom
screen in all simulations is higher than the top screen. In general, it can
be said that the increase or decrease of the incline of each panel has a
little effect on top and bottom screen recovery. Generally, the differences between the highest and lowest recoveries in the top and bottom
screens are respectively 2.82% and 3.92% which are negligible in industry. But, with a closer look at the numbers obtained in the simulations, it
can be said that in simulations 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 where the panel incline has been increased in comparison with simulations 9, 11, 13, 15
and 17 where the panel incline has been decreased, screening recoveries of both top and bottom screen have decreased, although this difference is not signicant. As it can be seen, changing incline of the rst
panel is of the minimum effect and changing incline of the fourth
panel is of the maximum effect on screening recoveries of both top
and bottom screens.
Fig. 4c demonstrates the effect of screen vibration amplitude on
screening recovery. In the default mode i.e.,14 mm vibration amplitude
38
Fig. 2. Snapshots showing the motion of particles on the laboratory 3-panel and 5-panel single-deck banana screens which vibrate with 2 mm amplitude and 15 Hz frequency with panel
inclines of 34, 22, and 10 and 30, 22.5, 15, 7.5, and 0, respectively: (a) the 3-panel screen at the middle of the simulation with particles colored by their size; (b) the 3-panel screen at the
end of the simulation with particles colored by their size; (c) the 3-panel screen at the middle of the simulation with particles colored by their speed; (d) the 3-panel screen at the end of
the simulation with particles colored by their speed; (e) the 5-panel screen at the middle of the simulation with particles colored by their size; (f) the 5-panel screen at the end of the
simulation with particles colored by their size; (g) the 5-panel screen at the middle of the simulation with particles colored by their speed; (h) the 5-panel screen at the end of the simulation with particles colored by their speed. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
(simulation 19) screening recoveries for the top and bottom screens
are respectively 68.61% and 71.35%. By decreasing vibration amplitude
to 7 mm in simulation 18, top and bottom screen recoveries have
increased by about 9.97% and 17.27% respectively which are very significant. On the other hand, by increasing vibration amplitude in simulation 20 to 28 mm, top and bottom screen recoveries have decreased
by about 15.54% and 22.09% respectively which are also very signicant.
Also in the no vibration mode (simulation 24), screening recoveries of
both top and bottom screens have increased by about 6.16% and
10.15%, respectively. As it can be seen, the screening recoveries of
both top and bottom screens with 7 mm vibration amplitude are at

the maximum value. As a result, it can be said that a decrease in vibration amplitude can to a certain extent increase screening operation
recovery. In other words, the excessive decrease of vibration amplitude
due to reducing particle velocity as well as decreasing the amount of
under process materials can decrease screening recovery. Thus, an optimum value for vibration amplitude should be determined.
Fig. 4d demonstrates the effect of screen vibration frequency on
screening recovery. As it can be seen, screening recoveries in default
mode i.e.,16.67 Hz vibration frequency (simulation 22) for the top and
39
Fig. 3. Snapshots showing the motion of particles on the industrial double-deck banana screen which vibrates with 14 mm amplitude and 16.67 Hz frequency with the panel incline of 33,
27, 21, 15, and 10 at the steady state at the time of 13 s for feed size distribution 1: (a) at the middle of the simulation with particles colored by their size; (b) at the end of the simulation
with particles colored by their size; (c) at the middle of the simulation with particles colored by their speed; (d) at the end of the simulation with particles colored by their speed. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
bottom screens are 68.61% and 71.35%, respectively. By decreasing the

vibration frequency to 8.33 Hz in simulation 21, top and bottom screen
recoveries signicantly increased, by about 8.72% and 15.57%,
respectively. On the other hand, by increasing vibration frequency to
33.33 Hz in simulation 23, top and bottom screen recoveries signicantly decreased by about 20.61% and 22.01% respectively. Also, in the no
vibration mode (simulation 24), screening recoveries of the top and
bottom screens have increased by about 6.16% and 10.15%, respectively.
As it can be seen, the screening recoveries of both top and bottom
screens in the case of 8.33 Hz vibration frequency are at the maximum
value. As a result, it can be said that the decrease of vibration frequency
(like the decrease of vibration amplitude) can to a certain extent
increase screening operation recovery. Thus, an optimal value for vibration frequency should be determined as well. Generally, it can be said
that vibration amplitude and frequency changes have the same effects
on screening recovery, but there are nuances as well.
Fig. 4e demonstrates the effect of all design parameters studied in
this research on screening recovery of the industrial double-deck
screen. As it can be seen, the effects of changing vibration amplitude
(simulations 1820) as well as vibration frequency (simulations 21
24) in comparison with the effect of incline angle of each panel (simulations 717) on screening recovery of the industrial screen are very
remarkable.
4.2. Laboratory ve-panel single-deck screen
Fig. 5 demonstrates the effect of design parameters on separation
efciency of the laboratory ve-panelsingle-deck screen. In this gure,
the simulation number parameter is the number of simulations at
Table 3.
Fig. 5a demonstrates the effect of incline angle of each panel on
efciency. As it can be seen, generally it can be said that the increase
or decrease of the incline of each panel is of a signicant effect on screen
efciency (than the industrial screen). Generally, the difference between the highest and lowest amounts of screen efciency is equal to
5.77% which in comparison with the corresponding values for the
industrial screen is remarkable. But with a closer look at the numbers
achieved in the simulations, it can be said that in simulations where

the panel incline has been increased (simulations 26, 28, 30, 32, and
34) compared to those where the panel incline has been decreased
(simulations 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35), screen efciency in the normal
mode decreases and in the particle accumulation mode on the panels
3 and 4 increases, this difference is more signicant than the value for
industrial screen. As it can be seen, the incline increase of the second
panel is of the greatest negative effect on screen efciency while the
incline increase of the third panel is of the greatest positive effect on
it. Also, the incline decrease of the rst panel is of the greatest positive
effect on screen efciency while the incline decrease of the third panel
is of the greatest negative effect on it. Generally, it can be concluded
that there is an inverse relationship between screen efciency and
changing incline angle of each panel in the normal mode and a direct
relationship between them in the particle accumulation mode.
Fig. 5b demonstrates the effect of vibration amplitude on efciency.
As it can be seen, in the default mode i.e., 2 mm vibration amplitude
(simulation 38), screen efciency is equal to 78.36%. By decreasing
vibration amplitudes in simulations 36 and 37 to 1 mm and 1.5 mm,
screen separation efciencies have decreased by about 2.81% and
2.49%, respectively. The obtained result is contrary to that of the industrial screen. The reason for this is that in the laboratory screens unlike
the industrial screens, all particles during simulation time are under
process i.e., the vibration amplitude decrease does not cause the
decrease of the amount of under process materials. On the other hand,
by decreasing vibration amplitude it is also expected that separation
quality and as a result laboratory screen efciency increases. But, the
factor which causes efciency of the laboratory ve-panel screen to
decrease is particle accumulation because when vibration amplitude
decreases, particle velocity on the panels is reduced and as a result the
particle accumulation phenomenon occurs sooner. Therefore, particles
smaller than the screen aperture nd less opportunity to pass through
the screen and as a result screen efciency decreases. It is noteworthy
to mention that in the industrial screens because of continuity of the
operation and adding feed in several stages as well as the increase of
the screen width, the particle accumulation phenomenon occurs less.
Simulation 46 demonstrates screen separation efciency in the no
40
Table 3
Efciency of the industrial and laboratory banana screens under different operational conditions (the rst six simulations have been conducted using a powerful supercomputer and other
simulations using a typical home laptop).
Simulation
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Screen type
Industrial, double deck

Laboratory, single deck, 3 panels
Incline angle of each panel ()
33
33
33
33
34
30
33
36
30
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
30
34
26
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
34
28
30
38
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
27
27
27
27
22.5
27
27
27
30
24
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
22.5
22.5
22.5
26
19
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
21
21
21
21
22
15
21
21
21
21
21
24
18
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
15
15
15
15
15
19
11
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
22
22
22
22
14
18
24
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
The bold values show the differences between the simulation conditions.
15
15
15
15
10
7.5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
18
12
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
11
4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4
8
14
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12.5
7.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vibration
amplitude
(mm)
14
14
14
14
2
2
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
7
14
28
14
14
14
14
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Vibration
frequency (Hz)
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
15
15
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
8.33
16.67
33.33
No vibration
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
5
10
15
20
25
No vibration
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
5
10
15
20
25
No vibration
Simulation
time (s)
13
20
13
20
2.5
2.5
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Screen
efciency
(%)
Top
deck
Bottom
deck
67.11
70.04
67.88
69.92
68.56
76.99
68.61
68.97
70.25
68.48
70.10
67.99
70.54
67.52
70.50
67.99
70.73
81.75
68.61
50.83
84.84
68.61
46.13
89.80
78.36
76.35
81.80
76.03
79.54
79.43
76.66
79.22
77.49
78.11
78.04
75.55
75.87
78.36
79.90
80.48
69.89
74.80
78.36
80.57
82.06
64.96
68.79
76.65
74.30
67.97
76.71
74.29
65.64
66.40
68.60
73.07
65.80
66.08
68.79
71.98
72.11
61.40
65.72
68.79
69.91
71.00
57.06
70.81
70.74
74.89
74.38
71.35
71.06
71.90
70.69
72.29
70.15
73.04
69.87
74.05
70.09
73.88
92.19
71.35
47.18
95.35
71.35
47.42
97.89
Remarks
Case 1, Feed 1 (default)

Case 2, Feed 1
Case 3, Feed 2
Case 4, Feed 2
Default
Default
Default
Default
Default
Default
Default
Default
Default
Default
Default
41
Table 4
Calculation of mass (%) of materials on the overscreen, middle, and underscreen conveyors as well as mass (%) of under process materials for the industrial double-deck banana screen.
Simulation
number
Over screen
conveyor
number
OSC
mass
(kg)
Over screen
conveyor
mass (%)
Middle
conveyor
number
MC
mass
(kg)
Middle
conveyor
mass (%)
Under screen
conveyor
number
USC
mass
(kg)
Under screen
conveyor
mass (%)
Total
number
Total
mass
(kg)
Total/input
number
(%)
Total/input
mass (%)
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17,014
29,710
18,942
32,635
16,955
17,749
16,125
17,865
15,754
18,122
15,909
18,016
15,966
17,851
15,774
5861
16,955
51,681
5775
16,955
52,568
3241
926.70
1850.7
1030.1
1849.2
1021.7
1050.6
1028.0
1057.3
996.18
1055.6
1016.0
1048.4
1016.1
1061.96
1013.8
766.57
1021.7
1488.4
735.96
1021.7
1527.7
601.73
38.31
41.32
40.69
41.30
40.39
41.23
40.51
41.53
39.42
41.56
40.08
41.21
40.10
41.51
40.08
31.52
40.39
56.36
31.92
40.39
58.04
28.57
38,280
67,028
41,264
72,491
38,062
38,695
37,189
38,630
37,073
39,257
36,372
40,024
35,535
39,792
35,687
15,992
38,062
60,091
11,774
38,062
57,844
8087
750.63
1359.6
716.45
1287.2
762.60
764.82
749.15
751.48
767.83
755.95
754.07
769.56
749.69
767.07
748.97
650.39
762.60
747.12
553.71
762.60
689.57
468.60
31.03
30.36
28.30
28.75
30.15
30.01
29.52
29.52
30.38
29.76
29.75
30.25
29.58
29.99
29.61
26.75
30.15
28.29
24.01
30.15
26.20
22.25
123,286
210,562
161,150
274,531
124,155
122,381
125,846
122,683
126,403
121,756
126,671
121,433
127,424
122,117
127,009
156,377
124,155
69,721
156,151
124,155
71,015
156,033
741.61
1268.4
785.19
1341.3
745.39
732.72
760.74
737.17
763.21
728.68
764.62
725.87
768.32
729.14
766.56
1014.7
745.39
405.44
1016.2
745.39
414.72
1035.9
30.66
28.32
31.01
29.96
29.47
28.75
29.98
28.95
30.20
28.68
30.17
28.53
30.32
28.50
30.31
41.73
29.47
15.35
44.07
29.47
15.76
49.18
178,580
307,300
221,356
379,657
179,172
178,825
179,160
179,178
179,230
179,135
178,952
179,473
178,925
179,760
178,470
178,230
179,172
181,493
173,700
179,172
181,427
167,361
2418.94
4478.63
2531.72
4477.78
2529.67
2548.16
2537.88
2545.93
2527.22
2540.23
2534.65
2543.82
2534.09
2558.17
2529.35
2431.62
2529.67
2640.99
2305.89
2529.67
2631.96
2106.18
74.96
83.85
75.48
84.15
75.21
75.07
75.21
75.21
75.24
75.20
75.12
75.34
75.11
75.46
74.92
74.82
75.21
76.19
72.91
75.21
76.16
70.25
66.99
80.63
70.11
80.61
70.05
70.56
70.28
70.50
69.98
70.34
70.19
70.44
70.17
70.84
70.04
67.34
70.05
73.13
63.85
70.05
72.88
58.32
The bold values are used for calculation of screen efciency.
vibration mode which has decreased by about 13.40% than the default.
In summary, considering the above, it should be expected that in the
laboratory screens like the industrial screens whatever the amount of
screen vibration amplitude decreases, separation efciency and quality
increase. But, in the laboratory screens because the operation is in
batches and particles all at once enter the screen, the screen vibration
amplitude decrease causes particle velocity reduction and as a result
the increase of the occurrence probability of the particle accumulation
phenomenon. Therefore, laboratory screen efciency in the absence of
vibration (in the no vibration condition) is lower than that in other conditions. On the other hand, by increasing vibration amplitudes in simulations 39 and 40 to 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm, screen separation efciencies
than the default have increased by about 1.54% and 2.12% respectively.
Again the obtained result is contrary to that of the industrial screen.
The reason for this is that in the laboratory screen the vibration amplitude increase does not cause the increase of the amount of materials
being processed. On the other hand, by increasing vibration amplitude
it is also expected that separation quality and as a result laboratory
screen efciency decrease. But, the factor which causes the efciency
increase of the laboratory ve-panel screen is the decrease of the possibility of particle accumulation because when increasing vibration
amplitude, particle velocity on the panels increases and as a result the
occurrence probability of the particle accumulation phenomenon
becomes less and this phenomenon occurs later. Thus, particles smaller
than the screen aperture nd more opportunity to pass through the
screen aperture and as a result screen efciency increases.
Fig. 5c demonstrates the effect of vibration frequency on efciency of
the laboratory ve-panelsingle-deck screen. As it can be seen, in the
Table 5
Calculation of scaled recovery of the industrial double-deck banana screen.
Simulation
number
Total/input
mass (%)
Top deck screen

efciency (%)
Bottom deck screen

efciency (%)
Top deck screening

recovery (%)
Bottom deck
screening recovery
(%)
Scaled
total/input
mass
Top deck scaled

recovery (%)
Bottom deck scaled

recovery (%)
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
66.99
80.63
70.11
80.61
70.05
70.56
70.28
70.50
69.98
70.34
70.19
70.44
70.17
70.84
70.04
67.34
70.05
73.13
63.85
70.05
72.88
58.32
67.11
70.04
67.88
69.92
68.61
68.97
70.25
68.48
70.1
67.99
70.54
67.52
70.5
67.99
70.73
81.75
68.61
50.83
84.84
68.61
46.13
89.8
70.81
70.74
74.89
74.38
71.35
71.06
71.9
70.69
72.29
70.15
73.04
69.87
74.05
70.09
73.88
92.19
71.35
47.18
95.35
71.35
47.42
97.89
44.95
56.47
47.59
56.36
48.06
48.67
49.37
48.28
49.06
47.83
49.51
47.56
49.47
48.16
49.54
55.05
48.06
37.17
54.17
48.06
33.62
52.38
47.43
57.03
52.50
59.96
49.98
50.14
50.53
49.84
50.59
49.35
51.27
49.22
51.96
49.65
51.75
62.08
49.98
34.50
60.89
49.98
34.56
57.09
0.956226638
1.150953709
1.000808493
1.150734773
1
1.007309069
1.003245184
1.006427122
0.999033141
1.004173146
1.001968842
1.005593442
1.001748216
1.011265342
0.999871411
0.961239278
1
1.044005815
0.911536966
1
1.040435249
0.832591276
64.17
80.61
67.93
80.46
68.61
69.47
70.48
68.92
70.03
68.27
70.68
67.90
70.62
68.76
70.72
78.58
68.61
53.07
77.33
68.61
48.00
74.77
67.71
81.42
74.95
85.59
71.35
71.58
72.13
71.14
72.22
70.44
73.18
70.26
74.18
70.88
73.87
88.62
71.35
49.26
86.92
71.35
49.34
81.50
The bold values are used for drawing graphs in Fig. 4.
42
Table 6
Calculation of overscreen and underscreen mass (%) for the laboratory 3-panel and 5-panel single-deck banana screens.
Simulation
number
Over screen
number
Os mass (kg)
Over screen
mass (%)
Under screen
number
Us mass (kg)
Under screen
mass (%)
Total
number
Total mass
(kg)
Total/input
number (%)
Total/input
mass (%)
5
6
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
15,125
9637
8692
10,099
7209
9957
8379
8500
10,543
8613
8771
9036
8827
10,671
10,544
8692
8912
8956
13,536
11,043
8692
8684
8482
16,027
15,274
9226
11,028
16,067
10,322
11,015
17,724
16,403
15,246
12,011
15,973
15,807
15,274
13,402
13,194
18,765
16,321
15,274
14,839
14,406
21,209
0.009281659
0.008708746
0.008612926
0.008754013
0.008370629
0.008776809
0.008529465
0.008537476
0.008731995
0.008551914
0.008673937
0.00863034
0.008635434
0.008809852
0.008788058
0.008612926
0.008504401
0.008463508
0.009208589
0.008862748
0.008612926
0.008457526
0.008352099
0.009554856
0.009285659
0.008732762
0.008898183
0.009343123
0.00872839
0.008898745
0.009507409
0.009453612
0.009299076
0.008984464
0.009496031
0.00947619
0.009285659
0.009061059
0.009051824
0.009805737
0.009501638
0.009285659
0.009207239
0.009129978
0.010110304
65.82
61.66
60.98
61.98
59.27
62.14
60.39
60.45
61.83
60.55
61.41
61.11
61.14
62.38
62.22
60.98
60.21
59.92
65.20
62.75
60.98
59.88
59.14
67.65
65.75
61.83
63.00
66.15
61.80
63.01
67.32
66.93
65.84
63.61
67.24
67.10
65.75
64.16
64.09
69.43
67.28
65.75
65.19
64.64
71.58
55,381
60,869
61,815
60,409
63,298
60,550
62,128
62,007
59,963
61,894
61,736
61,471
61,680
59,833
59,964
61,815
61,596
61,551
56,972
59,461
61,815
61,824
62,021
54,481
55,234
61,282
59,477
54,439
60,186
59,492
52,784
54,105
55,259
58,496
54,533
54,698
55,234
57,102
57,311
51,743
54,186
55,234
55,669
56,101
49,298
0.004820023
0.005414707
0.005510595
0.005369574
0.0057528
0.005346712
0.005594055
0.005586044
0.005391459
0.005571606
0.005449583
0.00549318
0.005488086
0.005313468
0.005335529
0.005510595
0.005619186
0.005660012
0.004914998
0.005260572
0.005510595
0.005666061
0.005770219
0.004568731
0.004837928
0.005390825
0.005225203
0.00478033
0.005395197
0.005224775
0.004616178
0.004669975
0.004824311
0.005139056
0.004627422
0.004647197
0.004837928
0.00506226
0.005071563
0.00431785
0.004621883
0.004837928
0.004916349
0.004993542
0.004013216
34.18
38.34
39.02
38.02
40.73
37.86
39.61
39.55
38.17
39.45
38.59
38.89
38.86
37.62
37.78
39.02
39.79
40.08
34.80
37.25
39.02
40.12
40.86
32.35
34.25
38.17
37.00
33.85
38.20
36.99
32.68
33.07
34.16
36.39
32.76
32.90
34.25
35.84
35.91
30.57
32.72
34.25
34.81
35.36
28.42
70,506
70,506
70,507
70,508
70,507
70,507
70,507
70,507
70,506
70,507
70,507
70,507
70,507
70,504
70,508
70,507
70,508
70,507
70,508
70,504
70,507
70,508
70,503
70,508
70,508
70,508
70,505
70,506
70,508
70,507
70,508
70,508
70,505
70,507
70,506
70,505
70,508
70,504
70,505
70,508
70,507
70,508
70,508
70,507
70,507
0.014101683
0.014123454
0.01412352
0.014123587
0.014123429
0.01412352
0.01412352
0.01412352
0.014123454
0.01412352
0.01412352
0.01412352
0.01412352
0.01412332
0.014123587
0.01412352
0.014123587
0.01412352
0.014123587
0.01412332
0.01412352
0.014123587
0.014122318
0.014123587
0.014123587
0.014123587
0.014123387
0.014123454
0.014123587
0.01412352
0.014123587
0.014123587
0.014123387
0.01412352
0.014123454
0.014123387
0.014123587
0.01412332
0.014123387
0.014123587
0.01412352
0.014123587
0.014123587
0.01412352
0.01412352
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
The bold values are used for calculation of screen efciency.
default mode for 15 Hz vibration frequency (simulation 43) screen

efciency is equal to 78.36%. By decreasing vibration frequency to 5 Hz
in simulation 41, screen separation efciency has increased by about
8.47% which is very impressive when compared with the corresponding
value in the vibration amplitude decrease case. Also, by decreasing
vibration frequency to 10 Hz in simulation 42, screen separation efciency has decreased by about 3.56% which is roughly the same as the
corresponding value in the vibration amplitude decrease case. However,
the obtained result is contrary to that of the industrial screen. Generally,
the vibration frequency decrease is of similar effect with the vibration
amplitude decrease on efciency of the laboratory ve-panel singledeck screen and both decrease screen efciency. But, the vibration
frequency decrease is of greater negative effect on laboratory screen
efciency. On the other hand, by increasing the vibration frequency to
20 Hz in simulation 44, screen separation efciency has increased by
about 2.21% which is roughly the same as the corresponding value in
the vibration amplitude increase case. Also, by increasing vibration
frequency to 25 Hz in simulation 45, separation efciency has increased
by about 3.70% which is considerable if compared with the corresponding value in the vibration amplitude increase case. Again the obtained
result is contrary to that of the industrial screen. Generally, the vibration
frequency increase is of similar effect with the vibration amplitude
increase on efciency of the laboratory screen and both increase it, but
the vibration frequency increase is of the greater positive effect on

laboratory screen efciency. In general, changing vibration frequency
is of greater effect than changing vibration amplitude on laboratory
screen efciency.
Fig. 5(d) demonstrates the effect of all design parameters on separation efciency. As it can be seen, the effect of changing incline angle of
each panel and also the effect of vibration amplitude on separation
efciency of the laboratory ve-panel screen is dramatic. But, the effect
of changing vibration frequency compared to their effects is much more
dramatic.
4.3. Laboratory three-panel single-deck screen
Fig. 6 demonstrates the effect of design parameters on efciency
of the laboratory three-panelsingle-deck screen. In this gure, the simulation number parameter is the number of simulations at Table 3.
Fig. 6(a) demonstrates the effect of incline angle of each panel on
efciency. As it can be seen, the amount of screen efciency in the
default mode (simulation 47) is equal to 68.79% which has decreased
about 9.57% in compare with the simulation 25 for the default mode
of the ve-panel screen. The obtained result indicates that in the vepanel screen on the one hand due to the greater number of panels and
on the other hand due to smaller incline angle and also less difference
43
Fig. 4. Effect of operational and design parameters on screening recovery of the industrial double-deck banana screen: (a) effect of simulation time and feed particle size distribution;
(b) effect of incline angle of each panel; (c) effect of vibration amplitude; (d) effect of vibration frequency; (e) effect of all design parameters.
Fig. 5. Effect of design parameters on separation efciency of the laboratory 5-panel screen: (a) effect of incline angle of each panel; (b) effect of vibration amplitude; (c) effect of vibration
frequency; (d) effect of all design parameters.
44
Fig. 6. Effect of design parameters on separation efciency of the laboratory 5-panel screen: (a) effect of incline angle of each panel; (b) effect of vibration amplitude; (c) effect of vibration
frequency; (d) effect of all design parameters.
of incline angle of panels than the three-panel screen, particle velocity is

less. As a result, ne particles nd more opportunity to pass through the
screen apertures, therefore, separation quality and subsequently screen
efciency increases. By comparing the simulations 50, 53, and 56 where
the panel incline has been increased as well as by comparing the simulations 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, and 55 where the panel incline has been
decreased, it can be concluded that generally the increase of incline of
each panel causes a decreased screen efciency and vice versa. But, in
panels where the particle accumulation phenomenon occurs (panel
3) because ne particles do not nd enough opportunity to pass
through the screen aperture, the panel incline increase causes the particle accumulation decrease and as a result the screen efciency increases
(the obtained results are similar to those of the ve-panel screen).
According to Fig. 6(a), the incline increase of the second panel is of
greatest negative effect on screen efciency while the incline increase
of the third panel is of greatest positive effect on it (the obtained results
are similar to those of the ve-panel screen). Also, the incline decreases
of the rst and second panels respectively by 6 and 8 is of greatest positive effect on screen efciency while the incline decrease of the third
panel is of greatest negative effect on it (here, the obtained results are
also similar to those of ve-panel screen). Generally, it can be concluded
that there is an inverse relationship between screen efciency and
changing incline angle of each panel in the normal mode and a direct
relationship between them in the particle accumulation mode. In general, the three-panel and ve-panel screens demonstrate a similar behavior against changing panel incline and the effect of incline angle of each
of the rst to third panels on efciency of the three-panel and ve-panel
screens is similar each other. Generally, it can be said that (like the vepanel screen) the increase or decrease of the incline of each panel is of a
signicant effect on screen efciency (than the industrial screen) and
the difference between the highest and lowest amount of screen
efciency is equal to 11.07% which in comparison with the corresponding values for the industrial screen as well as the laboratory ve-panel
screen is very impressive.
Fig. 6b demonstrates the effect of vibration amplitude on efciency.
As it can be seen, in the default mode i.e., 2 mm vibration amplitude
(simulation 59), screen efciency is equal to 68.79%. By decreasing
vibration amplitudes in simulations 57 and 58 to 1 mm and 1.5 mm,

screen separation efciencies have decreased by about 2.99% and
2.71%, respectively. The obtained results are totally similar to those of
the laboratory ve-panel screen and unlike those of the industrial
screen. In simulation 67, screen separation efciency in the no vibration
mode has decreased by about 11.73% (the obtained result is totally
similar to that of the laboratory ve-panel screen). On the other hand,
by increasing vibration amplitudes in simulations 60 and 61 to
2.5 mm and 3.0 mm, separation efciencies have increased by about
2.19% and 3.32%, respectively. Here, the obtained result is also the
same as that of the laboratory ve-panel screen, but unlike that of the
industrial screen. In general, the behavior of the laboratory threepanel and ve-panel screens against changing vibration amplitude is
similar. Therefore, it can be concluded that the effect of changing vibration amplitude on efciency of the laboratory screen is independent of
the number of panels.
Fig. 6c demonstrates the effect of vibration frequency. As it can be
seen, in the default mode i.e., 15 Hz vibration frequency (simulation
64), screen efciency is equal to 68.79%. By decreasing vibration
frequency in simulation 62 to 5 Hz, screen separation efciency has
decreased by about 7.39% (the obtained result is totally similar to that
of the laboratory ve-panel screen). However, this amount of the screen
efciency decrease from the corresponding value in the vibration amplitude decrease case in simulation 57 (2.99%) is very impressive. Also, by
decreasing the vibration frequency to 10 Hz in simulation 63, screen
separation efciency has increased by about 3.07% (the obtained result
is similar to that of the laboratory ve-panel screen). Moreover, the
magnitude of the screen efciency decrease is roughly similar to the
corresponding value in the vibration amplitude decrease case in simulation 58 (2.71%). But, the obtained results are unlike those of the industrial screen. In simulation 67, screen separation efciency in the no
vibration case has decreased by about 11.73% (the obtained result is
similar to that of the laboratory ve-panel screen). Generally, the vibration frequency decrease is of a similar effect with the vibration amplitude decrease on efciency of the laboratory three-panel screen and
both decrease it, but the vibration frequency decrease is of greater negative effect on it. On the other hand, by increasing vibration frequencies
to 20 Hz and 25 Hz in simulations 65 and 66, screen separation efciencies have increased by about 1.12% and 2.21%, respectively. These
amounts of the screen efciency increase are similar to the corresponding amounts in the vibration amplitude increase case in simulations 60
and 61. Again, the obtained results are similar to those of the laboratory
ve-panel screen and contrary to those of the industrial screen. Generally, the vibration frequency increase is of a similar effect with the vibration amplitude increase on efciency of the laboratory three-panel
screen and both increase it, but the vibration amplitude increase is of
greater positive effect on it. The obtained result is unlike that of the
laboratory ve-panel screen. But in general, it can be said that changing
vibration frequency is of greater effect than vibration amplitude on
efciency of the laboratory three-panel screen (like the laboratory
ve-panel screen). In general, the behavior of the laboratory threepanel and ve-panel screens against changing vibration frequency is
similar as well. Therefore, it can be concluded that the effect of changing
vibration frequency also on laboratory screen efciency is independent
of the number of panels.
Fig. 6d demonstrates the effect of all design parameters on separation efciency of the laboratory three-panel single-deck screen. As it
45
can be seen, their effect on screen separation efciency is almost the

same. But, the incline decrease of the rst and second panels in simulations 48 and 51 is of greatest positive effect on separation efciency and
the vibration frequency decrease in simulation 62 is of greatest negative
effect.
The simulation results in this work demonstrate that the decreases
of vibration frequency and amplitude will result in a decreased efciency for laboratory screens, this is however different from the conclusions
in the literature [4]. The reason for this is that in the previous studies in
the literature [4,27], particles were fed continuously which is not true
for a batch system! But when feeding particles all at once, the particle
accumulation phenomenon occurs sooner. Thus, here the simulation
results are not the same as in previous studies.
4.4. Validation
Since the DEM approach offers such strong advantages in modeling
and understanding screening process, it is essential that both DEM
simulations and the DEM solver are validated properly and adequately.
In general a comprehensive validation of DEM solver and simulations
Fig. 7. Comparison between the partition numbers of simulations 40, 45, 56, 60, and 65 and the results of Dong's simulations [4]: (a) the laboratory 5-panel screen with vibration amplitude
of 3 mm; (b) the laboratory 5-panel screen with vibration frequency of 25 Hz; (c) the laboratory 3-panel screen with the panel incline of 34, 22, and 14; (d) the laboratory 3-panel screen
with vibration amplitude of 2.5 mm; (e) the laboratory 3-panel screen with vibration frequency of 20 Hz.
46
is not feasible and in most cases it can be done only partially. In order to
ensure the integrity of the application of the DEM techniques to comminution technology and other possible areas the quality of validation
should be improved and directed at the outputs being used in the
modeling [46]. In this article, in order to validate the simulation results,
a parameter named partition number is dened as follows. The partition number of different sized particles in the overow is dened as
the ratio between the number of residue particles in the overow to
that of fed particles [4]. To validate the obtained results and also the
LIGGGHTS DEM solver, partition numbers of simulations conducted by
this software for the laboratory three-panel and ve-panel screens are
compared with partition numbers of simulations done under the similar
conditions by Dong et al. [4](Fig. 7). It is noteworthy to mention that
here in the partition number simulations particles are fed continuously.
The high agreement between the results indicates their validity and also
the validity of the DEM solver.
5. Conclusion
Our simulation studies indicate that DEM is now approaching the
point where it can be used effectively as a tool for better understanding
of banana screen operation and also their design and optimization.
Unlike previous DEM-based researches related to banana screens, the
authors used DEM simulation results to express banana screen performance in terms of screen separation efciency for laboratory screens
and based on screening recovery for the industrial screen which is
recognized and comprehensible quantities for mineral processing engineers. Also in this article, for the rst time the effect of screen design
parameters on screening recovery of a full-industrial scale doubledeck banana screen and on separation efciency of laboratory scale
three-panel and ve-panel single-deck banana screens was simultaneously investigated and compared. Additionally, the effect of operational parameters including increasing simulation time and changing
feed particle size distribution on screening recovery of the industrial
double-deck banana screen were investigated.
In this article, in order to investigate the validity of the simulation
results, a parameter named partition number was used. Comparing
the partition numbers of the simulations conducted by LIGGGHTS software for laboratory three-panel and ve-panel banana screens with the
partition numbers of the conducted simulations under similar conditions by Dong et al. [4] demonstrated that there is very good agreement
between them, indicating the validity of the simulation results and the
DEM solver.
The simulation results demonstrated that industrial and laboratory
banana screens show a totally different behavior against changing
design parameters.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the community of CFDEM project
(2014) for giving important input and contributions to the development
of this open source project.
References
[1] G.W. Delaney, P.W. Cleary, M. Hilden, R.D. Morrison, Testing the validity of the
spherical DEM model in simulating real granular screening processes, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 68 (2012) 215226.
[2] J. Li, C. Webb, S.S. Pandiella, G.M. Campbell, A numerical simulation of separation of
crop seeds by screeningeffect of particle bed depth, Trans. IChemE 80 (2002)
109117.
[3] J. Li, C. Webb, S.S. Pandiella, G.M. Campbell, Discrete particle motion on sievesa
numerical study using the DEM simulation, Powder Technol. 133 (2003)
190202.
[4] K.J. Dong, A.B. Yu, I. Brake, DEM simulation of particle ow on a multi-deck banana
screen, Miner. Eng. 22 (2009) 910920.
[5] G.K.N.S. Subasinghe, W. Schaap, E.G. Kelly, Modelling the screening process: a probabilistic approach, Powder Technol. 59 (1989) 3744.
[6] N. Standish, The kinetics of batch sieving, Powder Technol. 41 (1985) 5767.
[7] J.W. Fernandez, P.W. Cleary, M.D. Sinnott, R.D. Morrison, Using SPHone-way coupled
to DEM to model wet industrial banana screens, Miner. Eng. 24 (2011) 741753.
[8] P.W. Cleary, M.D. Sinnott, R.D. Morrison, Separation performance of double deck
banana screens part 1: ow and separation for different accelerations, Miner.
Eng. 22 (2009) 12181229.
[9] P.W. Cleary, Large scale industrial DEM modeling, Eng. Comput. 21 (2004) 169204.
[10] P.W. Cleary, M.D. Sinnott, R.D. Morrison, DEM prediction of particle ows in grinding processes, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 58 (2008) 319353.
[11] P.W. Cleary, Ball motion, axial segregation and power consumption in a full scale
two chamber cement mill, Miner. Eng. 22 (2009) 809820.
[12] J. Kozicki, F.V. Donz, YADE-OPEN DEM: an open-source software using a discrete element method to simulate granular material, Eng. Comput. 26 (2009)
786805.
[13] J. Chen, B. Huang, F. Chen, X. Shu, Application of discrete element method to
Superpave gyratory compaction, Road Mater. Pavement 13 (2012) 480500.
[14] L. Zhang, S.F. Quigley, A.H.C. Chan, A fast scalable implementation of the twodimensional triangular Discrete Element Method on a GPU platform, Adv. Eng.
Softw. 6061 (2013) 7080.
[15] H. Kruggel-Emden, M. Sturm, S. Wirtz, V. Scherer, Selection of an appropriate time
integration scheme for the discrete element method (DEM), Comput. Chem. Eng.
32 (2008) 22632279.
[16] B. Nassauer, T. Liedke, M. Kuna, Polyhedral particles for the discrete element method
Geometry representation, contact detection and particle generation, Granul. Matter
15 (2013) 8593.
[17] A.O. Raji, J.F. Favier, Model for the deformation in agricultural and food particulate
materials under bulk compressive loading using discrete element method. I: theory,
model development and validation, J. Food Eng. 64 (2004) 359371.
[18] B. Nassauer, M. Kuna, Contact forces of polyhedral particles in discrete element
method, Granul. Matter 15 (2013) 349355.
[19] R. Baleviius, A. Diugys, R. Kaianauskas, A. Maknickas, K. Vislaviius, Investigation
of performance of programming approaches and languages used for numerical
simulation of granular material by the discrete element method, Comput. Phys.
Commun. 175 (2006) 404415.
[20] G.W. Delaney, P.W. Cleary, R.D. Morrison, S. Cummins, B. Loveday, Predicting breakage and the evolution of rock size and shape distributions in Ag and SAG mills using
DEM, Miner. Eng. 5051 (2013) 132139.
[21] J.M. Ting, M. Khwaja, L.R. Meachum, J.D. Rowell, An ellipse-based discrete element
model for granular materials, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 17 (1993)
603623.
[22] I. Shmulevich, State of the art modeling of soiltillage interaction using discrete
element method, Soil Tillage Res. 111 (2010) 4153.
[23] P.W. Cleary, M.L. Sawley, DEM modelling of industrial granular ows: 3D case studies and the effect of particle shape on hopper discharge, Appl. Math. Model. 26
(2002) 89111.
[24] P.W. Cleary, Industrial particle ow modelling using discrete element method, Eng.
Comput. 26 (2009) 698743.
[25] P.W. Cleary, M.D. Sinnott, Assessing mixing characteristics of particle-mixing and
granulation devices, Particuology 6 (2008) 419444.
[26] P.W. Cleary, DEM prediction of industrial and geophysical particle ows,
Particuology 8 (2010) 106118.
[27] K.J. Dong, A.B. Yu, Numerical simulation of the particle ow and sieving behaviour
on sieve bend/low head screen combination, Miner. Eng. 31 (2012) 29.
[28] P.W. Cleary, M.D. Sinnott, R.D. Morrison, Separation performance of double deck
banana screens part 2: quantitative predictions, Miner. Eng. 22 (2009)
12301244.
[29] C. Goniva, C. Kloss, N.G. Deen, J.A.M. Kuipers, S. Pirker, Inuence of rolling friction on
single spout uidized bed simulation, Particuology 10 (2012) 582591.
[30] B. FrantzDale, S.J. Plimpton, M.S. Shephard, Software components for parallel
multiscale simulation: an example with LAMMPS, Eng. Comput. 26 (2010) 205211.
[31] C. Kloss, C. Goniva, LIGGGHTSOpen Source Discrete Element Simulations of
Granular Materials Based on LAMMPS, 2, TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials
Society), 2011. 781788
[32] S.J. Plimpton, J.D. Gale, Developing community codes for materials modeling, Curr.
Opinion Solid State Mater. Sci. 17 (2013) 271276
[33] C. Thornton, S.J. Cummins, P.W. Cleary, An investigation of the comparative behaviour of alternative contact force models during elastic collisions, Powder Technol.
210 (2011) 189197
[34] LIGGGHTS, LAMMPS Improved for General Granular and Granular Heat Transfer
SimulationsRetrieved from http://www.cfdem.com2014
[35] C. Goniva, C. Kloss, A. Hager, S. Pirker, An open source CFDDEM perspective,
Proceedings of OpenFOAM Workshop Gothenburg, Sweden, 2010
[36] S.J. Plimpton, Fast Parallel Algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics, J.
Comput. Phys. 117 (1995) 119
[37] LAMMPS, LAMMPS User Manual, Sandia National Laboratories, USA, 2014. (Retrieved from http://lammps.sandia.gov/doc/Manual.html)
[38] GPL, GNU General Public LicenseRetrieved from http://www.gnu.org/licences/gpl.
html2014
[39] V. Mechtcherine, A. Gram, K. Krenzer, J.-H. Schwabe, S. Shyshko, N. Roussel,
Simulation of fresh concrete ow using Discrete Element Method (DEM): theory
and applications, Mater. Struct., RILEM Publications, 2013.http://dx.doi.org/10.
1617/s11527-013-0084-7
[40] P.W. Cleary, R.D. Morrison, Particle methods for modelling in mineral processing,
Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 23 (2009) 137146
[41] S. Just, G. Toschkoff, A. Funke, D. Djuric, G. Scharrer, J. Khinast, K. Knop, P.
Kleinebudde, Experimental analysis of tablet properties for discrete element modeling of an active coating process, AAPS PharmSciTech 14 (2013) 402411.

[42] R. Chand, M.A. Khaskheli, A. Qadir, B. Ge, Q. Shi, Discrete particle simulation of radial
segregation in horizontally rotating drum: effects of drum-length and nonrotatingend-plates, Physica A 391 (2012) 45904596.
[43] W. McBride, P.W. Cleary, An investigation and optimization of the OLDS
elevator using Discrete Element Modeling, Powder Technol. 193 (2009)
216234.
[44] C. Kloss, C. Goniva, G. Aichinger, S. Pirker, Comprehensive DEMDPMCFD
simulationsmodel synthesis, experimental validation and scalability,
47
Seventh International Conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, 2009.
[45] M. Varga, C. Goniva, K. Adam, E. Badisch, Combined experimental and numerical
approach for wear prediction in feed pipes, Tribol. Int. 65 (2013) 200206.
[46] N.S. Weerasekara, M.S. Powell, P.W. Cleary, L.M. Tavares, M. Evertsson, R.D.
Morrison, J. Quist, R.M. Carvalho, The contribution of DEM to the science of comminution, Powder Technol. 248 (2013) 324.

Jahan I 2015

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Jahan I 2015

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Investigation of screening performance of banana screens using

Laboratory banana screens are specially designed vibrating screens

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

Finally, Delaney et al. [1] have made detailed comparison of predicted

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

laboratory three-panel and ve-panel banana screens and the partition

force between two granular particles, when the distance r between

2.1. The DEM solver LIGGGHTS

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

The following equations can be dened for two particles in contact

trajectory, based on the force and torque balances [29,35,44,45]. For

where v is the vector of a particle velocity, F is the contact force acting

where Y is the Young's modulus, G is the shear modulus, is the Poisson

In this work, laboratory scale single-deck banana screens with three

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

must be treated as a dynamic process. The concept of steady state is

4. Results and discussion

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

Number of particles at 20 s (Feed 1)

Number of particles at 13 s (Feed 2)

Number of particles at 20 s (Feed 2)

time on screening recovery. As it can be seen, by increasing simulation

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

both top and bottom screens with 7 mm vibration amplitude are at

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

bottom screens are 68.61% and 71.35%, respectively. By decreasing the

achieved in the simulations, it can be said that in simulations where

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

Industrial, double deck

Incline angle of each panel ()

Case 1, Feed 1 (default)

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

The bold values are used for calculation of screen efciency.

Top deck screen

Bottom deck screen

Top deck screening

Top deck scaled

Bottom deck scaled

The bold values are used for drawing graphs in Fig. 4.

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

The bold values are used for calculation of screen efciency.

default mode for 15 Hz vibration frequency (simulation 43) screen

the vibration frequency increase is of the greater positive effect on

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

of incline angle of panels than the three-panel screen, particle velocity is

vibration amplitudes in simulations 57 and 58 to 1 mm and 1.5 mm,

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

can be seen, their effect on screen separation efciency is almost the

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

M. Jahani et al. / Powder Technology 283 (2015) 3247

Anda mungkin juga menyukai