4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Quantitative comparison of image analysis methods for particle mixing in rotary drums

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 282, 期 -, 页码 32-36

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2014.08.076

关键词

Particle mixing; Image processing; Rotary drum; Concentration variance; Contact pixels

资金

  1. NSFC [61374149]
  2. Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [13JJA003]
  3. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20130161110010]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Synthetical Automation for Process Industries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optical imaging is a powerful tool for the study of particle mixing dynamics in rotary drums because it offers abundant choices of image analysis methods. However, little effort has been made to investigate the compatibility of the results obtained by those different methods, and the magnitude of deviations between them remains unclear. The present work contributes to quantitative comparison of two classic image analysis methods (Variance and Contact), with special attention to the procedures for measuring the mixing time which is an important parameter describing the mixing efficiency of drum equipments. For conditions tested in our experiment (red/white binary mixing in a drum of ID 206 mm captured by a camera with 25 fps), a relative deviation of 20%-36% was found between mixing times determined by different image processing algorithms and regression models. Compared to Variance, Contact can improve the measuring accuracy by 20% but requires 40% more computing time. An increase of the number of cells shows no significant effect on the processing speed of Variance. For regression analysis of the data, the second-order model is shown to be more reliable than the first-order model. Based on the comparative results of the present work, we would suggested that image analysis procedures for particle mixing be standardized so that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from measurements of different resources. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据