4.7 Article

Comparative classification studies of red mud by using hydrocyclones

期刊

MINERALS ENGINEERING
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 124-130

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2018.11.012

关键词

Parabolic hydrocyclones; Fine clipping underflow; Separation performance; Regression model; Experimental studies

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21276145]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong province [ZR2016EEM37]
  3. Shandong Provincial Key Research and Development Program, China [2017GSF216004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposed a parabolic hydrocyclone to solve the problem of excessive fine particles in the underflow, namely, fine clipping underflow during classification of red muds. Experimental studies on separation performance differences, particularly the yield, product concentration, particle size, and stage efficiency, between hydrocyclones with parabolic and straight cones were carried out, and the influence of the apex diameter on the separation performance of the parabolic hydrocyclone was studied. Based on this result, a regression model for the content of -5 mu m particles in the underflow was established, and the accuracy of the regression model was validated. The experimental results show that the content of the -5 mu m particles in the underflow of the hydrocyclone with a parabolic cone was reduced by 9.7% as compared to that of the hydrocyclone with the straight cone, thereby indicating that the parabolic cone effectively decreased the number of fine particles in the underflow. According to the regression model, the optimal operating conditions of the parabolic hydrocyclone exhibited a solid concentration of 29%, an apex diameter of Phi 5 mm, and a feeding pressure of 0.08 MPa. Under these conditions, the underflow of the hydrocyclone with a parabolic cone presented a 17.1% content of -5 mu m particle, which was 15.2% lower than that in the underflow of the hydrocyclone with a straight cone.

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