4.7 Article

Numerical studies of mixing of ellipsoidal particles in a bladed mixer

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 398, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2021.117065

关键词

Discrete element method; Bladed mixer; Ellipsoids; Mixing; Friction coefficient; Blade torque

资金

  1. ARC Hub for Computational Particle Technolo (ARC)gy [IH140100035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a numerical study of the mixing of ellipsoidal particles in a bladed mixer using the discrete element method. The results show that oblate ellipsoids have poorer mixing quality and lower mixing rates compared to spheres and prolate ellipsoids. Spheres generally mix faster than ellipsoids, and ellipsoids demonstrate higher average velocity and friction forces than spheres. The study also investigates the effect of sliding friction on mixing rate, particle velocities, and blade torque, indicating a significant relationship between particle shape, sliding friction, and energy consumption.
This paper presents a numerical study of mixing of ellipsoidal particles in a bladed mixer by means of the discrete element method. A wide range of aspect ratios of ellipsoids and sliding friction coefficients are considered. The results show that oblate ellipsoids have worse mixing quality and a lower mixing rate compared with spheres and prolate ellipsoids. Generally, spheres mix faster than ellipsoids, and ellipsoids exhibit higher average velocity and friction forces than spheres. With sliding friction increasing, the curves of mixing rate and particle velocities with aspect ratio shift upward, but do not change further when the sliding friction coefficient is larger than 0.5. The blade torque under different conditions is also examined, showing that increasing sliding friction increases the blade torque, but the torque curve with aspect ratio changes from M-shaped to V-shaped, which indicates a significant effect of particle shape and sliding friction on energy consumption.(c) 2021 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