REC «Mekhanobr-tekhnika» (Russia):

Vaisberg L. A., Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Doctor of Engineering Sciences, Professor, Company Scientific Advisor, gornyi@mtspb.com
Ivanov K. S., Ph. D. in Engineering Sciences, Senior Researcher, gornyi@mtspb.com

National Mineral Resources University (Mining University) (Russia):

Baldaeva T. M., Postgraduate, baldaeva.t.m@gmail.com

Perm State University (Russia):
Otroshchenko A. A., Head of Laboratory, alfa.distress@gmail.com

Correct calculation and choice of controlled parameters of screening and screen design provides for power saving in processing of all types of crude ores, and, in addition to that, in processing of industrial minerals, good merchantable quality of crushing-and-screening plants’ endproducts is ensured. In ore-dressing and processing industry, inclined screens with orbital vibrations and slightly inclined screens with deck rectilinear vibrations are most commonly applied. Though tens of thousands of both types of screens are in operation at ore-dressing and processing industrial facilities, as up to the present moment, a sufficient attention was not given to sequential comparative estimate of material separation efficiency. This paper considers a vibrating screen box motion type effect upon screening efficiency. A series of direct experiments was performed on two types of ores, using screens of pilot-scale unit size. Fundamental physical characteristics of the tested ores were studied. The obtained experimental data are subjected to comparison, screening process theoretical model is presented, explaining the differences in screening process efficiency with respect to machines with different types of vibrations. It is shown, that:
— screening efficiency of screens with rectilinear vibrations is higher, than that of screens with orbital vibrations, obviously, owing to longer retention time of particles upon screening surface;
— with respect to the tested types of ores, screening efficiency is decreased with increase in frequency of vibration of screen box (and sieve) both on orbital screen and on double-impact screen, owing to reduction of probability of particles entry into sieving openings;
— specific power consumption of double-impact screen is higher, than that of screens with orbital vibrations, since double-impact screen performs a greater work for material transport in a horizontal plane.

The authors are indebted to N. B. Rzhankova, Yu. N. Alekseev and Professor I. D. Ustinov for their assistance in the experimental work.
The work was performed with the aid of the Grant 14.579.21.0023 from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

1. Vaisberg L. A., Rubisov D. G. Vibratsionnoye grokhocheniye sypuchikh materialov (Vibrating screening of bulk materials). St. Petersburg, Mekhanobr, 1994, 47 pp.
2. Gaudin A. M. Osnovy obogashcheniya poleznykh iskopayemykh (Principles of mineral dressing). Moscow, Metallurgizdat, 1946, 535 pp.

3. Pelevin A. E. Probability of bolting particles through the mesh and the process of segregation on a bolting machine. Izvestiya Vuzov. Gornyy Zhurnal = Transactions of Higher Education Institutes. Mining Journal, 2011, No. 1, pp. 119–129.
4. Jahani M., Farzanegan A., Noaparast M. Investigation of screening performance of banana screens using LIGGGHTS DEM solver. Powder Technology, 2015, Vol. 283, pp. 32–47.
5. Elskamp F., Kruggel-Emden H. Review and benchmarking of process models for batch screening based on discrete element simulations. Advanced Powder Technology, 2015, Vol. 26, Iss. 3, pp. 679–697.
6. Wang G., Tong X. Screening efficiency and screen length of a linear vibrating screen using DEM 3D simulation. Mining Science and Technology (China), 2011, Vol. 21, Iss. 3, pp. 451–455.
7. Ai-min L. I., Rui-ling L. V., Chu-sheng L. I. U. A virtual test of screening technology based on the AGEIA PhysX. Journal of China University of Mining and Technology, 2008, Vol. 18, Iss. 2, pp. 300–304.
8. Dyr T., Wodzinski P. Model particle velocity on a vibrating surface. Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing, 2002, No. 35, pp. 147–157.
9. Hailin D., Chusheng L., Yuemin Z., Lala Z. Influence of vibration mode on the screening process. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 2013, Vol. 23, Iss. 1, pp. 95–98.
10. Vaisberg L. A., Ivanov K. S., Melnikov A. Ye. Improvement of approaches to vibratory screening process mathematical modeling. Obogashchenie Rud = Mineral Processing, 2013, No. 2, pp. 22–26.
11. Vaisberg L. A., Ivanov K. S. A universal method of particle shape description, its effect upon sieve classification results. Obogashchenie Rud = Mineral Processing, 2014, No. 4, pp. 34–37.
12. Khalil N., Garzó V., Santos A. Hydrodynamic Burnett equations for inelastic Maxwell models of granular gases. Phys. Rev., 2014, E 89, 052201, p. 69.
13. Chen Y., Hou M., Jiang Y., Liu M. Hydrodynamics of granular gases with a two-peak distribution. Phys. Rev., 2013, E 88, 052204, p. 71.
14. Brito R., Risso D., Soto R. Hydrodynamic modes in a confined granular fluid. Phys. Rev., 2013, E 87, 022209, p. 73.