processes

Article
Numerical Simulation of a Flow Field in a Turbo Air
Classifier and Optimization of the Process Parameters
Yun Zeng 1 , Si Zhang 1 , Yang Zhou 2,3, * and Meiqiu Li 1
1 Institute for Strength and Vibration of Mechanical Structures, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434023, China;
[email protected] (Y.Z.); [email protected] (S.Z.); [email protected] (M.L.)
2 School of Mechatronic Engineering and Automation, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China
3 Shanghai Institute of Intelligent Science and Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200444, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 31 January 2020; Accepted: 14 February 2020; Published: 19 February 2020


Abstract: Due to the rapid development of powder technology around the world, powder materials
are being widely used in various fields, including metallurgy, the chemical industry, and petroleum.
The turbo air classifier, as a powder production equipment, is one of the most important mechanical
facilities in the industry today. In order to investigate the production efficiency of ultrafine powder and
improve the classification performance in a turbo air classifier, two process parameters were optimized
by analyzing the influence of the rotor cage speed and air velocity on the flow field. Numerical
simulations using the ANSYS-Fluent Software, as well as material classification experiments, were
implemented to verify the optimal process parameters. The simulation results provide many optimal
process parameters. Several sets of the optimal process parameters were selected, and the product
particle size distribution was used as the inspection index to conduct a material grading experiment.
The experimental results demonstrate that the process parameters of the turbo air classifier with better
classification efficiency for the products of barite and iron-ore powder were an 1800 rpm rotor cage
speed and 8 m/s air inlet velocity. This research study provides theoretical guidance and engineering
application value for air classifiers.

Keywords: turbo air classifier; process parameters; numerical simulation; particle trajectory; relative
classification sharpness index

1. Introduction
Currently, ultrafine powders are widely used in various fields, and the powder separation
technique has gradually occupied an important position in industry. The main production equipment
for ultrafine powders is the turbo air classifier. The classification performance of the classifier directly
affects the efficiency of powder production. Therefore, many researchers [1–7] have conducted
extensive studies on the theoretical analysis, flow field simulation, structural optimization, and other
aspects of pneumatic grading equipment, and have made progress by obtaining many valuable results
and providing the basis for the optimization of classifiers, performance enhancements, and fine
separations. The main factors affecting the classification sharpness index and performance during
the classification process are the rotor cage speed and the air inlet velocity inside the classifier [6–8].
According to the principle of classification, a material is subjected to inertial centrifugal force and air
drag force at the same time during the classification process. Some researchers analyzed the effect
of the rotor cage rotary speed on the classification sharpness index, using the Fluent software, and
obtained a reasonable parameter combination for classification. Gao, Yu, and Liu [9,10] found that
increasing the rotor cage rotary speed resulted in a finer product, but the higher speed caused the flow
field to become uneven, and increased the classification sharpness index. Through the study of the

Processes 2020, 8, 237; doi:10.3390/pr8020237 www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2020, 8, 237 2 of 21

classifier airflow velocity, Diao et al. [11] found that increasing the air inlet velocity could improve the
classification efficiency. However, the inertial centrifugal forces of small- and large-sized materials
are different. The distribution of small-diameter materials in the flow field is relatively uniform, but
large-particle-sized materials are easily moved to the outside of the flow field. This leads to a high
concentration outside the flow field and reduces the classification performance.
Based on above researches, in order to further study the classification performance, many scholars
have found that it is meaningful to conduct in-depth research on the evaluation index of classification
performance. Some scholars [12–14] pointed out that the Whiten’s efficiency curve equation needs to be
revised. Hence, the parameters in the Whiten’s equation were correlated with the operating conditions
of the air classifier as well as the material characteristics. The fish-hook phenomenon was demonstrated
in a circulating-air classifier. Based on the experimental data, a process model was developed to predict
the bypass fraction within the classifier [15]. Xing et al. [16] measured and analyzed the vortex swirling
between rotor blades, using the particle image velocimetry (PIV) technique. They found changes in
the regulation of the classification efficiency and cut-size, and optimized the operating parameters to
achieve the minimum cut-size. However, in the actual classification process, the agglomeration and
inclusion of fine particles in the coarse particles would cause a decrease of the classification sharpness
index. Some researchers [17] demonstrated secondary airflow and found that when the ratio of the
secondary airflow to the main airflow was maintained at 0.168, the classification was optimum. Based
on the narrow particle size distribution experimental system, the best rotor cage speed difference
between two turbo air classifiers was found, and the results showed that with a decreasing rotation
speed difference, the productivity of the narrow-level product decreased and the uniformity increased.
Nevertheless, many evaluation indexes of classification performance can accurately judge the grading
performance, but it is very troublesome in actual production. Therefore, it is especially important to
propose an efficient and simple evaluation index [18–22].
Due to limitations, such as the processing cost and other factors, it is difficult for enterprises and
research institutes to produce a variety of grading wheels for structural parameters. Therefore, in
the production process, one or more optimal processes are obtained through manual adjustment and
matching of various process parameters. In the above studies, scholars mainly studied the effect of a
single factor (rotation speed, airflow velocity, etc.) on the classification performance; however, research
on the influence of various factors on the classification performance is rare. Consequently, this study
applied the combination of process parameters as variables in numerical simulations and material
experiments to obtain the optimum process parameters of the KFF (‘KFF’ is a code for a vertical turbo
air classifier type) series turbine air classifier. Thus, in the production process, using the different
manually controlled process parameters, one or more optimal process parameters can be obtained.
In addition, a new evaluation index, the relative classification sharpness index, is proposed. The test
results showed that it is the same as other classification performance evaluation indicators. It can be
used to determine whether the classification status is good, simple, and easy, and has a certain guiding
effect on industrial production.

2. Details of the Calculation Methodology

2.1. Description of the Equipment

The equipment for the experiment comprised of a KFF series turbo air classifier, high-pressure
induced-draft fan, cyclone collector, pulse bag-filter, and electrical control system. The sketch of the
KFF series turbo air classifier is shown in Figure 1a. The schematic diagrams of the vertical turbo
air classifier with corresponding geometric parameters are shown in Figure 1b,c. The air supply
system consisted of induced-draft fans. The induced-draft fan is “pumping” at the end of the turbo
air classifier, providing the transport power for the particles. Firstly, the material is sent to the main
classifier by the feeding system, and effective classification of the material is achieved by adjusting the
rotor cage speed and matching it with a reasonable secondary air inlet velocity. Under the action of
Processes 2020, 8, 237 3 of 21

Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22

centrifugal force, the coarse powder is collected along the wall of the cylinder and the fine powder
continues to be
continues to classified by the
be classified by airflow into the
the airflow intonext
the grading machine
next grading so thatsoa that
machine reasonably super-fine
a reasonably super-
material is collected
fine material when itwhen
is collected entersitthe cyclone
enters separator
the cyclone or dust or
separator removal system.system.
dust removal

Figure 1. Diagram of the experiment equipment (a) and the 3D view of the geometry (b) and dimensions
Figure 1. Diagram of the experiment equipment (a) and the 3D view of the geometry (b) and
(c) of the turbo air classifier.
dimensions (c) of the turbo air classifier.
2.2. Particle Cutting Size Calculations
2.2. Particle Cutting Size Calculations
The force diagram at the edge of the classifier rotor cage after the material particles enter the
classifierThe force diagram
is shown in Figureat2.the edge of to
According thethe
classifier rotor
theoretical cage after
method in thethe material[15,16],
literature particles
weenter
knowthe
thatclassifier is shown
the particle is mainlyin Figure 2. According
influenced to the theoretical
by the centrifugal and drag method in the itliterature
forces when [15,16],
is delivered weinlet
at the know
edge of the rotor cage. In this experiment, the radial velocity of the airflow moving around the rotorthe
that the particle is mainly influenced by the centrifugal and drag forces when it is delivered at
inlet
cage edge of the
is denoted as Vrotor cage. In this experiment, the radial velocity of the airflow moving around the
r , and the rotational speed of the rotor cage generating the centrifugal force is n.
rotor
It was cage is denoted
assumed as Vr, and the
that the tangential androtational speed ofinthe
radial velocities therotor cage generating
circumferential the centrifugal
and vertical directionsforce
is n. It was assumed that the tangential and radial velocities in the circumferential
are uniform and that the particles are spherical. The mathematical definitions of the forces are given in and vertical
directions
Equations are uniform and that the particles are spherical. The mathematical definitions of the forces
(1)–(3):
are given in Equations (1)–(3): DVpr
m = Fc − Fd (1)
Dt
DVpr
1 , m dp 2 = Fc − Fd (1)
CD (Re) ∗ ρair ∗ π ∗ (Dt ) ∗ (Vpr − Vr ) ∗ Vpr − Vr 
 
Fd = (2)
2 2
1 V2T 4 ddpp 23 V2T
F
, d = C
FcD (Re)*
= m ρ= *
r air 3
π
∗ *(
π ∗ ( )) *(
∗ ρVp pr − Vr )* Vpr − Vr
∗ (3)(2)
2 22 r

VT2 4 dp 3 VT2
. Fc = m = *π *( ) * ρ p * (3)
r 3 2 r
Processes 2020,
Processes 8, x237
2020, 8, FOR PEER REVIEW 44of
of22
21

Figure 2. Particle-influencing forces at the inlet of the rotor cage.

Figure 2. Particle-influencing forces at the inlet of the rotor cage.
It was assumed that there is no slip between the particle and the air tangential velocity. When the
centrifugal and fluid that
It was assumed dragthere
forcesis reach equilibrium
no slip between the onparticle
the particle
and at
thethe
airouter periphery
tangential of theWhen
velocity. rotor
cage,
the and if theand
centrifugal radial velocity
fluid of the particle
drag forces is zero, theon
reach equilibrium size ofparticle
the the particle is called
at the the cut sizeof(dthe
outer periphery 50 ).
The dcage,
rotor 50 can be
and expressed
if the as
radial follows
velocity from
of the Equations
particle is (1)–(3):
zero, the size of the particle is called the cut size
(d50). The d50 can be expressed as follows from Equations (1)–(3):
3CD ρair Vr 2 r
d50 = 3C ρ 2 V 2 r (4)
D Tairρpr
. d50 = 4V (4)
4VT ρ p
2

By testing the classifier inlet air volume, the corresponding airflow radial velocity can be calculated:
By testing the classifier inlet air volume, the corresponding airflow radial velocity can be
calculated: Q
Vr = (5)
120πrh
Q
Using the known rotor cage speed, the. V r =
tangential velocity of the particles at the outer edge of(5)
the
120π rh
grading wheel can be calculated:
2πrnvelocity of the particles at the outer edge of
Using the known rotor cage speed, the tangential
VT = (6)
the grading wheel can be calculated: 60
The following equation can be derived from Equations (4)–(6):
2π rn
. VT = (6)
3 CD60 ρair Q2
d50 = (7)
π4 r3 n2 h2 ρp(4)–(6):
64 Equations
The following equation can be derived from

where: 3 CD ρ air Q 2
, d 50 = (7)
dp : Particle diameter (µm); 64 π 4 r 3 n 2 h 2 ρ p
Vr : Radial velocity of airflow at the outer cylindrical periphery (m/s);
Where:
dVpT : Tangential velocity of airflow at the outer cylindrical periphery of the rotor cage (m/s);
Vpr:: Particle
Particlediameter (μm); (m/s);
radial velocity
Vairr : Radial velocity of airflow
ρ : Density of airflow (kg/m3 );
at the outer cylindrical periphery (m/s);
ρp : Particle density (kg/m3 );
V : Tangential
r:TRadius velocity
of rotor of airflow at the outer cylindrical periphery of the rotor cage (m/s);
cage (mm);
VprBlade
h: height (mm);
: Particle radial velocity ( m/ s );
m: Mass of particle (kg/m3 );
ρairRotor
n: cage speed
: Density (rpm);
of airflow
3
( kg/ m );
Q: Total volumetric flow rate3 of air (m3 /s);
ρp : Particle density ( kg/ m );
CD : Drag coefficient;
rRe:
: Radius of rotor
Reynolds cage and
number; (mm);
hd50 : Cut size
: Blade heightof classification
(mm); (µm).
Processes 2020, 8, 237 5 of 21

2.3. Mathematical Model

2.3.1. Continuous Phase Governing Equations

The three-dimensional steady simulation was performed using ANSYS-FLUENT 15.0. For the
case of incompressible flow, the mass and momentum equations are as follows:

∂ui
=0 (8)
∂xi

∂ ∂ ∂p ∂ ∂u
(ρui ) + (ρui u j ) = − + (µ i − ρu0 i u0 j ) + Si (9)
∂t ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j ∂x j
Where ui , xi , ρ, P, and µ represent the fluid velocity, position, time, constant fluid density, static pressure,
and gas viscosity, respectively.−ρu0 i u0 j is the Reynolds stress term. Choosing a suitable turbulence
model in the case is of paramount importance. Furthermore, the RNG k-e model has been proven to be
an appropriate model to describe the turbulence of turbo air classifier flow [21]. The turbulent kinetic
energy and turbulent dissipation rate are expressed as follows:

∂ ∂k
" #
dk
ρ = (αk µe f f ) + Gk + Gb − ρε − YM (10)
dt ∂xi ∂xi

∂ ∂ε ε ε2
!
dε
ρ = αε µe f f + C1ε (Gk + C3ε Gb ) − C2ε ρ − R (11)
dt ∂xi ∂xi k k
where Gk and Gb represent the components of the turbulent kinetic energy caused by the average
velocity gradient and buoyancy. YM is the effect of compressible turbulent pulsation expansion on
the total dissipation rate. The values of the constant are αε = 0.7692, αk = 1, C1ε = 1.44, C2ε = 1.92,
C3ε = 0.09.
The turbulent viscosity coefficient can be calculated as:

k2
µt = ρCu (12)
ε
where Cu = 0.0845.

2.3.2. Discrete Phase Governing Equations

The choice of a multiphase flow model is mainly determined by the particle volume loading rate,
κ, and mass loading rate, υ, which are demonstrated in the following two parts:
(1) Volume loading rate is the ratio of the particle volume to gas volume per unit time in a space.
It can be expressed as follows:
αp ρf
κ= =υ (13)
αf ρp
where:
αp ,α f —Particle volume and gas volume passing through the effective section at per unit time; and
ρp ,ρ f —Particle density and air density.
Using the particle volume loading rate, the dimensionless distance between particles and particles
in the particle phase can be calculated:
1
L π 1+κ 3
D= = ( ) (14)
dp 6 κ

where:
L—The distance between particle and particle; and
Processes 2020, 8, 237 6 of 21

dp —Particle diameter.
(2) Mass loading rate is the ratio of particle mass to gas mass across an effective section in a certain
space per unit time. It is expressed as follows:
mp αp ρp
υ= = (15)
mf αf ρf

In this study, the airflow and material are fed into the classifier by a circular section inlet. Thus,
the gas volume passing through the effective section per unit time can be calculated:

α f = 2π(rx )2 V0 (16)

where V 0 is the air inlet velocity, which was set in the range from 6 to 12 m/s in this study. rx is the
radius of the section at the inlet. The feeding speed is 240 kg/h. Combined with Equations (13)–(15),
the range of the volume loading rate can be calculated from 2.624 × 10−6 to 4.34 × 10−6 . Meanwhile,
the range of the mass loading rate can be calculated from 0.0257 to 0.0342. These values are very
small. However, the dimensionless distance between particles and particles ranged from 32.09 to 37.9.
According to the calculated results, the value of the particle volume loading rate and mass loading rate
is very small, and the value of the dimensionless distance between particles and particles is very large.
Therefore, the particle phase is considered to be highly sparse, which satisfies the DPM calculation
conditions. Furthermore, it can also be considered that the coupling between the particles and the gas
phase is unidirectional. Namely, only the influence of gas on the particles is taken into account, rather
than the influence of particles on the gas.
Through the DPM of FLUENT, the trajectory of a discrete phase particle can be calculated in a
Lagrangian reference frame by integrating the force balance on the particle. This force balance equation
can be written in Cartesian coordinates:

duP gx (ρP − ρ)
= FD (u − uP ) + + Fx (17)
dt ρP

18µ CD Re
FD = (18)
ρP d2P 24
ρdP |uP − u|
ReP = (19)
µ
where FD (u − uP ) is the drag force per unit particle mass, µ is the fluid phase velocity, uP is the particle
velocity, µ is the kinematic viscosity of fluids, ρ is the fluid density, ρP is the particle density, dP is the
particle diameter, Re is the relative Reynolds number (particle Reynolds number) (the define of Particle
Reynolds number can be calculated by Equation (19)) CD is the drag coefficient, and Fx is an additional
acceleration (force/unit particle mass) term.

2.4. Boundary Conditions and Parameter Setting

The model was designed to be imported into the ANSYS-Fluent software for numerical calculations.
There is one entrance and two exits in the model. A “velocity inlet” boundary condition was used at
the air-inlet, the air velocity was assumed to be uniformly distributed at the air inlet section, and its
direction is normal to the air-inlet boundary. The boundary condition at the turbo air classifier was
prescribed as a fully developed pipe flow and treated as “outflow”. A no-slip boundary condition was
used on the wall boundary and the near wall treatment was a standard wall function. The SIMPLEC
algorithm was adopted for the pressure–velocity coupling, and the QUICK difference scheme were
used for the convection and diffusion. The convection terms of the discrete equations were all in the
default format. An insufficient relaxation factor empirical selection was used. In total, 2000 steps were
iterated to set the solution accuracy at 1e–03.
Processes 2020, 8, 237 7 of 21

3. Simulation Results and Analysis

According to Equation (7), the two main factors affecting the particle size grading are the tangential
velocity, VT , and radial velocity, Vr , of the gas flow, when the other parameters, such as the radius
and height of the runner, are quantitative. The tangential velocity of the airflow is directly related
to the rotor cage speed, and the radial velocity of the airflow is related to the total volumetric flow
rate of air. Increasing the rotor cage speed can result in particles with finer particle sizes, but this can
cause an uneven distribution of the flow field, affect the classification sharpness index, and reduce the
classification performance. When the air volume of the system is changed, if the airflow rate is too
low, the feeding force of the raw materials becomes too low, resulting in grading failure; if the main
airflow is too high, the compulsive action of the grading wheel may be invalidated, and the coarse
particles are rejected. The airflow is transmitted into the fine powder, and when the classifier cuts
the particle size, the classification effectiveness worsens. Therefore, changing the rotor cage speed or
the air inlet velocity of the system alone cannot help obtain the optimum process parameters. Only
by simultaneously controlling the air inlet velocity of the system and the corresponding rotor cage
speed to perform particle grading can one or more sets of optimal process parameter combinations
be obtained
Numerical simulation experiments were performed using multiple groups of variables by setting
different simulation parameters to achieve quantitative changes in VT and Vr , and the particle velocity
map of the impeller surface was used as a reference to judge the better process parameter. Owing to the
actual process parameters, the limited range of the rotation speed of the rotor wheel was 500–3000 rpm
and the range of air volume was 2700–5500 m3 /h. Calculated according to Equation (7) and the actual
working condition limit, four groups of the rotor cage speed were set: 1800, 2000, 2200, and 2400 rpm.
The air inlet velocity was set in four groups: 6, 8, 10, and 12 m/s. The above four groups of rotor cage
speed and air inlet velocity were combined to perform an orthogonal numerical simulation test.

3.1. The Tangential Velocity Distribution in the Classifier.

There are two important grading functional zones in the classifier: One of them is the flow region
between the blades (I: blade zone, it called the separation functional zone), another is an annular
region surrounding the inlet boundary of the rotor cage (II: annular zone, it called the decentralized
separation functional zone) [18]. The rotation of the rotor cage causes turbulence in the annular zone,
and the turbulence in the annular zone has some influence on the classification effect, which causes a
decrease in the classification efficiency and classification sharpness index. In addition, if the tangential
velocity in the blade zone is much larger than the tangential velocity in the annular zone, the fine
particles can also move to the annular zone under strong centrifugal force, and finally settle along
the side wall to become coarse powder, which causes a decrease in the classification efficiency and
classification sharpness index. Therefore, it is necessary to study the tangential velocity distribution of
zone I and zone II.
Figure 3 shows the tangential velocity details of the rotor cage section. The grading wheel surface
(select a section at half the height of the rotor cage, Y = 260 mm) tangential velocity contour diagrams
for 16 groups and tangential velocity contrast under different radial distances from the axis are shown
in Figure 3.
According to the above analysis, the more uniform tangential velocity distribution of the airflow
in the annular zone (II) and blade zone (I), the more stable the flow field. Based on Figure 3a, under
the condition that the air inlet velocity remains unchanged at 6 m/s, a comparison of the tangential
speed profiles of the blade zone and annular zone under different process parameters indicates that
the tendency of the tangential distribution at rotor cage speeds of 1600 and 2200 rpm is more stable
than that at rotor cage speeds of 1800 and 2000 rpm. Based on Figure 3b, under the condition that
the air inlet velocity remains unchanged at 8 m/s, a comparison of the tangential speed profiles of the
blade zone and annular zone under different process parameters indicates that the tendency of the
tangential distribution at he rotor cage speeds of 1800 rpm is more stable than that at rotor cage speeds
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

There are two important grading functional zones in the classifier: One of them is the flow region
between the blades (I: blade zone, it called the separation functional zone), another is an annular
region surrounding the inlet boundary of the rotor cage (II: annular zone, it called the decentralized
Processes 2020, 8, 237 8 of 21
separation functional zone) [18]. The rotation of the rotor cage causes turbulence in the annular zone,
and the turbulence in the annular zone has some influence on the classification effect, which causes
aofdecrease
1600, 2000, inand
the2200
classification efficiencythe
rpm. Nevertheless, and classification
tendency sharpnesschange
of the tangential index.gradient
In addition,
amplitudeif theat
tangential
rotor cage velocity
speeds ofin2200the blade
rpm iszone is much
slower larger
than that than cage
at rotor the tangential
speeds of velocity
1600 andin2000the rpm.
annular zone,
Based on
the fine3c,
Figure particles
under thecancondition
also movethatto the
the annular
air inlet zone under
velocity strong
remains centrifugal
unchanged atforce,
10 m/s,and finally
it can settle
be clearly
along the the
seen that sidetendency
wall to become coarse powder,
of the tangential whichatcauses
distribution a decrease
rotor cage speedsinofthe classification
1800 and 2000 rpm efficiency
is more
and
stable classification sharpness
than that at rotor index. ofTherefore,
cage speeds it is rpm.
1600 and 2200 necessary
Based to on study
Figure the tangential
3d, under velocity
the condition
distribution of zone
that the air inlet I andremains
velocity zone II. unchanged at 12 m/s, it can be clearly seen that the tendency of the
Figuredistribution
tangential 3 shows theat tangential
rotor cage velocity
speedsdetails
of 2000ofand
the2200
rotorrpm
cageissection. The grading
more stable than that wheel surface
at rotor cage
(select a section at half
speeds of 1600 and 1800 rpm. the height of the rotor cage, Y = 260 mm) tangential velocity contour diagrams
for 16From
groupstheand tangential
above velocity
discussion, contrast under
the conclusion different
can be reachedradial distances
that eight groupsfrom the axis parameters
of process are shown
in
(VFigure 3.
in -n,6-1600,6-2200,8-1800,8-2200,10-1800,10-2000,12-2000,12-2200) may be better than others.

Figure 3. Cont.
 Processes 2020, 8, 237 9 of 21
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

Figure 3. Contours of the tangential velocity distribution and air tangential velocity contrast under
Figure 3. Contours of the tangential velocity distribution and air tangential velocity contrast under
different radial distances from the axis at different process parameters (305–345 mm is the area between
different radial distances from the axis at different process parameters (305–345 mm is the area
the rotor blades, 345–365 mm is the annular zone). (a) Air inlet velocity 6 m/s and 4 different rotor cgae
between the rotor blades, 345–365 mm is the annular zone). .(a)Air inlet velocity 6m/s and 4 different
speed. (b) Air inlet velocity 8 m/s and 4 different rotor cgae speed. (c) Air inlet velocity 10 m/s and
rotor cgae speed .(b)Air inlet velocity 8m/s and 4 different rotor cgae speed .(c)Air inlet velocity 10m/s
4 different rotor cgae speed. (d) Air inlet velocity 12 m/s and 4 different rotor cgae speed.
and 4 different rotor cgae speed .(d)Air inlet velocity 12m/s and 4 different rotor cgae speed
3.2. The Radial Velocity Distribution in the Classifier
According to the above analysis, the more uniform tangential velocity distribution of the airflow
In the process of grading, the blade zone (I) is an important grading functional zone, and its main
in the annular zone (II) and blade zone (I), the more stable the flow field. Based on Figure 3a, under
function is to transport fine powder and separate the coarse and fine powder. Furthermore, after the
the condition that the air inlet velocity remains unchanged at 6 m/s, a comparison of the tangential
airflow enters the rotor cage, on the one hand, it is driven by the rotation of the rotating blades, and
speed profiles of the blade zone and annular zone under different process parameters indicates that
on the other hand, it moves inward along the blade under the action of the central negative pressure.
the tendency of the tangential distribution at rotor cage speeds of 1600 and 2200 rpm is more stable
Finally, inertial anti-vortex will be formed between the blades. The material is transported by radial
than that at rotor cage speeds of 1800 and 2000 rpm. Based on Figure 3b, under the condition that the
airflow in zone I. As the radial airflow in the passage between adjacent blades is affected by the inertial
air inlet velocity remains unchanged at 8 m/s, a comparison of the tangential speed profiles of the
anti-vortex, it leads to uniformity of the radial velocity distribution. The fine powder that has entered
blade zone and annular zone under different process parameters indicates that the tendency of the
the cage will leave the cage under the influence of the anti-vortex. Finally, the cutting particle size
tangential distribution at he rotor cage speeds of 1800 rpm is more stable than that at rotor cage
is dispersed, which decreases the classification sharpness index. In addition, if the radial velocity
speeds of 1600, 2000, and 2200 rpm. Nevertheless, the tendency of the tangential change gradient
distribution is not uniform in the blade zone, the coarse particles are also collected by the airflow into
amplitude at rotor cage speeds of 2200 rpm is slower than that at rotor cage speeds of 1600 and 2000
fine powder, which affects the classification sharpness index. Therefore, the radial velocity distribution
rpm. Based on Figure 3c, under the condition that the air inlet velocity remains unchanged at 10 m/s,
of the airflow in blade zone (I) must be studied.
it can be clearly seen that the tendency of the tangential distribution at rotor cage speeds of 1800 and
2000 rpm is more stable than that at rotor cage speeds of 1600 and 2200 rpm. Based on Figure 3d,
under the condition that the air inlet velocity remains unchanged at 12 m/s, it can be clearly seen that
the tendency of the tangential distribution at rotor cage speeds of 2000 and 2200 rpm is more stable
than that at rotor cage speeds of 1600 and 1800 rpm.
From the above discussion, the conclusion can be reached that eight groups of process
parameters (Vin-n,6-1600,6-2200,8-1800,8-2200,10-1800,10-2000,12-2000,12-2200) may be better than
others.
3.2. The Radial Velocity Distribution in the Classifier
In the process of grading, the blade zone (I) is an important grading functional zone, and its
main function is to transport fine powder and separate the coarse and fine powder. Furthermore,
after the airflow enters the rotor cage, on the one hand, it is driven by the rotation of the rotating
Processes 2020, 8, 237 10 of 21
blades, and on the other hand, it moves inward along the blade under the action of the central
negative pressure. Finally, inertial anti-vortex will be formed between the blades. The material is
transported
Figure by4radial
showsairflow in zone
the radial I. As details
velocity the radial airflow
of the rotorincage
the section.
passage between
The gradingadjacent
wheelblades
surface
is affected
(select a by the inertial
section at half anti-vortex,
the height ofitthe leads to cage,
rotor Y = 260ofmm)
uniformity the radial
radialvelocity
velocity distribution.
contour diagramsThe fine
for 16
powder
groups that
andhas entered
radial the contrast
velocity cage willunder
leavedifferent
the cageradial
underdistances
the influence
from theof the
axisanti-vortex.
are shown in Finally,
Figure 4.
the cutting
In theparticle size is dispersed,
classification process, thewhich
vanedecreases the classification
flow velocity near the “surfacesharpness
of theindex.
advance In addition,
blade” (the
if the radial
surface velocity
that is in thedistribution
blade facing is in
nottheuniform
directioninofthe blade zone,
rotation) thethan
is larger coarse
the particles
“surface of arethe
also
back
collected
blade”by the
(the airflow
surface into
that infine powder,
the blade which
is back to affects the classification
the direction of rotation).sharpness
Therefore, index.
it canTherefore,
be observed
thewhether
radial velocity distribution
the positive vortex of thethe
and airflow in blade
anti-vortex zone
exist (I) must
between beblades
the studied. to judge whether the flow
Figure
field 4 shows
between the radial
the rotor velocity
cage blades is details
uniform. of As
theisrotor
shown cagein section. The grading
Figure 4a–d, the size of wheel surfaceand
the vortex
(select a sectiongradient
the velocity at half the heightthe
between of blades
the rotor cancage, Y = 260
be easily andmm) radial velocity
intuitively found, ascontour diagrams
eight groups for
of process
16 parameters
groups and (V radial
in velocity contrast under different radial distances
-n,6-1600,6-2200,8-1800,8-2200,10-1800,10-2000,12-2000,12-2200) from the axis
may are
beshown
better in
than
Figure 4. The conclusion is the same as the results of the tangential velocity.
others.

Figure 4. Cont.
 Processes 2020, 8, 237 11 of 21
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22

Figure
Figure 4. Contours
4. Contours of the
of the air air radial
radial velocity
velocity distribution
distribution between
between rotor
rotor blades
blades andand radial
radial velocity
velocity
contrast under different radial distances from the axis at different process parameters
contrast under different radial distances from the axis at different process parameters (−345–305mm, (−345–305mm,
305–345mm
305–345mm is the
is the area
area between
between thethe rotor
rotor blades,
blades, −305–305
−305–305 mm mm
is is
thethe central
central region).(a) Air
region).(a)Air inlet
inlet
velocity 6 m/s and 4 different rotor cgae speed. (b) Air inlet velocity 8 m/s and 4 different
velocity 6m/s and 4 different rotor cgae speed .(b)Air inlet velocity 8m/s and 4 different rotor cgae rotor cgae
speed.
speed (c) Air
.(c)Air inletinlet velocity
velocity 10m/s10 m/s
and and 4 different
4 different rotorrotor
cgaecgae
speedspeed. (d)inlet
.(d)Air Air inlet velocity
velocity 12m/s12and
m/s 4and
4 different rotor cgae speed.
different rotor cgae speed
3.3. Discrete-Phase Simulated Results and Analysis
In the classification process, the vane flow velocity near the “surface of the advance blade” (the
surface Inthattheisparticle classification
in the blade facing inprocess, the movement
the direction process
of rotation) of particles
is larger than the is intuitively
“surface described
of the back
and is revealed by the particle trajectory, which can also explain the particle separation
blade” (the surface that in the blade is back to the direction of rotation). Therefore, it can be observed mechanism.
Consequently,
whether the positivethe vortex
discreteand phase
the model was established
anti-vortex exist between to the
simulate
bladesthe to particle trajectory,
judge whether the and
flowthe
particle
field between motions for eight
the rotor groupsisofuniform.
cage blades process parameters
As is shownwere contrasted.
in Figure 4a–d, the size of the vortex and
the velocity gradient between the blades can be easily and intuitively found, as eight groups of
3.3.1. Simulated Results and Analysis of Single Particle
process parameters (Vin-n,6-1600,6-2200,8-1800,8-2200,10-1800,10-2000,12-2000,12-2200) may be better
Iron ore
than others. Thepowder
conclusionparticle
is the(12 µm)as
same wasthechosen
resultsas
ofthe
thematerial,
tangentialand steady flow simulation was set
velocity.
up. According to the continuous phase simulation, eight groups of process parameters were better
3.3.than
Discrete-Phase Simulatedthese
others. Therefore, Results and groups
eight Analysisof process parameters were selected for discrete phase
simulation. The particle
In the particle tracksprocess,
classification cloud diagrams for the eight
the movement processgroups are as follows:
of particles is intuitively described
and is revealed by the particle trajectory, which can also explain the particle separation mechanism.
Consequently, the discrete phase model was established to simulate the particle trajectory, and the
particle motions for eight groups of process parameters were contrasted.

3.3.1. Simulated Results and Analysis of Single Particle

Iron ore powder particle (12 μm) was chosen as the material, and steady flow simulation was
set up. According to the continuous phase simulation, eight groups of process parameters were better
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
Processes 2020, 8, 237 12 of 21

than others. Therefore, these eight groups of process parameters were selected for discrete phase
simulation.
As is Theshownparticle tracks
in Figure 5, cloud diagrams
comparing for the tracks
the particle eight groups
under theareprocess
as follows:
parameters for the eight
groups in the numerical simulations, as seen from the Figure 5a–h, it can beparameters
As is shown in Figure 5, comparing the particle tracks under the process found that thefor the eightof
number
groups in tracks(a),
particle the numerical simulations,
(c), (f), (h) are more as than
seen from
(b–e),the
(g).Figure 5a–h,ititcan
Therefore, can be
be simply
found that the number
inferred that four
ofprocess
particleparameters
tracks(a), (c),
can be estimated as better than the others for producing the particle sizethat
(f), (h) are more than (b–e), (g). Therefore, it can be simply inferred four
of 12 µm,
process parameters
rotor speed of 1600can
rpmbe with
estimated asinlet
the air better than the
velocity at others
6 m/s, for producing
rotor speed of the
1800particle
rpm withsizethe airμinlet
of 12 m,
rotor speedatof8 1600
velocity m/s, rpm
rotorwith
speedtheofair2000
inletrpm
velocity
withatthe6 m/s, rotorvelocity
air inlet speed ofat1800 rpmand
10 m/s, withrotor
the air inletof
speed
velocity at 8 m/s, rotor speed of 2000 rpm
2200 rpm with the air inlet velocity at 12 m/s. with the air inlet velocity at 10 m/s, and rotor speed of 2200
rpm with the air inlet velocity at 12 m/s.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 5. Cont.
 Processes 2020, 8, 237 13 of 21
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 5. Cont.
Processes 2020, 8, 237 14 of 21
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22

(g)

(h)

Figure 5.
Figure Particletracks
5. Particle tracksfor
for88groups
groupsof ofdifferent
differentrotor
rotor speeds
speedsand
and air
air inlet
inlet velocity.
velocity. (a)
(a) Rotor
Rotor speed
speed
1600 rpm, air inlet velocity 6 m/s. (b) Rotor speed 2200 rpm, air inlet velocity 6 m/s. (c)
1600 rpm, air inlet velocity 6 m/s. (b) Rotor speed 2200 rpm, air inlet velocity 6 m/s. (c) Rotor speed Rotor speed
1800 rpm,
1800 rpm, air
air inlet
inlet velocity
velocity 88 m/s.
m/s. (d)Rotor
(d)Rotor speed
speed 2200
2200 rpm,
rpm, air
air inlet
inlet velocity
velocity88m/s.
m/s. (e)
(e)Rotor
Rotor speed
speed
1800 rpm, air inlet velocity 10 m/s. (f) Rotor speed 2000 rpm, air inlet velocity 10 m/s. (g)
1800 rpm, air inlet velocity 10 m/s. (f) Rotor speed 2000 rpm, air inlet velocity 10 m/s. (g) Rotor speedRotor speed
2000rpm,
2000 rpm,air
airinlet
inletvelocity
velocity12
12 m/s.
m/s. (h)
(h)Rotor
Rotorspeed
speed2200
2200rpm,
rpm,air
airinlet
inletvelocity
velocity 1212 m/s.
m/s.

3.3.2. Simulated Results and Analysis of Multi-Particle

3.3.2. Simulated Results and Analysis of Multi-Particle
The authors used the ANASYS-fluent discrete phase model for numerical simulation, and
The authors used the ANASYS-fluent discrete phase model for numerical simulation, and
investigation of gas flow behaviors in the turbo air classifier. In order to obtain the simulated Tromp
investigation of gas flow behaviors in the turbo air classifier. In order to obtain the simulated Tromp
curve at different process parameters, the authors set up 13 different particle sizes for each set of
curve at different process parameters, the authors set up 13 different particle sizes for each set of
process parameters. In order for better comparison with the electronic test report, the specific particle
process parameters. In order for better comparison with the electronic test report, the specific particle
size parameters were set as follows:
size parameters were set as follows:
Iron ore fines: 1, 2, 4, 5.13, 6.21, 7.51, 8, 10, 11, 12.66, 16.62, 19.5, and 23.6 µm
Iron orepowder:
Barite fines: 1,4,2,5.13,
4, 5.13, 6.21,
6.21, 7.51,
7.51, 8, 10,
8, 11, 11, 13.31,
12.66, 12.66, 16.62,
16.62, 19.5,
19.5, 23.6,
and 23.6 μm
28.56, 32, and 41.8 µm
Barite powder:
The number of4,particles
5.13, 6.21, 7.51, 8,and
escaped 11, trapped
12.66, 13.31,
was 16.62, 19.5, by
calculated 23.6, 28.56,
the 41.8 μm and
32, andsimulation,
numerical
the upper limit of the particle calculation step was 20,000. Finally, the tromp curve was drawnand
The number of particles escaped and trapped was calculated by the numerical simulation, the
the upper
light of thelimit of the particle
percentage of escapecalculation
particlesstep was
in the 20,000.
total numberFinally, the trompThe
of particles. curve was drawn
pictures the
are shown
light of the6a,b.
in Figure percentage of escape
The purpose particles
of this study in wasthetototal number
research the of particles. The
combination pictures
of two areparameter
process shown in
Figure 6a,b. The purpose of this study was to research the combination of
variables. Therefore, according to the result of the numerical simulation, the cut size under the two process parameter
variables.
combination Therefore, according
of the rotor speed andto the resultrate
air flow of can
the be
numerical
roughly simulation,
estimated. Thethe results
cut size areunder
shownthein
combination of the rotor speed and air flow rate can be roughly estimated.
Figure 6c,d. The effect of the rotor speed and air inlet velocity on the cut size can be found. The results are shown in
Figure 6c,d. The effect of the rotor speed and air inlet velocity on the cut size can be found.
Processes 2020, 8, 237 15 of 21
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22

Figure 6.
Figure The numerical
6. The numerical partial
partial classification
classification efficiency
efficiency curves
curves and
and cut
cut size
size of
of four
four different
different process
process
parameters. (a) Iron ore powder numerical Tromp curves (b) Barite powder numerical
parameters.(a)Iron ore powder numerical Tromp curves (b)Barite powder numerical Tromp curves Tromp curves
(c) Iron ore powder numerical cut size (d) Barite powder numerical
(c) Iron ore powder numerical cut size (d) Barite powder numerical cut size cut size

Figure 6a,b shows the schematic diagram of the numerical simulated Tromp curve by different
Figure 6a,b shows the schematic diagram of the numerical simulated Tromp curve by different
process parameters. It is not easy to obtain the classification sharpness K (K = d75 /d25 ) under different
process parameters. It is not easy to obtain the classification sharpness K (K = d75/d25) under different
process parameters through observation of the tromp curve. However, it can be roughly judged by the
process parameters through observation of the tromp curve. However, it can be roughly judged by
cut size by different process parameters. According to Equation (7), it can be easily inferred that with
the cut size by different process parameters. According to Equation (7), it can be easily inferred that
the air inlet velocity increase, the cut size will increase, or with the rotor speed increase, the cut size will
with the air inlet velocity increase, the cut size will increase, or with the rotor speed increase, the cut
decrease. However, when the air inlet velocity and the rotor speed increase simultaneously, we cannot
size will decrease. However, when the air inlet velocity and the rotor speed increase simultaneously,
conclude whether the cut size is increased or decreased. From Figure 6, it can be easily found that the
we cannot conclude whether the cut size is increased or decreased. From Figure 6, it can be easily
effect of the rotor speed on the cut size is more than the air inlet velocity. In addition, in order to select
found that the effect of the rotor speed on the cut size is more than the air inlet velocity. In addition,
which combination-type process parameter is better than others, the optimum process parameter was
in order to select which combination-type process parameter is better than others, the optimum
verified using a material grading experiment.
process parameter was verified using a material grading experiment.
4. Classification Experiment and Discussion
4. Classification Experiment and Discussion
The raw materials for this experiment were iron ore fines and barite, with material densities
The raw materials for this experiment were iron ore fines and barite, with material densities of
3 , respectively
of 7.83 and 4.3 g/cm (the densities of materials were detected by an HX-TD-type true
7.83 and 4.3 g/cm3, respectively (the densities of materials were detected by an HX-TD-type true
density tester). According to the numerical simulation results, four process parameters (1#rotation
density tester). According to the numerical simulation results, four process parameters (1#rotation
speed of 1600 rpm and an air inlet speed of 6 m/s; 2# rotation speed of 1800 rpm and an air inlet speed
speed of 1600 rpm and an air inlet speed of 6 m/s; 2# rotation speed of 1800 rpm and an air inlet speed
of 8 m/s; 3# rotation speed of 2000 rpm and an air inlet speed of 10 m/s; 4# rotation speed of 2200 rpm
of 8 m/s; 3# rotation speed of 2000 rpm and an air inlet speed of 10 m/s; 4# rotation speed of 2200 rpm
and an air inlet speed of 12 m/s) were better than others.
and an air inlet speed of 12 m/s) were better than others.
4.1. Particle Size Distribution and the Classification Efficiency
4.1. Particle Size Distribution and the Classification Efficiency
Therefore, the iron ore fines and barite raw materials were divided into two groups and subjected
Therefore,
to grading the iron
tests under ore
four finesof and
kinds barite
process raw materials
parameters. were divided
The grading into two
of the particle size groups and
distribution
subjected to grading
maps are as follows: tests under four kinds of process parameters. The grading of the particle size
distribution maps are as follows:
According to the powder particle size distribution diagrams in Figure 7a,b, it can be found that
the particle size distributions of the product by four process parameters are evidently different.
Processes 2020, 8, 237 16 of 21

According to the powder particle size distribution diagrams in Figure 7a,b, it can be found that
the particle
Processes 2020,size distributions
8, x FOR of the product by four process parameters are evidently different. 16 of 22
PEER REVIEW

Figure 7. The particle size distribution and the classification efficiency of two different materials.
Figure 7. The particle size distribution and the classification efficiency of two different materials.
(a) Iron ore powder experiments distribution curves (b) Barite powder experiments distribution curves
(a)Iron ore powder experiments distribution curves (b)Barite powder experiments distribution
(c) Iron ore powder experiments Tromp curves (d) Barite powder experiments Tromp curves.
curves (c) Iron ore powder experiments Tromp curves (d) Barite powder experiments Tromp curves
Firstly, iron ore powder with a particle size distribution ranges from 9 to 13 µm is mainly produced.
Firstly, iron ore powder with a particle size distribution ranges from 9 to 13 μm is mainly
It can be found that the second group of process parameters has the highest existence of the particle
produced. It can be found that the second group of process parameters has the highest existence of
size distribution ranges from 8 to 12 µm. In addition, the highest existence of the barite particle size
the particle size distribution ranges from 8 to 12 μm. In addition, the highest existence of the barite
distribution ranges from 11 to 16 µm, and the best process parameters are in the second group. The case
particle size distribution ranges from 11 to 16 μm, and the best process parameters are in the second
studies of the particle classification efficiency are shown in Figure 7c,d. These curves depict the same
group. The case studies of the particle classification efficiency are shown in Figure 7c,d. These curves
changing tendency of the distorted S-shape. As the particle size decreases, the classification efficiency
depict the same changing tendency of the distorted S-shape. As the particle size decreases, the
of the particles first decreases and then increases. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the
classification efficiency of the particles first decreases and then increases. This phenomenon is
hook effect. With the increase of the rotor cage speed and air inlet velocity, the fish-hook effect is
commonly referred to as the hook effect. With the increase of the rotor cage speed and air inlet
found to be enhanced. Generally, the hook effect will decrease corresponding to the increase of the
velocity, the fish-hook effect is found to be enhanced. Generally, the hook effect will decrease
air inlet velocity. However, with the rotor cage speed increases, the particle cut size decreases, the
corresponding to the increase of the air inlet velocity. However, with the rotor cage speed increases,
d50 also decreases correspondingly. The consequence is that the Tromp curve will move to the left,
the particle cut size decreases, the d50 also decreases correspondingly. The consequence is that the
causing the agglomeration to advance. At last, the fish-hook effect will increase. Therefore, considering
Tromp curve will move to the left, causing the agglomeration to advance. At last, the fish-hook effect
these two factors of the air inlet velocity and rotor cage speed, it can be found that the hook effect is
will increase. Therefore, considering these two factors of the air inlet velocity and rotor cage speed,
increasing. On the other hand, the bypass value (δ) is an important index to evaluate the performance
it classification.
of can be found As thatis the hook
shown in effect
Figureis7c,d,
increasing. On value
the bypass the other
(δ2 <hand,
δ1 < δ3the
< δ4bypass
) of thevalue
second ( process
) is an
important index to evaluate the performance of classification. As is shown in Figure 7c,d,
parameters is the smallest. It can be considered that the performance of the second process parameters’ the bypass
value (  2＜is1＜
classification  3＜than
better  4 ) of
thethe second process parameters is the smallest. It can be considered that
others.
the performance of the second process parameters’ classification is better than the others.

4.2. Coarse Powder Yield and Newton Efficiency

For most airflow grading equipment, the powder is classified according to a certain cutting
particle size. The large particle portion after classification is referred to as coarse products, and the
small particle portion is referred to as fine products. Commonly, Newton’s classification efficiency is
Processes 2020, 8, 237 17 of 21
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22

a4.2. Coarse
main Powder Yield
classification and Newton index.
performance Efficiency
It comprehensively examines the degree of separation of
coarse and fine powder particles. The expression
For most airflow grading equipment, the powder is: is classified according to a certain cutting
particle size. The large particle portion after classification is referred to as coarse products, and the
,   Y  (1  Y )  Yc  Yf  1 (20)
small particle portion is referred to asN fine cproducts.f Commonly, Newton’s classification efficiency is a
main classification performance index. It comprehensively examines the degree of separation of coarse
xA
and fine powder particles. The expression is: , Yc  a (21)
xc F
ηN = Yc − (1 − Y f ) = Yc + Y f − 1 (20)
(1  xb ) B
, Yf  (22)
(1 xaxAc ) F
Yc = (21)
xc F
where Yc is the coarse powder yield, Y f is the(1fine
− xbpowder
)B yield, xc is the mass percentage of
Yf = (22)
(1 −ofxcthe
coarse particle in raw material, A and B are the mass )F collected coarse fraction and collected fine
fraction,
where Y F is is
the the masspowder
coarse of the raw
yield, Y f is thexafine
material, and xb areyield,
powder the mass percentage
xc is the of coarse of
mass percentage particles
coarse
particle in raw material, A and B are
(dp > d50) in the collected coarse fraction. the mass of the collected coarse fraction and collected fine fraction,
F is the mass8a,b,
Figure of the raw material,
shows xa of
the effects and xb are
four the mass
process percentage
parameters on of
thecoarse particles
iron ore p > d50 ) in
coarse(dpowder the
yield
( Yc ) and Newton efficiency ( N ). It can be found that with the rotor cage speed and air inlet velocity
collected coarse fraction.
Figure 8a,b, shows the effects of four process parameters on the iron ore coarse powder yield
increase, the collection efficiency of the coarse particle gradually decreases. The reason is that the
(Yc ) and Newton efficiency (ηN ). It can be found that with the rotor cage speed and air inlet velocity
increase in the amount of air entering the main air causes the air drag to rise and more and more
increase, the collection efficiency of the coarse particle gradually decreases. The reason is that the
coarse particles are taken away; therefore, the value of Yc decreases. In addition, as the rotation
increase in the amount of air entering the main air causes the air drag to rise and more and more coarse
speed
particlesof are
the taken
runner and therefore,
away; the air intake speedofincrease,
the value Newton’s
Yc decreases. classification
In addition, efficiency
as the rotation increases
speed of the
initially,
runner and buttheas the rotation
air intake speed
speed and air Newton’s
increase, intake speed of the runner
classification continue
efficiency to increase,
increases Newton’s
initially, but as
classification
the rotation speed efficiency
and decreases.
air intake It means
speed of that an excessive
the runner rotortocage
continue speedNewton’s
increase, and air inlet velocity is
classification
not good for
efficiency classification.
decreases. Finally,
It means that according
an excessive to the results
rotor cage of Newton’s
speed and airclassification
inlet velocityefficiency,
is not good it can
for
be considered that the performance of the second process parameters’ classification is better
classification. Finally, according to the results of Newton’s classification efficiency, it can be considered than the
others.
that the performance of the second process parameters’ classification is better than the others.

Figure 8. Effects of four process parameters on two different materials of the coarse powder yield (Y )
Figure 8. Effects of four process parameters on two different materials of the coarse powder yield (Ycc)
and Newton efficiency (ηN ). (a) Iron ore powder (b) Barite powder.
and Newton efficiency (  N ).(a)Iron ore powder (b) Barite powder
4.3. Classification Sharpness Index (K)
4.3. Classification Sharpness Index (K)
There are roughly three kinds of indicators for evaluating the grading effectiveness [19–22].
The representative
There are roughly index threeis the
kindsclassification sharpness
of indicators index.the
for evaluating The indexeffectiveness
grading proposed by[19–22].
Germany’s The
Leschonski is Kindex
representative = d75 /dis25 .the
Currently, in an effective
classification sharpness grading
index.apparatus
The index forproposed
a commercial field, if the
by Germany’s
sharpness index
Leschonski is K =isdclose
75/d25. to 1, the performance
Currently, of the
in an effective grading
grading apparatus
apparatus foris aconsidered
commercial perfect.
field, ifInthe
an
actual industry
sharpness index experiment,
is close to 1, if the
the value of theofKthe
performance is grading
in the range from 1.4
apparatus to 2.0, the perfect.
is considered performance
In an
of the industry
actual grading experiment,
apparatus isifconsidered
the value ofgood;
the K ifis the value
in the of from
range the K1.4
is to
in2.0,
thethe
range from 1.0 to
performance 1.4,
of the
grading apparatus is considered good; if the value of the K is in the range from 1.0 to 1.4, the
performance of the grading apparatus is considered excellent. According to the classification
experiment results, the effects of four process parameters on the classification sharpness index are
shown in Figure 9. It can be easily found that the classification sharpness index (K) value of the second
process parameters is closest to 1. Therefore, the performance of the second process parameters’
classification
Processes 2020, 8, is
237better than others. 18 of 21

Processes
the 2020, 8, x FOR
performance ofPEER
the REVIEW 18 of 22
grading apparatus is considered excellent. According to the classification
experiment results, the effects of four process parameters on the classification sharpness index are
experiment results, the effects of four process parameters on the classification sharpness index are
shown in Figure 9. It can be easily found that the classification sharpness index (K) value of the
shown in Figure 9. It can be easily found that the classification sharpness index (K) value of the second
second process parameters is closest to 1. Therefore, the performance of the second process parameters’
process parameters is closest to 1. Therefore, the performance of the second process parameters’
classification is better than others.
classification is better than others.

Figure 9. Effects of four process parameters on the classification sharpness index (K).

4.4. Relative Classification Sharpness Index

The author proposes a relative classification sharpness index as the examination index for this
experiment. As shown in Figure 10a,b, the curves f, a, and b represent the raw material particle size
distribution, the classified fine powder particle size distribution, and the classified coarse powder
particle size distribution, respectively. d10coarse indicates a particle size of 10% for the cumulative
content in theFigure 9. Effects
coarse of four process
powder parameters on the classification
indicates a sharpness
particle index (K).90% for the
Figure 9. Effects of fourafter classification,
process parameters on d90fine
the classification sharpness size
indexof(K).
cumulative content in the fine powder
4.4. Relative Classification Sharpness Index after classification, and d’ indicates the distribution frequency
4.4. Relative Classification Sharpness Index
of the fine powder in the coarse powder and the coarse powder in the fine powder is equivalent. The
The author
expression for theproposes
relative agrading
relativesharpness
classificationindex sharpness
is: index as the examination index for this
experiment. As shown in Figure 10a,b, the curves f, a, and b index
The author proposes a relative classification sharpness as the
represent theexamination
raw materialindex for size
particle this
experiment. As
distribution, theshown in Figure
classified 10a,b, the
fine powder curves
d size
particle distribution,
f, a, dand b representand the
the raw material
classified particle
coarse size
powder
. particle
 10coarse 90 fine
distribution, the classified fine powder size distribution, and the classified coarse (23)
powder
particle size distribution, respectively. d10coarse indicates d  a particle size of 10% for the cumulative content
particle size distribution, respectively. d 10coarse indicates a particle size of 10% for the cumulative
in the coarse powder after classification, d90fine indicates a particle size of 90% for the cumulative
The in
content value ofcoarse
thefinethe relative
powder classification sharpness index,
after classification, δ, is the index for testing
size this experiment.
content in the powder after classification, and d’dindicates
90fine indicates a particle
the distribution of 90%
frequency for fine
of the the
A larger δ content
cumulative indicatesin athebetter
fine gradingafter
powder effectiveness
classification,andand a smaller
d’ δ indicates
indicates the a poorerfrequency
distribution grading
powder in the coarse powder and the coarse powder in the fine powder is equivalent. The expression
effectiveness.
of the Judging from the numerical simulation
the coarseresults, the
in authors
the fine chose four sets of process
for thefine powder
relative in the
grading coarse
sharpness powder
index is:and powder powder is equivalent. The
parameters
expression forforthe
therelative
actual experiment, with the
grading sharpness powder
index is: particle size distribution as the inspection
index, to investigate the effectiveness of dthe four − dsets
90 f ineof process parameters on the relative
δ = d10coarse 0 d90 fine
10coarse
(23)
classification sharpness index of the powder. .  d (23)
The test instrument selected was the LS-C (IIA) dlaser  particle size analyzer (error ≤ 3%).
The value of the relative classification sharpness index, δ, is the index for testing this experiment.
A larger δ indicates a better grading effectiveness and a smaller δ indicates a poorer grading
effectiveness. Judging from the numerical simulation results, the authors chose four sets of process
parameters for the actual experiment, with the powder particle size distribution as the inspection
index, to investigate the effectiveness of the four sets of process parameters on the relative
classification sharpness index of the powder.
The test instrument selected was the LS-C (IIA) laser particle size analyzer (error ≤ 3%).

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Coarse- and fine-grade product size distribution curve. (a) d10coarse < d90fine. (b) d10coarse >
d90fine.

The value of the relative classification sharpness index, δ, is the index for testing this experiment.
A larger δ indicates a better grading effectiveness and a smaller δ indicates a poorer grading effectiveness.

(a) (b)
Processes 2020, 8, 237 19 of 21

Judging from the numerical simulation results, the authors chose four sets of process parameters for
the actual experiment, with the powder particle size distribution as the inspection index, to investigate
the effectiveness of the four sets of process parameters on the relative classification sharpness index of
the powder.
The
Processes test8,instrument
2020, selected was the LS-C (IIA) laser particle size analyzer (error ≤ 3%). 20 of 22
x FOR PEER REVIEW
Based on the data in Table 1, a graph of δ changing with the process parameters was plotted,
Basedinon
as shown the data
Figure in the
11. As Table 1, a graph
rotation speedofofδthe
changing
runner with theair
and the process
intakeparameters was the
speed increase, plotted, as
relative
shown in Figure 11. As the rotation speed of the runner and the air intake speed increase,
classification sharpness index increases initially, but as the rotation speed and air intake speed of the the relative
classification
runner continue sharpness indexthe
to increase, increases
relativeinitially, but as sharpness
classification the rotation speed
index and air intake
decreases. speed to
According of the
runner
results of continue to increase,
the relative the relative
classification classification
sharpness index, it cansharpness
be foundindex decreases.
that the According
performance to the
of the second
results of
process the relative
parameters’ classification
classification sharpness
is better index,
than the it can be found that the performance of the
others.
second process parameters’ classification is better than the others.
Table 1. Relative classification accuracies under different process parameters.
Table 1. Relative classification accuracies under different process parameters.
Wheel Speed Air inlet Particle Size/µm
Material Name Number δ
Rpm Velocity m/s Size/μm d0
d90fine
d10coarse Particle
Material Name Number Wheel Speed Rpm Air inlet Velocity m/s 𝜹
1# 1600 6 8.66 d10coarse 7.08
d90fine d′
7.58 0.208
1#
2# 1600
1800 8 6 8.78 8.66 7.08
6.36 7.58
7.25 0.208
0.334
Steel Powder 2# 1800 8 8.78 6.36 7.25 0.334
Steel Powder 3# 2000 10 9.61 10.23 9.98 −0.621
3#
4# 2000
2200 12 10 9.43 9.61 10.49 10.23 9.98
9.92 −0.621
−0.106
4# 2200 12 9.43 10.49 9.92 −0.106
1#
1# 1600
1600 6 6 14.62 14.62 13.36
13.36 13.87
13.87 0.091
0.091
2#
2# 1800
1800 8 8 14.95 14.95 11.01
11.01 12.36 0.318
12.36 0.318
Barite Powder
Barite Powder 3# 2000 10 15.73 16.66 15.95 −0.583
3# 2000 10 15.73 16.66 15.95 −0.583
4# 2200 12 16.28 17.69 16.89 −0.083
4# 2200 12 16.28 17.69 16.89 −0.083

Figure
Figure 11.
11. Comparison
Comparison of
of relative
relative classification
classification accuracies
accuracies for different process parameters.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
This study
This study was
was based
based on
on the
the kinetics
kinetics of
of single
single particles. The trajectory
particles. The trajectory of
of the
the particles
particles was
was
quantitatively analyzed under different rotation speeds and intake air volumes. The following
quantitatively analyzed under different rotation speeds and intake air volumes. The following
conclusions were
conclusions were obtained:
obtained:
(1) The grading
(1) The grading experiment
experiment results
results for
for iron
iron ore
ore fines
fines and
and barite
barite powder
powder materials
materials indicate
indicate that
that the
the
better process parameter combination for the production of 12-µm particles using
better process parameter combination for the production of 12-μm particles using the KFF series the KFF series
turbo air
turbo air classifier
classifier is
is aa 1800
1800 rpm
rpm rotor
rotor speed
speed and
and 88 m/s
m/s air
air inlet
inlet velocity.
velocity.
(2) For the same process parameters, when the same grain size of 12-μm barite and iron ore fines
are produced, the relative classification sharpness index is different, indicating that the grading
effectiveness for the smaller density particles is higher.
(3) Numerical simulation experiments showed that the air inlet velocity has an effect on the grading
effectiveness rather than the rotor cage speed.
Processes 2020, 8, 237 20 of 21

(2) For the same process parameters, when the same grain size of 12-µm barite and iron ore fines
are produced, the relative classification sharpness index is different, indicating that the grading
effectiveness for the smaller density particles is higher.
(3) Numerical simulation experiments showed that the air inlet velocity has an effect on the grading
effectiveness rather than the rotor cage speed.
(4) The proposed new evaluation index, the relative classification sharpness index, could accurately
evaluate the classification performance.

Author Contributions: The author S.Z. provided help in the preliminary investigation of this article. M.L.
provided resources such as experimental equipment. Y.Z. (Yang Zhou) conducted in-depth research on the
evaluation index of classification performance, then proposed the concept of the relative classification sharpness
index, which could be applied in the classification performance tests of actual production. Y.Z. (Yun Zeng) was in
charge of the entire research experiment, statistics all the data and sorted it out. Finally wrote and revised the
manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This project was supported financially by the National Key R&D project (2016YFC0303703),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51674040 and No. 51904181), and the National Natural
Science Foundation of Hubei province (No. 2016CFC740). The authors would like to thank all the members of the
project team for their support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ren, W.; Liu, J.; Yu, Y. Design of a rotor cage with non-radial arc blades for turbo air classifiers. Powder
Technol. 2016, 292, 46–53. [CrossRef]
2. Xiong, D.; Li, S.; Huang, P. Effect of feeding type on classification performance of superfine classifier. CIESC
J. 2012, 63, 3818–3825.
3. Huang, Q.; Liu, J.; Yu, Y. Turbo air classifier guide vane improvement and inner flow field numerical
simulation. Powder Technol. 2012, 226, 10–15. [CrossRef]
4. Shapiro, M.; Galperin, V. Air classification of solid particles: Are view. Chem. Eng. Process. 2005, 44, 279–285.
[CrossRef]
5. Morimoto, H.; Shakouchi, T. Classification of ultrafine powder by a new pneumatic type classifier.
Powder Technol. 2003, 131, 71–79. [CrossRef]
6. Liu, R.; Liu, J.; Yu, Y. Effects of axial inclined guide vanes on a turbo air classifier. Powder Technol. 2015, 280,
1–9. [CrossRef]
7. Sun, Z.; Sun, G.; Yang, X.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, Q.; Liu, J. Effects of fine particle outlet on performance and flow
field of a centrifugal air classifier. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2017, 117, 139–148. [CrossRef]
8. Sun, Z.; Sun, G.; Liu, J.; Yang, X. CFD simulation and optimization of the flow field in horizontal turbo air
classifiers. Adv. Powder Technol. 2017, 28, 1474–1485. [CrossRef]
9. Gao, L.; Yu, Y.; Liu, J. Effect of rotor cage rotary speed on classification accuracy in turbo air classifier. CIESC
J. 2012, 63, 1056–1062.
10. Gao, L.; Yu, Y.; Liu, J. Study on the cut size of a turbo air classifier. Powder Technol. 2013, 237, 520–528.
[CrossRef]
11. Xiong, D.; Li, S.; Huang, P. Numerical Simulation of Distribution Characteristics of Particle Concentration in
Inlet Tube of Superfine Classifier. Chin. J. Process. Eng. 2011, 11, 729–735.
12. Okay, A.; Nurettin, A.T.; Hakan, B.; Ozgun, D. Multi component modelling of an air classifier. Miner. Eng.
2016, 93, 50–56.
13. Okay, A.; Hakan, B. Selection and mathematical modelling of high efficiency air classifiers. Powder Technol.
2014, 264, 1–8.
14. Benzer, H.; Ergun, L.; Lynch, A.J.; Oner, M.; Gunlu, M.; Celik, I.B.; Aydogan, N.A. Modelling cement grinding
circuits. Miner. Eng. 2001, 14, 1469–1482. [CrossRef]
15. Eswaraiah, C.; Angadi, S.I.; Mishra, B.K. Mechanism of particle separation and analysis of fish-hook
phenomenon in a circulating air classifier. Powder Technol. 2012, 218, 57–63. [CrossRef]
Processes 2020, 8, 237 21 of 21

16. Xing, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yoshiyuki, Y.; Saga, M.; Lu, J.; Zhang, H.; Jin, Y. Experimental study on velocity
field between two adjacent blades and gas–solid separation of a turbo air classifier. Powder Technol. 2015, 286,
240–245. [CrossRef]
17. Zeng, C.; Liu, C.H.; Chen, H.Y.; Zhang, M.; Fu, Y.; Wang, X. Effects of secondary air on the classification
performances of LNJ-36A air classifier. Chem. Ind. Eng. Prog. 2015, 34, 3859–3863.
18. Liu, J.; Xia, J.; He, T. Air flow field characteristics analyzing and classification process of the turbo classifier.
J. Chin. Ceram. Soc. 2003, 31, 485–489.
19. Tao, Z.; Zheng, S. Powder Engineering and Equipment; Chemical Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2010.
20. Zhang, S.; Chen, Y.; Li, S. Effects of process parameters on particle size distribution and productivity of
narrow level product in turbo air classifier. Chem. Ind. Eng. Prog. 2015, 33, 1113–1117+1155.
21. Napier-Munn, T.J. Mineral Comminution Circuits; Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre: Queensland
city, Australia, 1996.
22. Tirado, J.M.; Kumar, S.; Vandewinckel, J. Ladder Shelf System. U.S. Patent 10,167,669, 1 January 2002.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).