minerals

Article
A Numerical Study of Separation Performance of Vibrating
Flip-Flow Screens for Cohesive Particles
Chi Yu, Runhui Geng and Xinwen Wang *

School of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing),
Beijing 100083, China; [email protected] (C.Y.); [email protected] (R.G.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Vibrating flip-flow screens (VFFS) are widely used to separate high-viscosity and fine
materials. The most remarkable characteristic is that the vibration intensity of the screen frame is only
2–3 g (g represents the gravitational acceleration), while the vibration intensity of the screen surface
can reach 30–50 g. This effectively solves the problem of the blocking screen aperture in the screening
process of moist particles. In this paper, the approximate state of motion of the sieve mat is realized
by setting the discrete rigid motion at multiple points on the elastic sieve mat of the VFFS. The effects
of surface energy levels between particles separated via screening performance were compared and
analyzed. The results show that the flow characteristics of particles have a great influence on the
separation performance. For 8 mm particle screening, the particle’s velocity dominates its movement
and screening behavior in the range of 0–8 J/m2 surface energy. In the feeding end region (Sections
1 and 2), with the increase in the surface energy, the particle’s velocity decreases, and the contact



time between the particles and the screen surface increases, and so the passage increases. When the


surface energy level continues to increase, the particles agglomerate together due to the effect of the
Citation: Yu, C.; Geng, R.; Wang, X. cohesive force, and the effect of the particle’s agglomeration is greater than the particle velocity. Due
A Numerical Study of Separation to the agglomeration of particles, the difficulty of particles passing through the screen increases, and
Performance of Vibrating Flip-Flow the yields of various size fractions in the feeding end decrease to some extent. In the transporting
Screens for Cohesive Particles.
process, the agglomerated particles need to travel a certain distance before depolymerization, and the
Minerals 2021, 11, 631. https://
stronger the adhesive force between particles, the larger the depolymerization distance. Therefore,
doi.org/10.3390/min11060631
for the case of higher surface energy, the screening percentage near the discharging end (Sections
3 and 4) is greater. The above research is helpful to better understand and optimize the screening
Academic Editors: Daniel Saramak,
Marek Pawełczyk and
process of VFFS.
Tomasz Niedoba
Keywords: vibrating flip-flow screen; DEM; wet stick material; JKR model; separation performance
Received: 14 May 2021
Accepted: 8 June 2021
Published: 14 June 2021
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Flip-flow screening technology is a new concept of screening technology that has been
with regard to jurisdictional claims in widely used and promoted in recent years. The VFFS has a wide range of applications
published maps and institutional affil- in many fields, such as the fine coal screening process, cyclic screening of ore grinding
iations.
products by high-pressure roller mill, and resource utilization of building solid waste [1,2].
Compared to traditional vibrating screens, such as linear vibrating screens and circular
vibrating screens, the VFFS has the following advantage: small vibration intensity of
main screen frame (2–3 g), therefore the dynamic load on the foundation is small; high
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. vibration intensity of the sieve mat (up to 30–50 g). Furthermore, the VFFS is extremely
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. friendly to the screening of viscous and wet fine-grained material, and it is not easy to block
This article is an open access article apertures on the screen surface while ensuring high screening efficiency and processing
distributed under the terms and capacity. Due to the existence of water content between viscous and wet particles, there is a
conditions of the Creative Commons
liquid bridge force between particles; particles will gather into clusters when the cohesion
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
between particles is strong enough. When using traditional vibrating screens to process
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
the wet and fine particles, the vibration intensity is not enough to make the agglomerated
4.0/).

Minerals 2021, 11, 631. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11060631 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals

Minerals 2021, 11, 631 2 of 14

particles depolymerized, and the screens are extremely prone to blockage, adhesion, and
compaction, which deteriorates the screening process [3]. The vibration frequency of VFFS
is generally lower than a traditional screen, but through the large deformation of the elastic
sieve mat, the peak acceleration is easy to produce. The vibration response of the sieve mat
agitates the particle bed to deagglomerate the agglomerated particles. This drives the fine
particles to flow down the bed and then pass through the screen to become the undersized
product. The elastic sieve mat agitates the bed to depolymerize the agglomerated particles.
Standish constructed a single-particle model to investigate particle motion base on
the reaction kinetics and probability theory. However, the collision between particles is
not considered [4,5]. Soldinger developed a semi-mechanical phenomenological model of
a linear vibrating screen, taking into account the stratification and passage [6]. Soldinger
further extended the model after considering the material loading effect and the screening
efficiency of different size particles [7]. The actual screening process is very complicated,
and particle movement is affected by many conditions. At present, the discrete element
method (DEM) simulation is an effective method for the simulation of granular systems,
which has been used in various industrial processes. Cleary et al. quantitatively investi-
gated the particle flow and screening performance of an industrial double-deck banana
screen with different accelerations based on DEM simulation [8,9]. Davoodi et al. reported
the effect of the aperture shape and the material on the particle flow and sieving perfor-
mance [10]. Dong et al. simulated the screening process with the discrete element method
and studied the influence of rectangular aperture shapes, with different aspect ratios, on
material movement and screening efficiency [11]. Zhao et al. studied the influence of the
motion parameters of the linear and circular vibration screens on the screening perfor-
mance [12]. Wang et al. used the discrete element and the finite element methods to study
the influence of vibration parameters on the screening efficiency of the vibrating screen. In
addition, the distribution of stress and deformation on the screen surface under different
vibration conditions has also been reported [13].
The above studies are mostly focusing on dry particulate systems, which are based
on the Hertz–Mindlin model. In the actual screening process, due to the small particle
size, large specific surface area, and external moisture, the fine particles easily agglomerate
with each other to form large-size particles. The particles agglomerate together and move
as a whole, making the screening process difficult. Limtrakul et al. reported that fine
particles in a fluidized bed have particle agglomeration and stagnation regions due to
high cohesion and confirmed the influence of vibration on improving fluidization through
experiments [14]. Yang et al. investigated the influence of surface energy on the transition
behavior of Geldart A-type particles from a fixed bed to a bubbling bed through a two-
dimensional DEM-CFD simulation [15]. Cleary et al. reported the effect of cohesion
between particles on particle flow over a double-deck banana screen [16]. At present, there
are few numerical simulation studies on the movement and separation of viscous and wet
material on VFFS.
In this study, the elastic sieve mat of the VFFS is discretized into multiple units by
testing the movement of each unit body. According to the phase relationship of the unit
body, it can describe the kinematics of the entire elastic sieve mat. The motion of each point
on the sieve mat can be transformed into a function form by the Fourier series, which is
used as the basis for setting the motion of the VFFS model. The effects of different adhesion
levels on particle flow and screening performance on VFFS were compared and analyzed,
which is helpful to better understand and optimize the screening process of the VFFS.

2. Simulation Methods
2.1. Contact Model of Particles
Due to clay and water present on the particle surface, there is a cohesive force between
particles. The commonly used Hertz–Mindlin contact model struggles to comprehensively
analyze the mechanical behavior between wet particles and between particles and the
screen surface. The Hertz–Mindlin with JKR contact model, which considers the cohesive
 2. Simulation Methods
2.1. Contact Model of Particles
Due to clay and water present on the particle surface, there is a cohesive force be-
Minerals 2021, 11, 631 3 of 14
tween particles. The commonly used Hertz–Mindlin contact model struggles to compre-
hensively analyze the mechanical behavior between wet particles and between particles
and the screen surface. The Hertz–Mindlin with JKR contact model, which considers the
cohesive
force, can force, cansimulate
better better simulate the behavior
the behavior of viscousof viscous
and wetand wet particles.
particles. Taking
Taking into into
account
account
the effecttheofeffect of theenergy
the surface surface(adhesion
energy (adhesion force) the
force) between between theon
particles particles on the
the movement
movement
and screenand screen penetration,
penetration, the calculation
the calculation of the normal of the normal
elastic elastic
contact forcecontact
is basedforce
on theis
based on the Johnson–Kendall–Roberts
Johnson–Kendall–Roberts theory [17,18].
theory [17,18].
Figure11shows
Figure shows thethe contact
contact process of two two cohesive particles.R𝑅1 and
cohesiveparticles. andR2𝑅represent
representthe
radius
the radiusof Particle 1 and
of Particle 2, respectively
1 and 2, respectively(mm).
(mm). 𝑎 stands
a stands for for
thethe
contact
contactradius
radiusbetween
between the
particles
the particles(mm),
(mm), a0 is𝑎theisradius
andand of theofcontact
the radius surface
the contact considering
surface the adhesion
considering (mm).
the adhesion
(mm). 𝛿 amount
δn is the of normal
is the amount overlapoverlap
of normal (mm). Due(mm). to Due
the cohesive force onforce
to the cohesive the contact surface,
on the contact
the contact
surface, radius of
the contact theseoftwo
radius particles
these from a to
extendsextends
two particles a0 . 𝑎 to 𝑎 .
from

Deformationsurface
Figure1.1.Deformation
Figure surface(rough
(roughline)
line)considering
consideringcohesive
cohesiveforce.
force.

Thecohesive
cohesive force
force between as W(J/m 2 ), which can
The between the thewet
wetand
andviscous
viscousparticles
particlesis set
is set as 𝑊(J/m 2), which
be obtained by Equation
can be obtained by Equation (1). (1).
W = γ1 + γ2 + γ12 (1)
𝑊 = γ + γ +2 γ (1)
where γ1 is the surface energy of Particle 1 (J/m ); γ2 is the surface energy of Particle
2 (J/mγ2 ); isγ12
where thestands
surface forenergy of Particle
the interface 1 (J/m
energy 2); γ
between isParticles
the surface1 andenergy 2 ). When
of Particle
2 (J/m 2
(J/m
the );
2 γ stands
material of theforparticles
the interface
is theenergy
same, between Particles
the interface 1 and
energy is 02 J/m 2
(J/m ,).that
2 When is, the
γ12 ma-
= 0,
terial
γ1 =ofγ2the
= particles is theWsame,
= 2γ.the interface penergy is 0 J/m , that is, γ = 0，γ = γ =
2
γ, therefore,
γ, therefore, 𝑊 = 2γ. a = δn R ∗ (2)
r
2 ∗
δn =𝑎 = −𝛿 𝑅 ∗ 0
a0 4πγa (2)
∗
(3)
R E
1 𝑎 1 4πγ𝑎
1
𝛿 R=∗ =∗ R−1 + R2 ∗ (4)
(3)
𝑅 𝐸
1 1 − υ12 1 − υ22
E 1 E1 1 E12
∗
= + (5)
= + (4)
𝑅 ∗ wet
Here γ is the surface energy between 𝑅 particles
𝑅 (J/m2 ); R∗ is the equivalent contact
radius (mm); E∗ is the equivalent elastic modulus (N/m2 ); E1 , E2 represent the elastic
modulus of Particle 1 and 2, respectively (N/m2 ); υ1 υ2 are the Poisson’s ratio of these two
particles, respectively (-).
Then, the normal elastic contact force FJKR (N) between the wet particles can be calcu-
lated by Equation (6):
q 4E∗ a30
FJKR = −2 2πWE∗ a30 + (6)
3R∗
When the surface energy of the viscous particle is 0 J/m2 , the model FJKR is simplified
to the contact force FHertz .
 culated by Equation (6):

4𝐸 ∗ 𝑎
F = −2 2π𝑊𝐸 ∗ 𝑎 + (6)
3𝑅∗
Minerals 2021, 11, 631 4 of 14
When the surface energy of the viscous particle is 0 J/m2, the model F is simplified
to the contact force F .

2.2. The
2.2. The DEM Model DEMofModel
Setting VFFSSetting of VFFS
The structuresThe structures
of the VFFS and of the VFFS
elastic andmat
sieve elastic sieve mat are
are presented presented
in Figure in Figure 2. Different
2. Different
from the
from the traditional traditional
vibrating vibrating
screens, screens,
the VFFS the VFFS
consists consists
of two of two
vibrating vibrating
frames, frames, including
includ-
the main
ing the main screen framescreen frame
and the and the
floating floating
screen frame.screen frame.ofThe
The beams the beams of theare
two frames two frames are
arranged in a staggered layout. When the exciter mounted
arranged in a staggered layout. When the exciter mounted on the main screen frame is on the main screen frame is
operated, both the screen frames move relative to each other through
operated, both the screen frames move relative to each other through the effect of rubber the effect of rubber
shear springs. The elastic sieve mats are periodically stretched and slackened to generate to generate
shear springs. The elastic sieve mats are periodically stretched and slackened
peaktypically
peak acceleration, acceleration,
30–50typically 30–50 times gravity.
times gravity.

Figure 2. Structures ofFigure 2. Structures

the VFFS ofsieve
and elastic the VFFS
mat. and elastic sieve mat.

For traditionalFor traditional

screening screening
equipment such equipment
as circularsuch as circular
vibrating screensvibrating
and linear screens
vi- and linear
vibrating screens, the vibration parameters of the screen surface
brating screens, the vibration parameters of the screen surface are consistent with the vi- are consistent with the
vibration response of the screen frame. Therefore, it is relatively
bration response of the screen frame. Therefore, it is relatively easy to set the model of theeasy to set the model of
the traditional
traditional vibrating screen invibrating screen
the discrete in the discrete
element element
simulation. Manysimulation.
scholars haveMany al-scholars have
ready done many in-depth studies in these fields [19–21]. For the VFFS, the vibration re- the vibration
already done many in-depth studies in these fields [19–21]. For the VFFS,
sponse of eachresponse
s 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW positionofoneach
the position on the
elastic sieve matelastic sieve mat
is different. Theis accelerometer
different. The accelerometer
is used to
5 of 15
is used to
test the amplitude response at different positions on the elastic
test the amplitude response at different positions on the elastic sieve mat. Figure 3 shows sieve mat. Figure 3 shows
the measuring displacement of the midpoint of the sieve mat.
the measuring displacement of the midpoint of the sieve mat.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Fourier Fourier
series seriesofanalysis
analysis of amplitude
amplitude at the of
at the midpoint midpoint ofmat.
the sieve the sieve mat.

Thesignal
The displacement displacement signal of the
of the measuring measuring
point pointsurface
on the screen on the is
screen
not asurface
regularis not a regular
simple harmonic function but periodic. Fortunately, any periodic
simple harmonic function but periodic. Fortunately, any periodic function of time can function
be of time can
represented by the Fourier series as an infinite sum of sine and cosine terms [22]. Its Fou- terms [22]. Its
be represented by the Fourier series as an infinite sum of sine and cosine
Fourier series
rier series representation representation
is given is given
by Equation (7). by Equation (7).
∞

(𝑡) = 𝛼 + ∑ n
(t) = α +
𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝑛𝜔𝑡)
[ a cos(nωt) + b sin(nωt)]
n (7)
n=1 + 𝑏 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝑛𝜔𝑡) (5)

2
𝛼= 𝑥(𝑡)𝑑𝑡
𝜏
Minerals 2021, 11, 631 5 of 14

2
Z τ
α= x (t)dt
τ 0
2
Z τ
an = x (t)cos(nωt)dt
τ 0
2
Z τ
bn = x (t)sin(nωt)dt
τ 0
where ω = 2π/τ is called the fundamental frequency (rad/s) and α, a1 , a2 , . . . , b1 , b2 , . . .
are constant coefficients (-). The M (intercepted order of Fourier series) has a direct impact
on the accuracy of the calculation results. The larger the M, the closer the analysis result
is to the accurate value [23], but it will also affect the solution efficiency. Then, we take
the amplitude of the midpoint as an example for the Fourier analysis. Within a motion
cycle, the peak value of the amplitude is 30.27 mm. In contrast to the signals analyzed by
the Fourier series with the measured values, the results are shown in Figure 3. The mean
square error (MSE) of a period and the relative error (RE) of maximum amplitude in the
time domain are used to evaluate the change between the measured amplitude and the
Fourier series analysis result. The results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Measured amplitude and analyzed amplitude by Fourier series on the midpoint.

Intercepted Order M M=1 M=2 M=3 M=4 M=5

Maximum amplitude (mm) 23.23 28.10 28.79 29.37 29.88
RE (%) 17.19 2.63 2.0 1.57 1.10
MSE 13.06 0.99 0.59 0.40 0.20

Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW When the M is equal to one, the MSE is 13.06. When the M is equal to five, the 6MSE of 15
reduces to 0.2. Meanwhile, the RE is only 1.1%. Therefore, in this paper, the intercepted
order of all amplitudes analyzed by the Fourier series is taken as five. The testing vibration
amplitudes
amplitudes of of each
eachpoint
pointon
onthe
theelastic
elasticsieve
sieve mat
mat areare shown
shown in Figure
in Figure 4. It4.can
It can be seen
be seen that
that the vibration amplitudes on the elastic sieve mat are symmetrically distributed,
the vibration amplitudes on the elastic sieve mat are symmetrically distributed, the mid- the
midpoint has a large amplitude, and the edge measuring point has a relatively
point has a large amplitude, and the edge measuring point has a relatively small ampli- small
amplitude. The movement
tude. The movement ofpoint
of each each point
can becan be transformed
transformed into ainto a function
function by thebyabove-men-
the above-
mentioned Fourier analysis
tioned Fourier analysis method.method.

Figure 4. Vibration amplitude of each

each measuring
measuring point
point of
of the
the elastic
elastic sieve
sieve mat.
mat.

Further, the sieve mat

mat isis discretized
discretized into
into multiple
multiple units,
units, and
and the
the simulation
simulation of
of the
the
approximate continuous flexible motion is realized through the setting of multi-point
approximate continuous flexible motion is realized through the setting of multi-point rigid
motion, as shown
rigid motion, in Figure
as shown 5.
in Figure 5.
 Figure 4. Vibration amplitude of each measuring point of the elastic sieve mat.

Minerals 2021, 11, 631

Further, the sieve mat is discretized into multiple units, and the simulation of the 6 of 14
approximate continuous flexible motion is realized through the setting of multi-point
rigid motion, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. DEM model of Figure 5. DEM

the elastic sievemodel
mat. of the elastic sieve mat.

2.3. Simulation Conditions

2.3. Simulation Conditions
Figure 6a shows the 6a
Figure DEM modeling
shows the DEM schematic
modelingof the VFFS system.
schematic of the The
VFFS VFFS usedThe
system. in VFFS used
the simulation inprocess is specifically
the simulation processcomposed of eight
is specifically elastic sieve
composed mats,elastic
of eight each with a size
sieve mats, each with
of 328 × 650 mm.a size
Theof screen
328 mm × 650 mm.
aperture is 8 ×The screen
25 mm, andaperture is 8 mmangle
the inclination × 25of mm,
the and the inclination
screen
angle of the screen is 15 ◦ . In the simulation, the undersized product is divided into four
is 15°. In the simulation, the undersized product is divided into four parts equally by using
633.6 mm as parts equally
the length by using
interval unit,633.6
namelymm Sections
as the length interval5unit,
1–4. Section namely
is used Sections
to collect the 1–4. Section
Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
oversized 5 is used
product. Thetofeeding
collect the oversized
system product.
is composed of The
a silofeeding system is feeder.
and a vibrating composed 7 of
The of a silo 15
and
a vibrating
material properties feeder.inThe
are shown material
Figure properties
6b, and are shown
the simulation in Figurein6b,
parameters theand
DEM the simulation
are shown inparameters in theItDEM
Table 2 [24,25]. are shown
is worth notinginthat
Table
the2impact
[24,25].ofIt particle
is worthshape
notingonthat
thethe impact of
particle shape
screening on is
process the screening
not considered process is not
in this considered
study. in this
The particles usedstudy. Thesimulation
in this particles used
are
in this simulation are all homogeneous
all homogeneous spherical particles. spherical particles.

(a)Schematic
Figure6.6.(a)
Figure Schematicof
ofthe
theDEM
DEMmodel
modelof
ofthe
theVFFS
VFFSsystem;
system;(b)
(b)material
materialproperties
propertiesof
ofthe
thesample.
sample.

Table 2. Modeling condition in EDEM.

Material Property Poisson’s Ratio (-) Shear Modulus (Pa) Density (kg/m3)
Particle 0.250 2.200e + 08 2456
Polyrethane 0.499 1.157e + 06 1200
Steel 0.300 7.692e + 10 7850
Collision property Coefficient of restitution Coefficient of static friction Coefficient of rolling friction
Particle-particle 0.50 0.154 0.10
Particle-polyrethane 0.25 0.500 0.01
Particle-steel 0.30 0.154 0.01
Minerals 2021, 11, 631 7 of 14

Table 2. Modeling condition in EDEM.

Material Property Poisson’s Ratio (-) Shear Modulus (Pa) Density (kg/m3 )
Particle 0.250 2.200 × 108 2456
Polyrethane 0.499 1.157 × 106 1200
Steel 0.300 7.692 × 1010 7850
Collision property Coefficient of restitution Coefficient of static friction Coefficient of rolling friction
Particle-particle 0.50 0.154 0.10
Particle-polyrethane 0.25 0.500 0.01
Particle-steel 0.30 0.154 0.01
VFFS parameters
Vibration parameter The vibration frequency of 776 r/min, screen inclination of 15◦
Screen parameters Screen length and width with 2624 and 650 mm, respectively
Material properties The total mass of 5.81 kg

3. Effect of Surface Energy Level on Separation Performance

During the screening process, there are always some fine particles existing in the
oversized products and some coarse particles in the undersized products. The screening
efficiency and total misplaced material were used to assess the screening performance in
this paper. The calculation formulas are as follows [26,27]:

η = Ec + E f − 100
Ec = γo F×rOc × 100 (8)
c
Frf −γo ×O f
Ef = Frf × 100

Mo = Mc + M f
Mc = 100 × γu Uc (9)
M f = 100 × γo O f
where the η is the screening efficiency (%), Ec and E f stand for the effective placement
efficiency of the coarse particles (%) and the effective placement efficiency of fine particles
(%), respectively. The Mo is the total misplaced material (%), Mc and M f are the misplaced
material of coarse particles (%) and the misplaced material of fine particles (%), respectively.
The γo represents the yield of oversized product (%), γu is the yield of undersized product
(%), O f is the ratio of fine particles in the oversized product (%), Oc is the ratio of coarse
particles in the oversized product (%), Fcr is the ratio of coarse particles in the feeding (%),
and Ffr is the ratio of fine particles in the feeding (%).
Figure 7 shows the flow characteristics of material on VFFS with three surface energy
levels (4, 20, and 36 J/m2 ). In the case of the surface energy of 4 J/m2 , when the particles
enter the screen, the vibration of the sieve mat quickly enables the material to spread on
the screen surface. A larger amount of material pass through the screen in Section 1. As the
screening process progresses along the direction of material flow, the amount of penetration
in other sections gradually decreases. When the surface energy is 20 J/m2 , compared to the
case of 4 J/m2 , the yield of material in Section 1 is reduced. This section mainly promotes
the depolymerization of agglomerated particles. Meanwhile, the yield of material in Section
2 is increased. When the surface energy is 36 J/m2 , there is a great cohesion force between
the particles, and the agglomerated particles need a longer movement distance to complete
the depolymerization process. In Sections 1 and 2, which near the feeding end, the yield
of the undersized product is low, and more particles are concentrated in Sections 3 and 4,
near the discharging end. To further deepen the understanding of the screening process of
VFFS, quantitative analysis was carried out on the products of each section.
 rial in Section 2 is increased. When the surface energy is 36 J/m2, there is a great cohesion
force between the particles, and the agglomerated particles need a longer movement dis-
tance to complete the depolymerization process. In Sections 1 and 2, which near the feed-
ing end, the yield of the undersized product is low, and more particles are concentrated
Minerals 2021, 11, 631 in Sections 3 and 4, near the discharging end. To further deepen the understanding of 8 ofthe
14
screening process of VFFS, quantitative analysis was carried out on the products of each
section.

Figure 7. The
Figure flowflow
7. The behavior of material
behavior on VFFS
of material withwith
on VFFS different surface
different energy
surface levels.
energy (a) 4,
levels. (a)(b)
4, 20,
(b) and (c) 36
20, and (c)J/m 2.
36 J/m2.

3.1. The Yield of Each Section of VFFS

Figure 8a shows the distribution of product yields between undersized and oversized
products with different surface energy levels, where the distribution is related to the surface
energy between particles. With the increase in the surface energy level between particles,
the yield of the undersized product first increased and then decreased, and at the same
time, the yield of oversized products decreased and then increased. This means that for
each surface energy level, the sum of the undersized and oversized product is 100%. In the
case of the surface energy level of 0–8 J/m2 , the particle movement speed dominates the
movement and separation behavior of the particles. With the increase in the surface energy
level within the range of 0–8 J/m2 , the particle movement speed decreases, increasing the
contact time between the particle and the screen surface. Therefore, the amount of material
passing through the screen increases. When the cohesive force continues to increase to a
certain level, the particles agglomerate together, and the impact of particle agglomeration
is greater than the particle movement speed. As more fine particles agglomerate together,
their size increases to greater than the aperture size, and the material screening percentages
decreases. The stronger the surface energy between the particles, the longer the distance
the agglomerated particles need to deagglomerate. More fine particles finally enter the
oversized products, so the yield of undersized products drops again. When the surface
energy level is 36 J/m2 , around 70% of the material enters the oversized product.
 glomeration is greater than the particle movement speed. As more fine particles agglom-
erate together, their size increases to greater than the aperture size, and the material
screening percentages decreases. The stronger the surface energy between the particles,
the longer the distance the agglomerated particles need to deagglomerate. More fine par-
Minerals 2021, 11, 631
ticles finally enter the oversized products, so the yield of undersized products drops
9 of 14
again. When the surface energy level is 36 J/m2, around 70% of the material enters the
oversized product.

Figure 8. (a)
(a) Distribution
Distribution of
of the
the yields
yields between
between the
the undersized
undersized and
and oversized
oversized product
product with
with different
different surface
surface energy
energy levels;
levels;
(b) The
(b) The undersized
undersized product
product yields
yields of
of each
each section
section with
with different
different surface
surface energy
energylevels.
levels.

The yield of of each

eachsection
sectionofofthetheundersized
undersized product
product is further analyzed,
is further analyzed, andand
the the
results
re-
are shown
sults in Figure
are shown 8b. It8b.
in Figure canItbe canseen
be that
seenwiththat the
withincrease of theof
the increase surface energy
the surface level,
energy
the yield
level, the of theofundersized
yield product
the undersized in Section
product 1 shows
in Section a trend
1 shows of increasing
a trend and then
of increasing and
decreasing. When the surface energy is 8 J/m 2 , the yield in Section 1 is the largest, which is
then decreasing. When the surface energy is 8 J/m , the yield in Section 1 is the largest,
2

which is 17.91%. When the surface energy of particles continues to increase, the yield of1
17.91%. When the surface energy of particles continues to increase, the yield of Section
will gradually
Section decrease.decrease.
1 will gradually For the yield of Section
For the yield of2, with the
Section increase
2, with of the surface
the increase energy,
of the surface
it also shows
energy, it also the
showslawthe of law
first of
increasing and then
first increasing anddecreasing.
then decreasing. However,
However, the maximum
the maxi-
yield appears at the surface energyenergy
of 24 J/m 2 . With2 the increase of the surface energy, the
mum yield appears at the surface of 24 J/m . With the increase of the surface en-
ergy, the yield in Section 3 first decreases and thentoincreases
yield in Section 3 first decreases and then increases a maximum to a value
maximum whenvalue
the surface
when
energy is 32 J/m 2 and then2decreases again. The yield in Section 4 first decreases and then
the surface energy is 32 J/m and then decreases again. The yield in Section 4 first decreases
increases. For the surface 2
and then increases. For theenergy
surface levels
energyof 0, 4, 8, of
levels 12 0,and
4, 8,1612 J/m
and, the undersized
16 J/m product
2, the undersized

yield of each section gradually decreases along the direction

product yield of each section gradually decreases along the direction of the material flow,of the material flow, and
Section 1 accounts for the largest proportion. When the surface energy is 20 J/m 2 , the yield
and Section 1 accounts for the largest proportion. When the surface energy is 20 J/m2, the
in Section
yield 2 is greater
in Section than thethan
2 is greater yieldtheof yield
Section of 1.Section
When 1. theWhen
surfacetheenergy
surface level continues
energy level
to increase to 32 J/m 2 , the yield of Section 3 is greater than the products of Sections 1 and 2.
continues to increase to 32 J/m , the yield of Section 3 is greater than the products of Sec-
2
In Section
tions 1 and1,2.less than 4%1,ofless
In Section the than
particles
4% of pass
thethrough
particlesthe passscreen.
throughAs the
the surface
screen. energy
As the
increases, the section with the maximum yield moves toward the discharging end. That is,
the higher the adhesion, the longer the distance required for the depolymerization of the
agglomerated particles.

3.2. The Yield Accounted for Size Fraction in Different Sections

Figure 9 shows the yield accounted for different size fractions in different sections,
during the screening process of the VFFS. For 8 mm particle screening and different surface
energy levels, the 10 mm particles are the oversized product and are all concentrated in
Section 5. When the surface energy is 0, 4, and 8 J/m2 , the 4 and 5 mm particles are mainly
concentrated in Section 1, accounting for about 50% of this size fraction. With the increase
of particle size, the yield accounts for this size fraction in Section 1 gradually decreases.
For the 8 mm particles, the yields of this size fraction are 16.59%, 18.41%, and 19.80%,
respectively. In addition, for the case of these surface energy levels, as the surface energy
between particles increases, the yield of each size fraction also increases. This is because
the increase in the level of adhesion reduces the speed of particle movement. The contact
time between the particles and the screen surface is increased, increasing the yield of the
particles of each size fraction. For the cases of the surface energy of 12, 16, and 20 J/m2 , the
yield of each size fraction in Section 1 gradually decreased, and the yield of 4 and 5 mm
particles decreased to 51.93%, 44.50%, 36.63% and 47.98%, 38.87%, 35.40%, respectively. For
the case of the surface energy levels of 24, 28, and 32 J/m2 , in the product of Section 1, the
yield accounted for the size fraction of each sized particle further decreases. Meanwhile, it
is worth noting that the yield of 4 mm particles in Section 1 is slightly smaller than that of
 because the increase in the level of adhesion reduces the speed of particle movement. The
contact time between the particles and the screen surface is increased, increasing the yield
of the particles of each size fraction. For the cases of the surface energy of 12, 16, and 20
J/m2, the yield of each size fraction in Section 1 gradually decreased, and the yield of 4 and
5 mm particles decreased to 51.93%, 44.50%, 36.63% and 47.98%, 38.87%, 35.40%, respec-
Minerals 2021, 11, 631 10 of 14
tively. For the case of the surface energy levels of 24, 28, and 32 J/m2, in the product of
Section 1, the yield accounted for the size fraction of each sized particle further decreases.
Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the yield of 4 mm particles in Section 1 is slightly
5smaller than thatwhich
mm particles, of 5 mm particles,
is due to the which
surfaceisenergy
due to of
theparticles
surface energy
havingof particlesinfluence
a greater having
a greater
on influence on fine ones.
fine ones.

Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Figure9.9.Comparison
Figure Comparisonof ofthe
theparticle
particlesize
size distributions
distributions captured
captured into Sections 11 (a),
into Sections (a), 22 (b),
(b), 33 (c),
(c),44(d), and55(e)
(d),and (e)with
withdifferent
different
surface energy levels.
surface energy levels.

The yield
The yield of
of each
each sized
sized particle
particlein Section22was
inSection wasobserved.
observed.For For thethe
case of of
case 0, 4,
0, and 8
4, and
J/m 2 surface
2 energy, the yield of the undersized product in Section
8 J/m surface energy, the yield of the undersized product in Section 2 was significantly 2 was significantly
lower than
lower Section 1.
than Section 1. Within
Withinthetherange
rangeof of
0–80–8
J/mJ/m
2, as
2 ,the
as surface
the surfaceenergy increased,
energy the
increased,
yield
the of fine
yield particles
of fine increased,
particles and this
increased, andphenomenon
this phenomenon was more
was obvious when the
more obvious adhe-
when the
sion levellevel
adhesion was higher. WhenWhen
was higher. the surface energyenergy
the surface was 24was J/m2,24the yields
J/m ofyields
2 , the each size fraction
of each size
in Section
fraction in 2Section
begin 2tobegin
exceedto those
exceedinthose in 1.
Section The yields
Section 1. Theofyields
large-sized materialsmaterials
of large-sized in Sec-
tions 3 and 4 are generally higher than in small-sized materials. As the
in Sections 3 and 4 are generally higher than in small-sized materials. As the surface energy surface energy
increases, more
increases, more fine
fine particles
particles are
are deagglomerated
deagglomerated under underthe themovement
movementofofthe thesieve
sievemat
mat
in Sections 3 and 4, and the yield of fine particles in the product begins to exceedthat
in Sections 3 and 4, and the yield of fine particles in the product begins to exceed thatofof
coarse particles, becoming the dominant product in Sections 3 and 4. For particles with a
higher level of adhesion, a longer movement distance, that is, a higher external energy
supplement, is required to complete the depolymerization of agglomerated particles. The
higher the adhesive force level, the closer the maximum yield section in the undersized
product is to the discharging end. Moreover, the smaller the particle size, the more obvi-
Minerals 2021, 11, 631 11 of 14

coarse particles, becoming the dominant product in Sections 3 and 4. For particles with
a higher level of adhesion, a longer movement distance, that is, a higher external energy
supplement, is required to complete the depolymerization of agglomerated particles. The
higher the adhesive force level, the closer the maximum yield section in the undersized
product is to the discharging end. Moreover, the smaller the particle size, the more obvious
this phenomenon.

3.3. The Screening Percentage of Different Size Fractions of Different Sections

The screening percentages of various size fractions in different Sections of VFFS with
different surface energy levels are shown in Figure 10. In the products of Section 1, for
the particles at the surface energy of 24, 28, 32 J/m2 , and 36 J/m2 , it can be seen that the
screening percentages of various size fractions are significantly lower than that of other
surface energy levels. Taking 4 mm particles as an example, the screening percentages
of 4 mm particles are 21.93%, 15.41%, 9.00%, and 7.10%, respectively. The main effect of
Section 1 is to promote the depolymerization of agglomerated particles. The longer the
transporting distance of agglomerated particles, the better the depolymerization effect.
It can be observed that for 4 mm particles under the case of the surface energy level of
20 J/m2 , the screening percentage in Section 1 is 36.63%, in Section 2 increases to 54.89%,
and the screening percentages in Sections 3 and 4 are 52.45% and 50.74%, respectively.
When the cohesive force level continues to increase to 28 J/m2 , the screening percentage in
Section 1 is 15.41%, in Section 2 it is 38.08%, and increases to 48.23% and 48.89% in Sections
3 and 4, respectively. When the surface energy is 36 J/m2 , the screening percentage in
Section 1 is only 7.10%, and further increases to 18.19%, 32.24%, and 41.55%, respectively.
Compared with the coarse particles, the surface energy level has a more significant effect
Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15 of
on fine particles. After the depolymerization of fine particles, the screening percentage
fine particles will be significantly improved.

Figure
Figure 10.10. Comparisonofofthe
Comparison thescreening
screeningpercentages
percentages of
of various
various size fractions
fractions in Sections11(a),
inSections (a),22(b),
(b),3 3(c),
(c),and
and4 (d) of of
4 (d) VFFS
VFFS
with
with different
different surface
surface energylevels.
energy levels.

3.4. The Screening Performance of Various Size Fractions in Different Sections and Screen
Length
Figures 11 and 12 show the screening efficiency and misplaced material of various
size fractions in different sections and screen lengths of the VFFS with different surface
 Minerals 2021, 11, 631 12 of 14

3.4. The Screening Performance of Various Size Fractions in Different Sections and Screen Length
Figures 11 and 12 show the screening efficiency and misplaced material of various
size fractions in different sections and screen lengths of the VFFS with different surface
energy levels. The particles shape in the simulation are spherical, so in the actual simula-
tion process, no coarse particles enter the undersized products. The effective placement
efficiency of the coarse particles is 100%, and the misplaced material of coarse particles
is 0%. Therefore, the screening efficiency is equal to the effective placement efficiency
of fine particles, and the total misplaced material is equal to the misplaced material of
fine particles. For 8 mm particle screening, when the surface energy between particles is
0 J/m2 , the screening efficiency in Section 1 reaches the maximum of 29.15%, and the total
misplaced material is 39.50%. With the flow of material, the screening efficiency in Sections
1–4 decreases gradually. When the surface energy increases to 5 and 8 J/m2 , the screening
efficiency increases in Sections 1 and 2, and the total misplaced material decreases, which
is mainly due to the surface energy between particles reducing the movement speed of
particles and increasing the residence time of particles on the screen surface, thus increas-
ing the screening efficiency. After the surface energy of 16 J/m2 , the influence of particle
agglomeration begins to be greater than particle velocity, and the screening efficiency starts
to decrease. The screening efficiency of Section 2 begins to be greater than that of Section
1. In addition, the screening efficiency of Sections 3 and 4 are higher than those of the
Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
levels 0, 5, 8, and 12 J/m2 . For the case of 24 J/m2 , the maximum screening efficiency 13 of 15
appears in Section 3, which is 30.54%. When the surface energy increases to 32 J/m2 , the
screening efficiency of Section 4 is the highest, which is 27.88%. For different surface energy
levels, the screening efficiency of particles increased with the increase in screening length.
length.
When theWhen the surface
surface 8 J/m2is
energy isenergy 8 J/m
, the 2, the screening efficiency of VFFS is the highest,
screening efficiency of VFFS is the highest, which is
which
72.52%,is 72.52%, and the
and the total total misplaced
misplaced material ismaterial
23.81%. is 23.81%.

Figure
Figure11.11.
(a)(a)
Screening
Screeningefficiency
efficiencyofofdifferent
different sections
sections of the screen
screenwith
withdifferent
differentsurface
surfaceenergy
energy levels,
levels, (b)(b) screening
screening
efficiency of different screen lengths with different surface energy levels.
efficiency of different screen lengths with different surface energy levels.

Figure 12. (a) Misplaced material of the different sections of the screen with different surface energy levels, (b) misplaced
Minerals 2021, 11, 631 13 of 14
Figure 11. (a) Screening efficiency of different sections of the screen with different surface energy levels, (b) screening
efficiency of different screen lengths with different surface energy levels.

Figure
Figure (a)(a)
12.12. Misplacedmaterial
Misplaced materialofofthe
thedifferent
different sections
sections of
of the
the screen
screenwith
withdifferent
differentsurface
surfaceenergy levels,
energy (b)(b)
levels, misplaced
misplaced
material
material ofof differentscreen
different screenlengths
lengthswith
with different
different surface
surfaceenergy
energylevels.
levels.

4.4.Conclusions
Conclusions
Thefollowing
The following conclusions
conclusions cancanbe bedrawn
drawnfrom fromthe theabove
above research.
research.
(1) Due to the amplitude at each point on
(1) Due to the amplitude at each point on the sieve mat the sieve mat changing
changing periodically, thethe
periodically,
motioncan
motion canbebetransformed
transformed intointo aa function
functionform
formby bythe
theFourier
Fourier series.
series.The
TheDEMDEM simulation
simulation
of VFFS is realized by setting the multi-point rigid
of VFFS is realized by setting the multi-point rigid motion of the motion of the sieve mat.
sieve mat.
(2) When the surface energy level is in the range of 0 to 8 J/m2 , the particle velocity in
(2) When the surface energy level is in the range of 0 to 8 J/m2, the particle velocity in
the feeding end region (Sections 1 and 2) dominates the movement behavior of particles
the feeding end region (Sections 1 and 2) dominates the movement behavior of particles
passing through the screen. In Sections 1 and 2, the particle movement speed decreases,
passing through the screen. In Sections 1 and 2, the particle movement speed decreases,
which increases the contact time between the particles and the screen surface, increasing
which increases
the screening the contactWhen
percentages. time between
the level the particles
of surface and continues
energy the screentosurface, increasing
increase, more
the
finescreening percentages.
particles are agglomeratedWhen the level
together, which of increases
surface energy continues
the screening to increase,
difficulty. more
The effect
fine
of particle agglomeration in the feeding end is greater than its movement speed, and the ef-
particles are agglomerated together, which increases the screening difficulty. The
fect of particle
screening agglomeration
percentages in the feeding
of each particle endfeeding
size in the is greater
end than
have its
beenmovement speed, and
reduced. Agglom-
the screening
erated percentages
particles of each
need a certain particle size
transporting in thetofeeding
distance end haveThe
deagglomerate. been reduced.
stronger theAg-
glomerated
surface energy particles
betweenneed a certain
particles, thetransporting distance
greater the distance theto deagglomerate.
particles The stronger
need to deagglomer-
ate.surface
the Therefore,
energyfor the case ofparticles,
between a higher the
surface energy
greater the level, close
distance thetoparticles
the discharging
need toenddeag-
(Sections 3 and 4), the screening percentages of the material are greater.
glomerate. Therefore, for the case of a higher surface energy level, close to the discharging
(3) The screening
end (Sections 3 and 4), efficiency
the screeningincreases with theof
percentages increase in screen
the material arelength
greater.for different
surface energy levels. When the surface energy is 8 J/m2 , the screening performance
of VFFS is better, with a screening efficiency of 72.52% and a total misplaced material
of 23.81%.
Since the shape of the screen apertures of the elastic sieve mat is a straight slot, in the
actual screening process, there is a situation that the strip particles pass through the screen.
In future work, the influence of the shape characteristics of the particles on their movement
and screening performance should be considered. Furthermore, we still need to carry out
some full-scale screening experiments of wet particles based on the experimental VFFS.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.Y. and X.W.; methodology, C.Y. and X.W.; software,
C.Y.; validation, C.Y., R.G. and X.W.; formal analysis, C.Y.; investigation, C.Y.; resources, X.W.; data
curation, C.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, C.Y. and R.G.; writing—review and editing, X.W.;
visualization, X.W.; supervision, X.W.; project administration, X.W.; funding acquisition, X.W. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities”
(No. 2020YJSHH17) (No. 2021YJSHH32).
Data Availability Statement: All data and models generated or used during the study appear in the
submitted article.
Minerals 2021, 11, 631 14 of 14

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the company of TianGong technology for its
support in enabling this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhai, H.X. Determination of the operation range for flip-flow screen in industrial scale based on amplitude-frequency response.
J. China Coal Soc. 2007, 7, 753–756.
2. Gong, S.; Oberst, S.; Wang, X. An experimentally validated rubber shear spring model for vibrating flip-flow screens. Mech. Syst.
Signal Process. 2020, 139, 106619. [CrossRef]
3. Xiong, X.; Niu, L.; Gu, C.; Wang, Y. Vibration characteristics of an inclined flip-flow screen panel in banana flip-flow screens.
J. Sound Vib. 2017, 411, 108–128. [CrossRef]
4. Standish, N. The kinetics of batch sieving. Powder Technol. 1985, 41, 57–67. [CrossRef]
5. Standish, N.; Bharadwaj, A.; Hariri-Akbari, G. A study of the effect of operating variables on the efficiency of a vibrating screen.
Powder Technol. 1986, 48, 161–172. [CrossRef]
6. Soldinger, M. Interrelation of stratification and passage in the screening process. Miner. Eng. 1999, 12, 497–516. [CrossRef]
7. Soldinger, M. Influence of particle size and bed thickness on the screening process. Miner. Eng. 2000, 13, 297–312. [CrossRef]
8. Cleary, P.W.; Sinnott, M.D.; Morrison, R.D. Separation performance of double deck banana screens—Part 1: Flow and separation
for different amplitudes. Miner. Eng. 2009, 22, 1218–1229. [CrossRef]
9. Cleary, P.; Sinnott, M.D.; Morrison, R.D. Separation performance of double deck banana screens—Part 2: Quantitative predictions.
Miner. Eng. 2009, 22, 1230–1244. [CrossRef]
10. Davoodi, A.; Bengtsson, M.; Hulthén, E.; Evertsson, C. Effects of screen decks’ aperture shapes and materials on screening
efficiency. Miner. Eng. 2019, 139, 105699. [CrossRef]
11. Dong, K.; Esfandiary, A.H.; Yu, A. Discrete particle simulation of particle flow and separation on a vibrating screen: Effect of
aperture shape. Powder Technol. 2017, 314, 195–202. [CrossRef]
12. Zhao, L.L.; Liu, C.S.; Yan, J.X.; Jiang, X.W.; Zhu, Y. Numerical simulation of particle segregation behavior in different vibration
modes. Acta Phys. Sin Ch. Ed. 2010, 59, 2582–2588.
13. Wang, Z.; Liu, C.; Wu, J.; Jiang, H.; Zhao, Y. Impact of screening coals on screen surface and multi-index optimization for coal
cleaning production. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 562–575. [CrossRef]
14. Limtrakul, S.; Rotjanavijit, W.; Vatanatham, T. Lagrangian modeling and simulation of effect of vibration on cohesive particle
movement in a fluidized bed. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007, 62, 232–245. [CrossRef]
15. Yang, F.; Thornton, C.; Seville, J. Effect of surface energy on the transition from fixed to bubbling gas-fluidised beds. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 2013, 90, 119–129. [CrossRef]
16. Cleary, P.W.; Wilson, P.; Sinnott, M.D. Effect of particle cohesion on flow and separation in industrial vibrating screens. Miner.
Eng. 2018, 119, 191–204. [CrossRef]
17. Cao, B.; Li, W.H.; Wang, N.; Bai, X.Y.; Wang, C.W. Calibration of Discrete Element Parameters of the Wet Barrel Finishing Abrasive
Based on JKR Model. Surf. Technol. 2019, 48, 249–256.
18. Feng, X.; Liu, T.; Wang, L.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Song, L. Investigation on JKR surface energy of high-humidity maize grains. Powder
Technol. 2021, 382, 406–419. [CrossRef]
19. Delaney, G.W.; Cleary, P.; Hilden, M.; Morrison, R.D. Testing the validity of the spherical DEM model in simulating real granular
screening processes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2012, 68, 215–226. [CrossRef]
20. Davoodi, A.; Asbjörnsson, G.; Hulthén, E.; Evertsson, M. Application of the Discrete Element Method to Study the Effects of
Stream Characteristics on Screening Performance. Minerals 2019, 9, 788. [CrossRef]
21. Harzanagh, A.A.; Orhan, E.C.; Ergun, S.L. Discrete element modelling of vibrating screens. Miner. Eng. 2018, 121, 107–121.
[CrossRef]
22. Singiresu, S.R. Mechanical Vibrations, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 72–80.
23. Zhang, Y.; Shi, D.; He, D.; Shao, D. Free Vibration Analysis of Laminated Composite Double-Plate Structure System with Elastic
Constraints Based on Improved Fourier Series Method. Shock. Vib. 2021, 2021, 8811747. [CrossRef]
24. Li, Y.; Xu, Y.; Thornton, C. A comparison of discrete element simulations and experiments for ‘sandpiles’ composed of spherical
particles. Powder Technol. 2005, 160, 219–228. [CrossRef]
25. Wu, B.; Zhang, X.; Niu, L.; Xiong, X.; Dong, Z.; Tang, J. Research on Sieving Performance of Flip-Flow Screen Using Two-Way
Particles-Screen Panels Coupling Strategy. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 124461–124473. [CrossRef]
26. Jiang, H.; Wang, W.; Zhou, Z.; Jun, H.; Wen, P.; Zhao, Y.; Duan, C.; Zhao, L.; Luo, Z.; Liu, C. Simultaneous multiple parameter
optimization of variable-amplitude equal-thickness elastic screening of moist coal. Powder Technol. 2019, 346, 217–227. [CrossRef]
27. Jiang, H.; Zhao, Y.; Duan, C.; Zhang, C.; Diao, H.; Wang, Z.; Fan, X. Properties of technological factors on screening performance
of coal in an equal-thickness screen with variable amplitude. Fuel 2017, 188, 511–521. [CrossRef]