182
D. Markauskas and H. Kruggel-Emden
a
b
c
d
e
f
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Model
Summed averaged deviation [kg]
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ κ λ μ ν ξ π ρ
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Summed averaged deviation [kg]
Model
Amp 0.88 mm
Amp 1.76 mm
Amp 2.64 mm
Amp 3.52 mm
Amp 4.4 mm
Amp 5.28 mm
Amp 6.16 mm
Amp 7.04 mm
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Summed averaged deviation [kg]
Model
Frq 6.9 Hz
Frq 13.8 Hz Frq 20.7 Hz Frq 27.6 Hz
Frq 34.5 Hz Frq 41.4 Hz Frq 48.3 Hz Frq 55.2 Hz
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ κ λ μ ν ξ π ρ
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Model
Summed averaged deviation [kg]
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ κ λ μ ν ξ π ρ
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Model
Summed averaged deviation [kg]
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ κ λ μ ν ξ π ρ
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Model
Summed averaged deviation [kg]
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ κ λ μ ν ξ π ρ
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ κ λ μ ν ξ π ρ
Fig. 17 Particle passage deviation between phenomenological models sorted according to Table 2
and discrete element simulations summed up for various a, c, e amplitudes (spheres, double
cones, volume equivalent cylinders); b, d, f frequencies (spheres, double cones, volume equivalent
cylinders). Reprint with permission from [109]
In Fig. 18 particle passage deviation between phenomenological models and DEM
simulations performed with spheres (Fig. 18a, b), double cones (Fig. 18c, d) and
volume equivalent cylinders (Fig. 18e, f) for varying stroke angles (Fig. 18a, c, e)
and masses (Fig. 18b, d, f) are shown.
The results for various vibrations differ from the previously discussed results by
obtaining much better results for spheres in comparison to non-spherical particles,
except when model γ is used. The model γ shows a better accuracy for complex
shaped particles, because in the simulated cases a final screening efficiency of 100% is
not reached, which is relatively easy to represent with this model. Some models have
problems to represent complex shaped particles agitated by an oscillating movement