PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING/NUMERICAL SIMULATION 811
CFD simulation of particulate
flow in a spiral concentrator
Gamal M. A. Mahran, KAU, Jeddah, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, Mohamed A. Doheim, Mohamed H.
Abu-Ali, Assiut, Egypt and Ahmed F. Abdel Gawad,
Makkah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Carl Hanser Verlag on September 7, 2015
Article Information
Correspondence Address
Assistant Prof. Dr. Gamal M. A. Mahran
Deanship of Graduate Studies
P.O. Box 80217
King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
E-mail: gamalmahran@hotmail.com
For personal use only.
Keywords
Spiral separator, particulate-flow, numerical simulation, turbulence
modeling, gravity separation
A spiral concentrator consists of an open
trough that twists downward in helix con-
figuration about a central axis. Majority of
current designs of spirals have 5 to 7 turns.
It is basically a helical sluice, as shown in
Figure 1. Spiral separator is firstly de-
signed and developed based on experience
and by many tests of prototypes and modi-
fications. Because of the simplicity of op-
eration and low cost, spirals have been
widely used in the mineral industry to
separate high-density particles from low-
density ones.
Development of any spiral design re-
mains largely a process of trial and error.
To reduce development time and costs,
many experimental models of the spiral
were made. Traditionally a spiral separator
has been used effectively in the coal and
beach sand industries. Currently, it is suc-
cessfully used to beneficiate a number of
ores such as chromite, rutile, gold ore, iron
ore, mainly due to its operational simplicity
and cost effectiveness. Recently, there has
been an accelerated growth in the use of
spirals for iron ore beneficiation. The de-
mand for higher efficiency of separation is
compromised by a higher capacity in the
57 (2015) 9  © Carl Hanser Verlag, München  Materials Testing
A spiral concentrator is a gravity concentration de-
vice. It was invented by Humphreys in 1941. Firstly,
it was designed and developed based on experience
and by extensive testing of prototypes and modifica-
tions. The main objective of the present study is the
simulation of the particulate flow of more realistic
solid concentrations (i. e., 15 wt.-% solids) in a spiral
separator. This study is based on the Eulerian ap-
proach and renormalization group k-ε turbulence
modeling. The results focus on particulate flow
characteristics such as velocity, distribution and
concentration of particulates on the spiral trough.
The predicted results were compared with the
experimental results in case of LD9 coal spiral.
Comparisons between numerical and measured
data showed good agreement.
size range of 3 mm to 45 µm. For iron ore These models have been started by
beneficiation, this size range is considered Burch [3] when he assumed the pulp to be
coarse to be treated by floatation and it is a liquid of uniform viscosity. He also as-
considered fine for other conventional grav- sumed that the secondary flow would not
ity separators like jig which performs bet- affect the primary flow. Wang and An-
ter for feed materials above 2 mm size. De- drews [4] introduced a first step in the de-
spite all its advantages, there has been an velopment of a mechanistic model of the
increased demand for design spirals to ac- spiral operation. The model determines
commodate feed materials that vary over the flow fields for simplified rectangular
size as well as grade. So, the challenge has spiral sections. Jancar et al. [5] investi-
been the design of the correct profile of the gated the fluid flow on LD9 spiral using
spiral. Since its inception, a lot of work has
been done to understand and improve the
performance of spirals [1].
However, to predict the performance of a
spiral for any given application, and more
importantly, to design spirals for a particu-
lar ore type to obtain a desired grade, a lot
of experiments must be done. These are
quite exhausting and costly. Hence, there
are many options in the simulation of the
separation process in spiral separators.
Therefore, mathematical models are of
great value for determining how such flows
are influenced by fluid properties and geo-
metrical parameters and, hence, for pre-
dicting and improving the performance of
these separators [2]. Figure 1: A Humphreys spiral
 812 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING/NUMERICAL SIMULATION
their developed code. All these models
were developed to be more reliable.
Mathews et al. [6-8] presented CFD mod-
eling of the fluid flow on spiral trough. Do-
heim et al. [9] suggested CFD model based
on Eulerian approach and turbulence
model in case of low solid concentration
from 0.3 to 3 wt.-% solid. This present pa-
per follows the overall CFD modeling fluid
particle flow in gravity concentrators in
spiral separators. The discussions are con-
centrated on the adoption of a realistic
amount of solid (15 wt.-%) in spiral separa-
tors of multiphase flow models as well as
model validation against experimental
data. The present study suggests a particu-
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Carl Hanser Verlag on September 7, 2015
late flow computational model based on
Eulerian approach and is validated using
the experimental data of LD9 spiral [10-
12]. The main objective of this study is to
obtain a comprehensive mathematical
model according to computational fluid dy-
namics (CFD) and a more realistic percent-
age of solid (15 wt.-% solids). The present
study will focus on the shortcomings of the
previous mathematical models such as
solid percentage so as to obtain a more ac-
For personal use only.
curate and reliable model.
Spiral separator description
Spiral geometry. The design parameters of
the spiral separator can be listed as: spiral
pitch (u), profile shape length (L), and in-
ner and outer trough radii (ri, ro) that gov-
ern the curvature (ψ) of the channel. The
parameters are shown in Figure 2 and de-
fined as follows [9]:
Figure 2: Schematic drawing of a spiral separator
pitch: u = 2 π r tan (α) (m)
descent angle: α(r) = tan - 1(u/2 π r) (o)
height loss: h = R r tan (α) (m)
mainstream distance: L(r) = R r/cos(α) (m)
curvature: ψ = (ri + ro)/2 W (dimensionless)
trough width: W = ro–ri (m)
spiral height: H = n × u (m)
with R: angular distance of one turn in the
mainstream direction from the spiral inlet
(= 2 π α), r: radial distance from the center-
line axis, H: spiral height and W: trough
width. The geometrical parameters for LD9
spiral are listed in Table 1 [9].
Mechanism of particle separation. Feed
was introduced through the feed box at the top
of the spiral, which established the correct
pattern of the flow. The feed entered the spiral
trough as a homogenous slurry. The pulp
flowed spirally downward, the spiral sepa-
rated minerals in accordance with their spe-
cific gravity and particle size. Low density and
small size particles remained suspended and
traveled outwards due to the centrifugal force
to accumulate in the outer trough regions,
whilst high density and coarse size particles
settled in the flow to slide inwards toward the
central column as shown in Figure 3.
Governing equations and numerical de-
scription of the model Governing equa-
tions. To model particulate flow on a spiral
separator, two-phase flow (water and solid)
was considered. The continuity and mo-
∂   
(α sρs v s ) + ∇ ⋅(α sρs v s v s ) = −α s∇p − ∇ps + ∇ ⋅ τs + α sρsg + Flift,s + ∑ R ls
∂t
Equation 2
Figure 3: Cross section
of spiral trough
Inner radius Outer radius Trough width
(mm) (mm) (mm)
70 350 280
Table 1: Geometrical parameters of LD9 spiral separator
mentum equations were used for mul-
tiphase (water and solid) flow throughout
the domain. The flow on a spiral separator
was considered to be Newtonian and turbu-
lent. Continuity and Navier–Stokes equa-
tions supplemented by a suitable turbu-
lence model were appropriate for modeling
the spiral separator flow. The following
transient equations describe the conserva-
tion of mass and momentum equations.
Continuity equation. The continuity equa-
tion for phase q (either water or particulate
phase) is
∂ 
(α qρq ) + ∇·(α qρq v q ) = 0 (1)
∂t

with αq: volume fraction of phase, q, v q : ve-
locity vector of phase q, ρq: material den-
sity of phase q, and p: phase (either water
or solid).
Momentum equations. The momentum
equations for two phases [(fluid and particu-
late) or (water and solids)] represent a multi-
fluid granular model to describe the flow be-
havior of a fluid-solid mixture. The solid-phase
stresses are derived by making an analogy of
the random particle motions arising from par-
ticle-particle collisions. The momentum con-
servation equations for the fluid (liquid (wa-
ter, l)) and particulate (solids, s) are:
see Equation 2 (2)
  N
l=1
Pitch, u Curvature Descent Number of
(mm) ψ angle (°) turns (n)
273 0 : 75 7-32 6
57 (2015) 9
 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING/NUMERICAL SIMULATION 813

see Equation 3 (3) The effective viscosity, μeff, is given by: 150 × 40 × 10 in the mainstream, cross-
stream and depth-wise directions, respec-
∂u j
with τ: phase stress-strain tensor: G k = −ρu′i u′j (10) tively. The total number of cells is 60 000.
∂x i The computational grid is a structured mesh
  ⎛ 2 ⎞ 
τ = α qµ q ∇v q + ∇v qT + α q ⎜ λ q − µ q ⎟ ∇·v q I
⎝ 3 ⎠
( ) The main difference between the RNG and
consisting of hexahedral control volumes.
Careful consideration was paid to minimize
(4)
 T ⎛ 2 ⎞ 
α qµ q ∇v q + ∇v q + α q ⎜ λ q − µ q ⎟ ∇·v q I
⎝ 3 ⎠
( ) standard k-є models lies in the additional
term in the є equation and is given by:
the dependence of solution on the mesh by
improving the clustering of cells near solid
    ⎧
with μq and λq: shear and bulk viscosity of 3 η 2⎫ walls until results were almost constant.
⎪ Cµ ρ η (1− ) ε ⎪ 2
the phase q, Flift,q: lift force, p: pressure ⎪ η0 ⎪ε The investigation was carried out using dif-
shared by all phases, vq: velocity of phase q Rε = ⎨ ⎬ (11) ferent numbers of cells, namely 40 000,
⎪k
3
⎪ 1+ β η
(liquid or solid (particulate-phase), vl: veloc- ⎪ ⎪ 50 000, 60 000, 70 000 and 80 000. It was
ity of liquid phase, vs: velocity of solid ⎩ ⎭ found that the number of cells in the range
phase, and Rsl or Rls: interaction force be- of 60 000 gives the same results as the
tween phases. with η = S × k/ε and S: Modulus of the higher numbers of cells. The least y+ from
Equations (2) and (3) must be closed mean rate of strain tensor. the wall for the first node was about 4.
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Carl Hanser Verlag on September 7, 2015

with appropriate expressions for the inter- The model constants are set as C1є = 1.42, Boundary conditions. Four boundaries
phase force Rsl. This force depends on the C2є = 1.68, Cμ = 0.0845, σk = 1.0 and σє =  1.3. are surrounding the suggested domain,
friction, pressure, cohesion and other ef- Computational domain. The computa- namely inlet plane, outlet plane, solid walls.
fects, and is subjected to the conditions tional domain is shown in Figure 4. It is dif- At the inlet boundary of the spiral, velocity
Rsl = – Rlsand Rll = 0. ferent from that used in low solid percent- components and volume fractions of solids
The simple interaction term is: age [9]. This is because the free surface pro- are specified to give the desired flow rates
   file of current domain was taken from of slurry. At exit of the domain (outlet
R sl = k sl (v s − v l )
 (5) experimental investigation [12]. The free plane), velocity gradients were set to zero.
 
R ls = k ls (v l − v s ) surface profile formed the upper boundary At the trough bottom, no-slip conditions are
of the computational domain and thus re- suggested for water only. At the top surface
with Rsl: interaction force between phases, mained fixed during the coupled water par- of the computational domain, fixed surface
For personal use only.

Ksl ( = Kls): interphase momentum exchange ticle calculation. The computational domain is used. The trough wall roughness con-
coefficient between fluid or solid phase (l) consists of one complete turn of the LD9 stant was set to 0.5. The water phase on
and solid phase (s), and N: total number of spiral separator. The number of cells are spiral separator is assumed to have con-
phases.
  
Flift = −0.5ρqα q v q − v p ·(∇·v q ) (6) ∂     N
(α lρl v l ) + ∇ ⋅(α lρl v l v l ) = −α l∇p + ∇ ⋅ τl + α lρl g + Flift,l + ∑ R sl
∂t l=1
Turbulence models. Doheim et al. [9] de-
duced that RNG-K-є turbulence model is Equation 3
the most accurate turbulence in case of
particulate flow of spiral separator mode-
∂ ⎛ ∂k ⎞
ling. The RNG-K-є turbulence model is de-
rived from the instantaneous Navier-Stokes
∂
∂t
( )
ρk +
∂
∂x i
(
ρ k ui = )
⎜ α k µ eff
∂x j ⎜⎝
⎟ + Gk − ρ ε
∂x j ⎟⎠
equations. The derivation is based on a
mathematical technique called “renormali- Equation 7
zation group” (RNG) method [13]. Trans-
port equations for the RNG K-є model have
∂ ⎛ ∂ε ⎞ ε2
a similar form as the standard k-є model.
∂
∂t
( )
ρε +
∂
∂x i
(
ρ ε ui = )⎜ α ε µ eff
∂x j ⎜⎝
ε
⎟ + C1ε (G k ) − C2ε ρ − R ε
∂x j ⎟⎠ k k
see Equation 7 (7)
Equation 8

see Equation 8 (8)

The RNG turbulence model is more sensi-

tive to the mean rate of strain because of Rε
in Equation (14) with Gk, i: generation of Figure 4: Computational
turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean domain of LD9 spiral at
velocity gradient. 6 m3 × h-1 flow rate and
with 15 wt.-% solids in
feed with reduced cells
Gk may be defined as follows:
for clarity
2
⎛ Cµ ρ k ⎞
µ eff = µ ⎜ 1+ ⎟ (9)
⎜ µ ε ⎟
⎝ ⎠

57 (2015) 9
 814 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING/NUMERICAL SIMULATION

Particle type Density, ρp (kg × m-3) Diameter (µm) values of particle concentrations by vol-
Glass beads 2440 75 530 – ume in each stream. There is a good agree-
Table 2: Properties of ment between the predicted and the exper-
used particles Quartz 2650 75 530 1400
imental values as shown in Figure 5.
Coal 1450 75 530 – Pulp velocity. The predicted mean pulp
velocity of different streams in the main-
stream direction for 15 wt.-% solids is shown
Particles type Density (kg × m-3) Size (µm) Mix ratio in Figure 6. The mean stream pulp velocity
Coal 1450 75 2 increases smoothly in the outward direc-
Table 3: Particles in the tion away from the centerline of the spiral
Coal 1450 530 2
case of 15 wt.-% solids trough. The predicted pulp velocity con-
Quartz 2650 75 1 tours are shown in Figure 7.
Quartz 2650 530 1 Stream flow rate. The predicted values
of stream flow rate are shown in Figure 8.
It is clear from the figure that the stream
stant physical properties. Thus, the as- flow rate values depend on the cross-sec-
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Carl Hanser Verlag on September 7, 2015

sumed properties are ρwater = 1000 kg × m-3,
μwater = 0.0009 kg × m-1 s-1. Table 2 shows
the details of densities (ρp and sizes (Dp) of
the used particles.
Numerical treatment. The model of par-
ticulate flow uses a time-dependent formula-
tion. The numerical solution is based on fi-
nite volume method. The equations were
discretized using the quadratic upwind in-
terpolation (QUICK) scheme. The equations
were solved by the unsteady solver with a
For personal use only.
tional area and the mean pulp velocity of
each stream.
Stability of solid distributions. Stability
of solid distributions means the distribu-
tions at the steady-state condition or the
final distributions at the end of the spiral
trough. It is very important to investigate
and predict the number of turns that is re-
quired for the stability of solid distribu-
tions. The number of enough spiral turns is
reached when the solid distributions be-

Figure 5: Predicted and experimental [10, 12]
values of particle concentrations by volume in
each stream, 15 wt.-% solids in feed
Figure 6: Predicted values of mean-stream pulp
velocity with 15 wt.-% solids
time step of 0.001 s. Residuals of all varia-
bles were restricted to 1 × 10-5. A validated
commercial code [14] was used to solve the
above-mentioned equations of the model.
Results and discussion
In the present work, the numerical predic-
tions of particulate flow in LD9 spiral sepa-
rator at a flow rate of 6 m3 × h-1 were com-
pared with the experimental results [10-
12]. The model was investigated at a
realistic amount of solid (15 wt.-%) using
RNG k-ε model (most accurate turbulence
model [9]). The particulate flow parameters
are shown in the following sections. The
used particles are shown in Table 3.
Particle concentrations. Figure 5 shows
the predicted and experimental [10, 12]
come constant and do not change with in-
creasing the number of turns. The constant
solid distribution is achieved when agree-
ment between predicted values of any spi-
ral turn and stability distribution of spiral
outlet is satisfied. In this study, the stabil-
ity distribution is taken as the solid distri-
bution at the end of the sixth turn of the
spiral separator. This is because LD9 spiral
separator has only six turns.
The stability of solid distribution is pre-
dicted using two different amounts of solid,
namely 0.3 wt.-% and 15 wt.-% at a flow
rate of 6 m3 × h-1. For the above purpose,
solid distributions on the spiral trough
were chosen at the outlet of each spiral
turn. The solid distributions with 0.3 wt.-%
and 15 wt.-% solid are shown in Figures 9
and 10, respectively.

Figure 8: Predicted
values of stream flow
rate with 15 wt.-% solids

Figure 7: Predicted pulp velocity contours

(m × s-1) with 15 wt.-% solids

57 (2015) 9
 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING/NUMERICAL SIMULATION 815

Figures 9 and 10 show the solid distribu- 1. The suggested numerical model can be 2. To improve the agreement between the
tions as a volume fraction. After the first applied for any spiral separator after predicted and the experimental results,
spiral turn, the solid distributions are modifying the domain geometry to the the experimental free surface profile was
greater than the final distribution in the required separator. used to complete the computational do-
outer region of the spiral trough, while, it is
lower in the inner region. It means that the
particulate flow moves toward the outer part
of trough at the end of the first turn. After
the second spiral turn, the deviation be-
tween solid distribution and final (stability)
distribution decreases compared to the first
turn. After the third spiral turn, the agree-
ment between water depth and stability
depth is about 95 % in case of 0.3 wt.-% and
less than 95 % in case of 15 wt.-% solids. Af-
ter the fourth turn, a complete agreement
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Carl Hanser Verlag on September 7, 2015

between the solid distributions and stability

distributions is achieved in case of 0.3 wt.-%
solid while the complete agreement in case
of 15 wt.-% solid is reached after the fifth
turn. This means that four turns of LD9 spi-
ral separator are enough for the stability of
the solid distributions in case of 0.3 wt.-%
solid and five turns are required for stability
in case of 15 wt.-% solid. This finding guides
the designers to the suitable number of
turns that is enough for the stability of solid
For personal use only.

distributions. This concept is very impor-

tant for designers and operators.

Conclusions

From this study, the following conclusions Figure 9: Change of the solid distributions with the number of turns with 0.3 wt.-% solids and
can be stated: at a flow rate of 6 m3 × h-1

Figure 10: Change of the solid distributions

with the number of turns with 15 wt.-% solids
and a flow rate of 6 m3 × h-1

57 (2015) 9
 816 PRODUCTION-ORIENTED TESTING/NUMERICAL SIMULATION

main. This method achieved a good agree- Abstract

ment between the model predictions and
the experimental results. Thus, validation
of the particulate flow model is satisfying.
3. The number of turns required to reach
the steady-state of particle size distribu-
tion increases with increasing the solid
content of the feed pulp.
Acknowledgment
This work was funded by the Deanship of
Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, under grant No. 306-
001-D1434. The authors, therefore, ac-
knowledge with thanks DSR technical and
Materials Testing downloaded from www.hanser-elibrary.com by Carl Hanser Verlag on September 7, 2015
CFD-Simulation des Partikelflusses in einem Spiralkonzentrator. Bei
einem Spiralkonzentrator handelt es sich um eine gravimetrische Kon-
zentrationseinrichtung. Diese wurde durch Humphreys bereits 1941 er-
funden. Sie wurde zunächst basierend auf Erfahrungen und durch Prüfen
von Prototypen und deren Modifikation designed und entwickelt. Das
Hauptziel der diesem Beitrag zugrunde liegenden Studie besteht darin, den
Partikelfluss einer realistischeren Konzentration an Festbestandteilen,
nämlich 15 wt.-%, in einem Spiralkonzentrator zu simulieren. Die Studie
basiert auf einem Ansatz nach Euler und der Modellierung der Renormali-
sationsgruppe einer k-ε Turbulenz. Die Ergebnisse konzentrieren sich auf
die Partikelflusseigenschaften wie Geschwindigkeit sowie Konzentration
und Verteilung der Partikel auf dem Schneckentrog. Die vorhergesagten

financial support.
Ergebnisse wurden mit experimentellen Ergebnissen für den Fall einer
References
LD9 Kohlespirale verglichen. Der Vergleich zwischen den numerischen
 1 B. K. Mishra, A. Tripathy: A preliminary study und experimentellen Werten zeigte eine gute Übereinstimmung.
of particle separation in spiral concentrators
using DEM, International Journal of Mineral
Processing 94 (2010), No. 3-4, pp. 192-195
DOI:10.1016/j.minpro.2009.12.005
 2 Y. M. Stokes, S. K. Wilson, B. R. Duffy: Thin-
film flow in open helically-wound channels,
Proc. of the 15th Australasian Fluid Mechanics
For personal use only.

Conference, University of Sydney, Sydney,

Australia (2004), Paper AFMC00187
 3 C. R. Burch: Helicoid performance and fine
cassiterite – Contributed remarks, Trans. Inst.
Min. Metall. 71 (1962), pp. 406-415
 4 J. W. Wang, J. R. G. Andrews: Numerical simula-
tions of liquid flow on spiral concentrators, J. Min-
erals Engineering 7 (1994), No. 11, pp. 1363-1385
DOI:10.1016/0892-6875(94)00076-X
 5 T. Jancar, C. A. J. Fletcher, P. N. Holtham,
J. A. Reizes: Computational and experimental
investigation of spiral separator hydrodynamics,
Proc. of the 19th Int. Mineral Processing Con-
gress, San Francisco, USA (1995), pp. 147-151
 6 B. W. Matthews, P. Holtham, C. A. J. Fletcher ,
K. Golab, A. C. Partridge: Computational and
experimental investigation of spiral concentra-
tor flows, Proc. of Coal 1998: Coal Operators’
Conference, University of Wollongong & the
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metal-
lurgy, Australia (1998), pp. 415-421
 7 B. W. Matthews, C. A. J. Fletcher, A. C. Partridge:
Computational simulation of fluid and dilute
particulate flows on spiral concentrators,
Applied Mathematical Modelling 22 (1998),
No. 12, pp. 965-979
DOI:10.1016/S0307-904X(98)10030-6
 8 B. W. Matthews, C. A. J. Fletcher, A. C. Partridge,
S. Vasquez: Computations of curved free surface
water flow on spiral concentrators, J. Hydraulic
Engineering 125 (1999), No. 11, pp. 1126-113
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9429(1999)125:11(1126)
 9 M. A. Doheim, A. F. Abdel Gawad, G. M. A.
Mahran, M. H. Abu-Ali, A. M. Rizk: Numerical
simulation of particulate flow in spiral separa-
tors: Part I – Low solids concentration (0.3 and
3 % solids), Applied Mathematical Modeling 37
(2013), No.1-2, pp. 198-215
DOI:10.1016/j.apm.2012.02.022
10 A. B. Holland-Batt, P. N. Holtham: Particle and
fluid motion on spiral separators, J. Minerals
Engineering 4 (1991), No. 3-4, pp. 457-482
DOI:10.1016/0892-6875(91)90147-N
11 P. N. Holtham: Experimental Validation of a
Fundamental Model of Coal Spirals, Report in
the Australian Coal Association Research
Program (ACARP), Project No. C4046, ACARP,
Australia (1998) http://www.acarp.com.au/
abstracts.aspx?repId = C4046
12 P. N. Holtham: Particle transport in gravity
concentrators and the Bagnold effect, Minerals
Engineering 5 (1992), No. 2, pp. 205-221
DOI:10.1016/0892-6875(92)90043-9
13 V. Yakhot, S. A. Orszag: Renormalization group
analysis of turbulence I – Basic theory, Journal
of Scientific Computing 1 (1986), No. 1, pp. 1-51
DOI:10.1007/BF01061452
14Fluent 6.3.26 User’s Guide: www.fluentusers.
com, Fluent Inc., USA (2006)
Bibliography
DOI 10.3139/120.110774
Materials Testing
57 (2015) 9, pages 811-816
© Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
ISSN 0025-5300
The authors of this contribution
Dr. Gamal M. A. Mahran, born 1968, is Assistant
Professor in the Deanship of Graduate Studies,
King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
He received his BSc from the Mining Engineering
Dept., Assiut University, Egypt, in 1991 and his
MSc from the Mining Engineering Dept., Al-Azhar
University, Egypt, in 2000. In 2009, he accom-
plished his PhD at the Mining Engineering Dept.,
Assiut University, Egypt. His fields of interest are
mineral processing, modeling and simulation as
well as computational fluid mechanics.
Prof. Mohamed A. Doheim, born 1941, is
Professor at the Mining Engineering Dept. As-
siut University, Assiut, Egypt. He received his
BSc from the Chemical Engineering Dept., Fac-
ulty of Engineering Alexandria University,
Egypt, in 1962 and his PhD from Leeds Univer-
sity, UK, in 1968.
Prof. Mohamed H. Abu-Ali, born 1958, is Pro-
fessor in the Mining Engineering Dept. Assiut
University, Assiut, Egypt. He received his BSc
and MSc from the Mining Engineering Dept.,
Assiut University, Egypt, in 1981 and 1987, re-
spectively. In 1994, he achieved his PhD in the
Mining Engineering Dept., Assiut University,
Egypt. His fields of interest are unit operations
in mineral processing, modeling and beneficia-
tion of ores.
Prof. Ahmed F. Abdel Gawad, born 1968, is
Professor for Computational Fluid Mechanics in
the Mechanical Power Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zag-
azig, Egypt. Currently, he is working at the
Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Ara-
bia. His fields of interest are computational
fluid dynamics, turbulence modeling and simu-
lation as well as computational fluid dynamics
in mining applications.

57 (2015) 9