Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Selection and breakage functions of particles under impact loads

Yevgeny Rozenblat a,n, Evgeny Grant a, Avi Levy a, Haim Kalman a, Jürgen Tomas b
a
Laboratory for Conveying and Handling of Particulate Solids, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
b
Mechanical Process Engineering, the Otto-von-Guericke-University, Universitätsplatz 2, D-39 106 Magdeburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In particle comminution processes, the size of the original particles (mother particles) will continuously
Received 12 June 2011 decrease to finer sizes (daughter particles). This size reduction process can be mathematically
Received in revised form represented (in simplified form) by two major functions: selection function (breakage probability)
23 November 2011
and breakage function. In the present study, a new horizontal impact experimental system is
Accepted 12 December 2011
developed, constructed and tested. The experiments from the impact system are used for development
Available online 20 December 2011
and validation of the selection and breakage models. Ability of a number of statistical formulations to
Keywords: accurately describe the probability of the particles to break under an impact load and the probability of
Selection function the particle fragments size are examined and compared. Selected models are analyzed and general
Breakage function
expressions including the effect of the material and particle size are developed. The findings will
Particles comminution
significantly improve the accuracy of comminution processes simulation, and optimization of industrial
Breakage probability
Impact breakage processes.
Size reduction models & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction strength distribution function was already developed by

Since the purpose of comminution systems is to create a
product in a desired size range with minimum energy input, it
is crucial to have fundamental knowledge about the strength and
size distribution of the breaking particles. Current study presents
that such knowledge can be gained through both experimentation
and modeling.
According to our research group approach, the breakage
process of a particulate material within any system can be
accurately simulated by a CFD-DEM program in which five
empirical comminution functions (strength distribution, selec-
tion, breakage, equivalence and fatigue functions) are implemen-
ted (see Fig. 1). This method of implementing the comminution
functions was developed by Kalman et al. (2009). An original DEM
model was coupled with CFD software (Ansys-Fluent) and using
the comminution functions simulate size reduction in pneumatic
conveying (Brosh et al., in press) and jet-mills (Brosh et al., in
preparation). Additionally there are also different approaches to
simulate particle size reduction process, e.g. Schubert et al. (2005)
used both FEM and DEM methods in order to simulate aggregates
liberation, which was carried out by impact crushing in a large
scale pneumatic canon.
Obviously, the accuracy of the simulation results very much
depends on the accuracy of the comminution functions. The
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yevros@bgu.ac.il (Y. Rozenblat).
Rozenblat et al. (2011). The aim of the present study is to develop
additional two functional and accurate comminution functions:
the selection and the breakage functions.
Selection function or breakage probability (BP) determines the
mass ratio of the particles (of a total amount) that are broken
during single load event. In other words, BP is the breakage
probability of the particle. The breakage function (BF) describes
the size distribution of the fragments and the number of frag-
ments if the particle breaks. To complete the overall model of the
breakage process we included three additional functions. The first
is the fatigue function (FF), which will enable us to calculate the
new reduced strength of the particle in case it does not break as a
result of the collision. The second is the strength function (StF),
which will represent the initial and the newly created fragment
strength. The last is the equivalence function (EF), which is
required to convert the stressing conditions in terms of impact
velocity into the loading in force terms.
The main purpose of the current research is to develop
accurate correlations for the BP and the BF that will enable us
to describe the probability of particle breakage as well as particle
fragments size for different materials of different sizes.
In order to estimate the BP and the BF one has to conduct
impact tests. A variety of impact experimental systems have been
reported in the literature including the free drop impact system
(Piret, 1953), the pendulum impact test (Fahernwald et al., 1938;
Yashim et al., 1981; Weedon and Wilson, 2000), the horizontal
impact system (Cheong et al., 2004), the air gun system (Andrews
and Kim, 1999), the vertical impact system (Cleaver et al., 1993),

0009-2509/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2011.12.012
 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66
all of which are based on the same principle, namely the particle
is accelerated by a gas flow in closed geometry (usually a tube) or
by means of gravity and collides with a rigid target at the end of
the acceleration. While other type of impact experimental system
uses target to hit the particle (Petukhov and Kalman, 2004;
Peukert and Vogel, 2001). By repeating the impact experiment
for a sufficient number of particles, one can determine both the
amount of particles that breaks and the fragment size distribution
by sieving the impacted particles.
As a result of such impact experiments different researchers
have developed a variety of correlations to define the BP and the
BF, such as will be presented later in Tables 2 and 6. It should be
noted that some researchers correlate BP with the impact velocity
(Duo et al., 1996; Kalman et al., 2004; Petukhov and Kalman,
2003; Boerefijn et al., 1998; Lecoq et al., 1999; Salman et al.,
2002), while others with the kinetic impact energy (Austin, 2002;
Cho and Austin, 2003; Peukert, 2004; Guigon et al., 1994).
To develop accurate correlations between the BP and the BF a
new improved horizontal impact air gun system was designed,
constructed and operated. The experiments carried out with this
system are used to develop the new BP. The BF was chosen on the
basis of the experimental data with appropriate considerations.
The BP and BF models were compared to existing models from the
literature and their dependence on different parameters was
investigated.
2. Experimental
Our developed horizontal impact system (see Fig. 2) consists of
four major parts: a feed tank, an acceleration tube, an impact cage
and a collection hopper. The tested particles are inserted into the
feed tank and moved towards the acceleration tube by means of a
vibrating feeder, which enables to control the flow rate of the
particles. The particles feed rate was set in such a way that there
were only a few particles (2–3) every time in acceleration tube.
This condition is required in order to avoid particle–particle
Breakage Probability Breakage Function
Numerical Simulation
Strength Function
CFD DEM
Validation
Experiments
Fatigue Function
Equivalence Function
Fig. 1. Scheme of the general approach to the particle breakage phenomenon.
Fig. 2. Scheme of a new horizontal impact tester.
57
collisions and influencing the flow field. The particles are accel-
erated by compressed air inside a 590 mm long stainless steel SS-
303 tube with an inside diameter of 15.8 mm. The acceleration
tube is designed such that it is possible to modify the distance
between the outlet and the target. The impact cage in which the
particles collide with the rigid target provides a close environ-
ment for the particles to ricochet. The target plate is able to spin
about its axis so that it is possible to investigate the effect of the
impact angle (not shown in this paper). The unit where the target
is mounted has transparent covers (fiberglass), which makes it
possible to measure the particle velocity using a high speed video
camera. Finally, the granular material that has been blown to the
target is collected in the hopper. At the bottom of the hopper
there is a demountable box that allows us to examine the results
of the impact. Additionally, there is a dust filter, which is
connected to the top of the collecting tank. This filter is actually
a fiber bag, which collects the fines.
This experimental system has the following advantages:
(1) it allows the feed rate of the particles to be changed;
(2) a wide range of particle sizes can be measured;
(3) the impact particle velocity can be controlled;
(4) it offers the ability to work with hazardous materials;
(5) experiments with different impact angles can be performed;
(6) large amounts of particles within a short time can be handled,
while keeping the experimental error within allowable
boundaries;
(7) different materials can be used for the impact target;
(8) the apparatus can be adjusted such that erosion and wear
tests can be carried out and
(9) it is easy to use and maintain.
Despite all these advantages, there are still some drawbacks.
For example, the angular velocity of the particles cannot be
obtained, and secondary impacts with the walls of the collecting
cage can occur.
The impact velocities of the accelerated particles were mea-
sured by tracking them with a high speed digital camera (Cam-
Record 1000,  2000 fps). The following sequence of the frames
(Fig. 3) demonstrates the particle collision and breakage. The
pictures were cropped from the original clip that had been used
for the particle velocity measurements.
In order to get statistically representative results, every impact
test (specific material, size and velocity) was carried out with a
sample of no less than 50 g of particles. This minimum quantity
was determined by comparing the particle size distribution and
mass loss during the handling of the collided particles for each
impact experiment. Each sample is weighed and sieved before
each experiment in order to define initial size distribution of
the particles, while the size analysis of the particles was
58 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66

Target Plate

Particle
t=4 msec t=5.5 msec t=6 msec

t=6.5 msec t=7 msec t=7.5 msec

Fig. 3. Sequence of the particle impact (salt particle, 2.36–3.35 mm, V ¼ 10.3 m/s).

Table 1 3.1. Selection function—breakage probability

Experimental data layout for salt particles after impact with velocity of V¼ 25.9 m/s.
The BP describes the probability of a particle to break under
Sieve size [mm] Weight [gr] Weight [%] Over size [%] Under size [%]
impact velocity, V. It is defined by impacting any size fraction at
3350 0 0 0 100 various velocities and presenting the mass of broken particles as a
2360 11.3 9.9 9.9 90.1 function of the load stress, in the current case—impact velocity.
2000 12.4 10.9 20.8 79.2 Table 3 lists various BP expressions used to represent the break-
1400 27 23.7 44.6 55.4
1000 18.7 16.4 61 39
age probability. The most common are the logistic distribution
710 13.8 12.1 73.2 26.8 (Eq. (1)), the Weibull distribution (Eq. (2)) and the log-normal
0 30.5 26.8 100 0 distribution (Eq. (3)) and these are the ones we related to in the
Summary 113.7 100 present study. Eqs. (4) and (5) are not included in the present
analysis due to the narrow range of the models and Eq. (6)
because of the multitude variables in the model.
accomplished according to the ASTM E11 standard by sieving In order to determine which of Eqs. (1)–(3) best represents the
device of ‘‘W.S.Tyler Incorporated’’ and the set of screens made by particle breakage probability, they are all fitted and compared to
‘‘Retsch’’ company. After each impact test the collected particles the experimental results (see Fig. 5). As can be seen from Fig. 5,
were weighed again in order to estimate the quantity of the they all describe the experimental data nearly with the same high
particles that were lost during the test. The experiment defined is accuracy. Additionally, the figure demonstrates that for increasing
acceptable when the losses are smaller than 1% of the initial impact velocity and particle size the amount of broken particles is
weight. The sample is then screened by the sieves and each obviously increased. That is, as the particle size becomes larger
fraction is weighed in order to estimate the size distribution of the required impact velocity for breaking the particle is lower.
the sample. Consequently the amount of the particles that are These findings are also supported by Antonyuk et al. (2006).
smaller than the initial size interval was defined as the amount of The quality of the model fitting is quantitatively described by
the broken particles. Therefore, all of the statistical analyses are the coefficient of determination (R2), which is the measure of how
performed in terms of mass. The experimental data after each well the least squared fit curve describes the experimental data.
impact test is arranged in the form shown in Table 1. Since the proposed models agreement with experimental data
Thus, the size of the particles is defined by the arithmetical is about the same, the mathematical simplicity and the statistical
mean value of the sieve size interval in which that particle is meaning of the model parameters become the major considera-
located. Table 1 allows calculation of the percentage of the broken tions. The Weibull function includes the exponent function, the
particles and the size distribution of the fragments. Therefore, all log-normal function includes an error function and the logistic
the size distributions shown in this paper are mass distributions. function includes a simple mathematical expression of a power
A few of the tested materials are illustrated by Fig. 4, while law. The logistic model parameters also have a clear statistical
Table 2 presents the complete list of the tested materials includ- meaning (as is described later). For this reason, the logistic
ing their size intervals. function was chosen to represent the impact breakage probabil-
ity. For convenience, the parameter symbols were renamed to be
consistent with Rozenblat et al. (2011). The final form of the
3. Results and discussion logistic model is
1
The purpose of this section is to reveal development and selection SI ¼ 1 ð7Þ
1 þðV=V 50 ÞDi
considerations of the breakage probability and fragment size dis-
tribution functions. We investigate their empirical parameters to find where SI is the breakage probability (selection function), V50
out if they are dependent on the system variables. Then the general stands for the median impact velocity or the velocity that causes
expressions of both functions are validated. half of the particle population to break and DI, the second logistic
 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66 59

Fig. 4. (a) Potash, (b) GNP and (c) salt.

Table 2 Further analysis will be performed in terms of impact velocity,

Particle materials and size fractions used for impact tests. because it is easier to estimate.
Since the DEM simulation using the selection and other
Material Size interval (mm)
empirical comminution function requires long running times,
Salta 3.35–4 the aim of the following analysis is to find a simple correlation
2.36–3.35 even at the cost of some accuracy loss.
2–2.36
1.4–2
1–1.4 3.1.1. Distribution wideness
0.7–1 After fitting the logistic function (LF) to all the experimental
Potashb 3.35–4
data, it was observed, that parameter DI does not change much
2.36–3.35 according to the size of the particles Therefore, parameter DI was
2–2.36 assumed to be a function of the material only and independent of
1.4–2 the particle size. In order to examine this assumption all fits of the
GNPc 4–4.75 LF were repeated keeping DI constant for each material. The
3.35–4 capability of the model (in terms of R2) to represent the particle
2.36–3.35
breakage probability as expected decreased, but it was still
2–2.36
considerably high. The overall average value of R2 decreased from
Zeolited 1.4–2.36 0.988 to 0.982.
a
NaCl crystallized at evaporation ponds by Dead Sea Works, Ltd., Israel.
b
Granulated potash product of Dead Sea Works, Ltd., Israel. 3.1.2. Median impact velocity
c
Granular N and P fertilizers product of Haifa Chemicals South Ltd., Israel. As mentioned earlier, the aim of the current analysis is to find
d
Product of GSK company. a simple correlation of the parameters with the system variables
or with the material properties. Therefore, we also investigated
the relationship between the second parameter of the LF, V50,
parameter, describes the scattering of the data. As DI becomes which indicates the median impact velocity or the impact velocity
larger, the distribution becomes narrower and when DI at which 50% of the particles break and the particles size.
approaches infinity, the function becomes a step function. Both Parameter V50 was found to be in exponent dependency with
V50 and DI are empirical parameters that depend on the particle particle size for all of the materials that were tested. The
size. Although in the present study, the BP is described as a correlation of V50 with the particle size is shown in Fig. 7.
function of the impact velocity, it can just easily be described as a The mathematical form of the V50 correlation is
function of the specific kinetic energy, V2/2. Fig. 6 demonstrates it
on the example of GNP particles data. V 50 ¼ AV eðd0 =BV Þ ð8Þ
60 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66

Table 3
BP models.

Model Reference Comments

1
P ¼ 1 ð1Þ Petukhov and Kalman (2004) Logistic
1 þ ðV =aÞb
 
V b Cheong et al. (2004), Salman et al. (2002),
P ¼ 1exp  ð2Þ Weibull
a Kapur et al. (1997), Djamarani and Clark (1997)
  
1 lnðV Þa
P¼ 1 þ erf pffiffiffi ð3Þ Pocock et al. (1998) Lognormal
2 b 2
P ¼ aV b ð4Þ
Duo et al. (1996) Range limitation
 3 !
V
P ¼ 1arctg tgð1Þa ð5Þ Boerefijn et al. (1998) Range limitation
30

rV 2 lH
P¼a 2 ð6Þ Cleaver and Ghadiri (1993) Multitude of variables
K 2c f

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70
Breakage Probability, S

Breakage Probability, S

60 Salt 60

50 3.35-4 mm 50 Potash
2.36-3.35 mm
40 2-2.36 mm 40 3.35-4 mm
1.4-2 mm 2.36-3.35 mm
30 1-1.4 mm 30 2-2.36 mm
0.71-1 mm 1.4-2 mm
20 20
Logistic model Logistic model
10 Weibull model 10 Weibull model
Lognormal model Lognormal model
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Impact Velocity, V, m/sec Impact Velocity, V, m/sec

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70
Breakage Probability, S

Breakage Probability, S

60 60

50 50
GNP
40 4-4.75 mm 40
3.35-4 mm Zeolite
30 30
2.36-3.35 mm
1.4-2.36 mm
20 2-2.36 mm 20 Logistic model
Logistic model
Weibull model
10 Weibull model 10
Lognormal model
Lognormal model
0 0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54
Impact Velocity, V, m/sec Impact Velocity, V, m/sec

Fig. 5. Fitting of three statistical functions to the experimental data.

where d0 is the mean size of the particles in a feed size interval, comparison of the median impact velocity of different materials
and AV and BV are the correlation parameters. Fig. 7 demonstrates per same particle size revealed the sensitivity of the materials to
that as the particle size becomes larger, the median impact impact loads. For example, salt is the weakest material and potash
velocity (impact velocity at which 50% of the feed particles break) is the strongest one (among the tested materials) in terms of their
becomes smaller for all the tested materials. Moreover, a ability to withstand impact loads.
 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66 61

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70
Breakage Probability, S

Breakage Probability, S
60 60
GNP
50 50
4-4.75 mm GNP
40 3.35-4 mm 40
4-4.75 mm
2.36-3.35 mm
30 30 3.35-4 mm
2-2.36 mm
2.36-3.35 mm
Logistic model
20 20 2-2.36 mm
in terms of impact velocity
Logistic model
10 10
in terms of specific energy
0 0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Impact Velocity, V, m/sec Specific Energy, E , J/kg

Fig. 6. Impact breakage probability in terms of (a) impact velocity and (b) specific energy for GNP particles in various sizes.

Breakage Probability
Salt 100
30 Salt: 3.35-4mm
Potash Salt: 2.36-3.35mm
GNP 90 Salt: 2-2.36mm +20%
Salt: 1.4-2mm
Median Impact Velocity, V , m/sec

25 V =A *exp(-d /B )
Calculated Breakage Probability, S
Salt: 1-1.4mm
80 Salt: 0.71-1mm
Potash: 3.35-4mm
20
70 Potash: 2.36-3.35mm
Potash: 2-2.36mm
Potash: 1.4-2mm
60 GNP: 4-4.75mm
GNP: 3.35-4mm
15
50 GNP: 2.36-3.35mm
GNP: 2-2.36mm
Zeolite: 1.4-2.36mm
40
10
30
5 20

10
0
0.0 1.0x10 2.0x10 3.0x10 4.0x10 5.0x10 0
Original Particle Diameter, d , m 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Experimental Breakage Probability, S
Fig. 7. Median parameter correlation.
Fig. 8. Comparison of the predicted probabilities to the experimented ones.

Table 4
Logistic model empirical parameters.
100
Material V 50 ¼ AV eðd0 =BV Þ
90
AV BV DI
80
m/s m – Salt: 3.35-4mm
Breakage Probability, S

70 Salt: 2.36-3.35mm
3 Salt: 2-2.36mm
Salt 36.5 2.1  10 2.3
60 Salt: 1.4-2mm
Potash 45.1 3.3  10  3 3.4 Salt: 1-1.4mm
GNP 34.5 3.8  10  3 4.2 50 Salt: 0.71-1mm
Zeolite 40.7 4.4  10  3 5.9 Potash: 3.35-4mm
40 Potash: 2.36-3.35mm
Potash: 2-2.36mm
Potash: 1.4-2mm
30
3.1.3. Explicit selection function GNP: 4-4.75mm
GNP: 3.35-4mm
When we combine Eqs. (7) and (8), the selection function takes 20 GNP: 2.36-3.35mm
the following form: GNP: 2-2.36mm
10 Zeolite: 1.4-2.36mm
1 Logistic model (S =1-1/(1+V )
SI ¼ 1 ð9Þ
1 þ ðV=AV eðd0 =BV Þ ÞDI 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
In order to obtain the best correlation of the proposed model Normalized Impact Velocity, V =(V/V )
(Eq. (9)), the deviation between the model and the experimental
data was minimized by the Matlab program. The most suitable Fig. 9. Validation of the Logistic Function model.
62 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66

Table 5 1/10 of the parent particle size (class j), dj is the representative
List of the BF models. size in class j and Di is the sieve size of fragments in class i. The
parent particle size (dj) is defined by the geometric mean value of
Model Reference
the parent sieve size interval, i.e. dj ¼ (Dj  Dj þ 1)0.5. a stands for the
  a b modulus of the upper-truncated Rosin–Rammler distribution.
d
Bi,j ¼ 1 1 ð10Þ Harris (1968)
d0 Since the size of the parent particles in the current study is
"   #
d
b indicated by d0 and defined as an arithmetic mean value of the
Bi,j ¼ 1exp  Cheong et al. (2004)
a ð11Þ initial sieve size of the particle, i.e., d0 ¼(Dj þDj þ 1)/2, and the fact
 b
d
that BP depends on the impact velocity, instead of the breakage
Bi,j ¼ ð12Þ Schumann (1940) energy, it was decided to redefine the parameters of the original
a
ð9=ðd0 =Di Þ1Þa
Bi,j ¼ BðDi ; dj Þ ¼ 1ð1t 10j Þ ð13Þ Tavares equation. The form of the equation has remained the
Tavares (2004)
 a  b same as the original Tavares model (Eq. (13)), but t10j statistic
d d
Bi,j ¼ f þ ð1fÞ ð14Þ Austin and Luckie (1972) parameter was renamed to t10 and it was redefined as an
d0 d0
 a   0 
empirical parameter in addition to a. Additionally, Di sieve size
d 1 dd
Bi,j ¼
d0 2
1 þ tan h 0 ð15Þ Vogel and Peukert (2002) in class i was redefined as representative size of the fragments in
d
size class i and a new indication of it is di.
Introduction of the renamed parameters into original Tavares
model is shown by
a

parameters were evaluated based on least squares method.
A detailed explanation of that process can be found in
Rozenblat et al. (2011). The most suitable parameters for all the
materials experimented upon are presented in Table 4.
Figs. 8 and 9 confirm the validity of the proposed model (Eq.
(9)). Fig. 8 compares the experimental results with the predicted
ones by means of the breakage probability correlation, and Fig. 9
presents the deviation of the experimental data from the model.
The figures indicate that most of the results are within the
boundary of 720% error, which is reasonable.
3.2. Breakage function
The breakage function (BF) indicates the mass of the broken
particles that reaches a size interval less than the feed size
interval as a consequence of breakage. In other words, the BF
determines the particle fragment size distribution in terms of
mass. Table 5 lists some common definitions of the BF.
Since the last part of Eq. (15) refers to fine dust (Vogel and
Peukert, 2002) and the first part is identical to Eq. (12), these BF
definitions can be neglected. Therefore, only five of BF expres-
sions (Eqs. (10)–(14)) will be analyzed. In order to compare the
models and select one of them to represent fragments size
distribution, all of these models were fitted to all our experi-
mental results. As an example, fitting of each model to the
experimental data of salt at an initial size interval of 3.35–4 mm
is presented in Fig. 10.
Fig. 10 shows that from a physical point of view the greater the
impact velocity, the smaller the size of the fragments and the
larger the amount of the fragments; this observation is also
supported by Antonyuk et al. (2006). Fig. 10 also demonstrates
that there are some expressions that describe experimental data
insufficiently. The choice of the suitable model that will represent
daughter size probability was made on the basis of the coeffi-
cients of determination (R2). Table 6 presents the sum of the
fittings in terms of average R2. Table 6 demonstrates that the
highest average R2 for all of the materials is obtained using the
Tavares model (Eq. (13)). Therefore, this model was selected to
represent the particle fragment size distribution.
3.2.1. Tavares BF definition
The BF model described by Tavares (2004) (Eq. (13)) is based
on the upper-truncated Rosin–Ramler distribution (Tavares,
2004). This model depends on several variables including impact
energy, particle characteristics and stiffness of both the particles
and the impact target. While t10j indicates the fraction that passes
Bi,j ¼ Bðdi ; d0 Þ ¼ 1ð1t 10 Þð9=ðd0 =Di Þ1Þ ð16Þ
Breakage function is the fraction of the particles that trans-
ferred from j size class into a smaller size class i as a result of the
impact event and Bij is the conventional sign for it. Since in the
current work the symbols were changed and there are no longer
indications of size class j, the breakage function sign has also to be
changed into Bi,0, but for the sake of conventionality the sign of
the breakage function was unchanged, i.e. Bi,j.
The new form of BF is now dependent on the impact velocity
instead of the breakage energy, and finally, the representative size
of the parent particle size is the arithmetical mean value of the
parent size interval.
Among all the materials that were tested in the present
research, salt offers the widest range of sizes. Consequently,
further analysis is based on the results of salt and then the type
of correlations will be applied to the rest of the materials
experimental data.
3.2.2. Parameter t10
Parameter t10 was obtained from fits of the BF (Eq. (16)) to the
experimental data. In order to find the t10 correlation, this
parameter was plotted versus two major variables, i.e. impact
velocity and original particle size. Fig. 11a and b presents the
influence of the impact velocity and original particle size,
respectively.
Fig. 11a demonstrates that as the impact velocity becomes
greater, the quantity of the small-sized fragments (i.e., dust)
becomes larger. Fig. 11a and b also demonstrates that t10 depends
on both the impact velocity and the original particle size. Since
parameter t10 has an upper bound of unity according to the
Tavares definition (Eq. (13)), the t10 dependence on initial particle
size and impact velocity was expressed in the following form:
t 10 ¼ 1expðaV b d0 Þ ð17Þ
where a and b are the model parameters.
The correlation of t10 was evaluated for experimental data of
salt, since it has the greatest size variety.
In order to examine this relationship, the resulting t10 was
plotted versus the calculated one and presented in a comparison
chart (see Fig. 12).
The agreement of this correlation (Eq. (17)) with the experi-
mental results for the rest of the materials was examined and
found to be satisfactory. Fig. 12 demonstrates t10 correlation
quality, while it was normalized by dividing to its maximal value.
As one can see from Fig. 12, most of the results are within the
error boundaries of 720%.
 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66 63

100 100
4.4 m/s 4.4 m/s
90 Salt 90 11 m/s Salt
11 m/s
d =3.35-4 mm d =3.35-4 mm
14 m/s 14 m/s
80 80 16 m/s
16 m/s
18.1 m/s 18.1 m/s
70 70
23.9 m/s 23.9 m/s
Undersize, B

Undersize, B
60 Harris model [31] 60 Cheong et al. model [10]

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Fragment Particle Diameter, d, μm Fragment Particle Diameter, d, μm

100 100
4.4 m/s 4.4 m/s
90 Salt 90 11 m/s Salt
11 m/s
d =3.35-4 mm 14 m/s d =3.35-4 mm
14 m/s
80 80 16 m/s
16 m/s
18.1 m/s 18.1 m/s
70 70
23.9 m/s 23.9 m/s
60 Schumann model [32] 60 Tavares model [33]
Undersize, B
Undersize, B

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Fragment Particle Diameter, d, μm Fragment Particle Diameter, d, μm

100
4.4 m/s
90 11 m/s Salt
14 m/s d =3.35-4 mm
80 16 m/s
18.1 m/s
70
23.9 m/s
60 Austin & Luckie model [34]
Undersize, B

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Fragment Particle Diameter, d, μm

Fig. 10. Fitting of different BF models to the experimental data.

3.2.3. Parameter a The dependency of parameter a on the original particle size

In order to find the second BF parameter (a) correlation, it was and impact velocity presented by Eq. (18):
analyzed in the same manner as the t10 parameter. The influences
a ¼ aa V ba dcoa ð18Þ
of the impact velocity and the original particle size on a were
examined. Fig. 13a and b demonstrates that parameter a clearly where aa, ba and ca are the model parameters. Similar to the
depends on both of these variables. analysis of t10 examination, fitted a parameter was plotted versus
64 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66

calculated one with normalization by the maximal value and analysis examination of the proposed BF model (Eq. (19)) the
presented in Fig. 14 for all materials tested. experimental results were compared to the predicted ones. The
Fig. 14 shows that a correlation model (Eq. (18)) is satisfying. results are presented in Fig. 15.
Allowed boundaries for this model are 720%. Fig. 15 demonstrate that most of the results are within the
boundary of 720%, which is reasonable considering the compre-
3.2.4. Estimation of the most suitable BF model parameters hensiveness of the model.
Since primary parameters (t10 and a) of the BF model were
separately evolved, it was necessary to examine the overall BF
model parameters, which includes the combination of t10 and a 4. Conclusions
expressions (Eq. (19)). The estimation process of the secondary
parameters t10 (Eq. (17)) and a (Eq. (18)) was conducted such that The main idea of the current study was to select suitable
the calculated fragment size distribution will represent the models to describe particle population behavior under impact
experimental measured in the most accurate way. loads. For this purpose, a newly developed experimental impact
All of the BF parameters were estimated in the same manner system was constructed and tested. The result functions are
as the BP parameters. Evolved parameters significantly improved suitable for the impact event-driven or steady-state processes.
the ability of the BF model to reflect the experimental data of the These functions are part of the model array, which will represent
fragment size distribution. Final values of the BF model para- the complete mathematical definition of the comminution phe-
meters for all the materials experimented upon are presented in nomenon. Using this overall model, one can optimize any indus-
Table 7. trial process requiring particle size reduction.
The key findings are presented below:
3.2.5. Explicit breakage function
In order to obtain the explicit BF model, the primary para-
 A new horizontal air gun experimental system was developed.
This system allows easy and convenient way of testing
meters t10 (Eq. (17)) and a (Eq. (18)) were substituted into the
new breakage function expression (Eq. (16)). The result of these
1.0
mathematical rearrangements is presented as follows: Salt
a 0.9 Potash
Bi,j ¼ 1ð1t 10 Þð9=ðd0 =Di Þ1Þ
Calculated Normalized Model Parameter, t

GNP +20%
c 0.8
where t 10 ¼ 1expðaV b d0 Þ and a ¼ aa V ba d0a ð19Þ Zeolite
0.7
Eq. (19) basically has the same form as the original Taveras
equation, only a dependence of t10 and a on the impact velocity 0.6
and mother particle size is suggested in this work. For the final
0.5

Table 6 0.4
Average R2 for all models.
0.3
Material Salt Potash GNP Zeolite Average
0.2
Reference 2
R R
2
0.1

Harris (1968) 0.987 0.987 0.990 0.995 0.988 0.0

Cheong et al. (2004) 0.976 0.979 0.983 0.992 0.980 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Schumann (1940) 0.941 0.903 0.915 0.859 0.919
Tavares (2004) 0.997 0.997 0.999 0.999 0.997 Experimental Normalized Model Parameter, t
Austin and Luckie (1972) 0.930 0.955 0.952 0.995 0.948
Fig. 12. t10 parameter validation.

Salt Salt
0.35 0.35
~15 m/sec
~20 m/sec
0.30 3.35-4mm 0.30 ~25 m/sec
2.36-3.35mm ~35 m/sec
2-2.36mm ~40 m/sec
0.25 0.25
1.4-2mm ~44 m/sec
Model Parameter, t
Model Parameter, t

1-1.4mm Linear model

0.20 0.71-1mm 0.20

0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 5.0x10 1.0x10 1.5x10 2.0x10 2.5x10 3.0x10 3.5x10 4.0x10
Impact Velocity, V, m/sec Original Particle Diameter, d , m

Fig. 11. Dependence of t10 parameter on (a) impact velocity and (b) original particle size.
 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66 65

Salt Salt
2.0
1.65 ~15 m/sec
3.35-4mm ~20 m/sec
1.8 2.36-3.35mm
1.50 ~25 m/sec
2-2.36mm ~35 m/sec
1.6 1.4-2mm ~40 m/sec
1-1.4mm 1.35 ~44 m/sec
Model Parameter, α

Model Parameter, α
0.71-1mm
1.4 Power model 1.20

1.2 1.05

1.0 0.90

0.8 0.75

0.6 0.60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 5.0x10 1.0x10 1.5x10 2.0x10 2.5x10 3.0x10 3.5x10 4.0x10
Impact Velocity, V, m/sec Original Particle Diameter, d , m

Fig. 13. Dependence of a parameter on (a) impact velocity and (b) original particle size.

1.0 Breakage Function

100
Salt
0.9 +20%
+20%
Calculated Normalized Model Parameter , α

Potash 90
0.8 GNP
80
0.7
70
Calculated Undersize, B

0.6
60
0.5
50
0.4
40
0.3
30
0.2
20
0.1
10
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Experimental Normalized Model Parameter , α
Experimental Undersize, B
Fig. 14. a parameter validation.
Fig. 15. Comparison of the predicted fragment size probabilities to the
experimented ones.

Table 7  The breakage function (BF), which represents fragments size

List of the BF model parameters.
distribution, was chosen from the list of functions described in
Materials t10 ¼ 1  exp(  aVbd0) a ¼ aa V ba dc0a the literature. The basis of the BF selection was the highest
fitting quality or the highest coefficient of determination (R2).
a b aa ba ca The original form of the chosen BF was transformed according
to the definition of system variables developed in this work.
Salt 5.0  10  2 2.0 0.6  0.3  0.24
Potash 2.8  10  3 2.3 1.1  0.2  0.15
 Both function parameters were found to be dependent on the
GNP 1.3  10  3 2.6 0.8  0.2  0.22 impact velocity and the initial particle size.
Zeolite 1.7  10  3 2.6 0.7  0.2  0.25  The procedure described in this paper makes it possible to
characterize any new material for breakage simulation and
analysis.

procedures. The system allows controlling different variables,

e.g. impact angle, particles velocity, etc., in order to investigate
their influence on particle population behavior. Nomenclature
 To represent the probability of the particles to break under
selected stressing conditions, the BP logistic function was a,b,a,f,t10, Av, Bv, aa,ba,ca model parameters
chosen. The basis of that selection was its mathematical Bi,j cumulative fragment size distribution (dimensionless)
simplicity and its ability to provide statistical meaning of d fragment particle diameter (m)
empirical parameters of the logistic function. d0 size of very fine fragments (m)
66 Y. Rozenblat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 71 (2012) 56–66

DI wideness of logistic distribution function (dimension- Cleaver, J.A.S., Ghadiri, M., Rolfe, N., 1993. Impact attrition of sodium monohydrate
less) crystals. Powder Technology 76, 15–22.
Cho, H., Austin, L.G., 2003. An equation for the breakage of particles under impact.
Di , Dj sieve size of fragments in size interval i or j (m) Powder Technology 132, 161–166.
d0 original particle size (m) Cleaver, J.A.S., Ghadiri, M., 1993. Impact attrition of sodium monohydrate crystals.
H hardness (Pa) Powder Technology 76, 15–22.
Duo, W., Boerefijn, R., Ghadiri, M., 1996. Impact attrition of fluid cracking catalyst.
i,j size intervals (dimensionless) In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Multiphase Flow in
Kc fracture toughness (N/m2) Industrial Plants, Amalfi, Italy, pp. 170–179.
l cube dimensions (m) Djamarani, K.M., Clark, I.M., 1997. Charcterization of particle size based on fine
and coarse fractions. Powder Technology 93, 101–108.
P breakage probability (dimensionless) Fahernwald, A.W., Newton, J., Herkernhoff, E., 1938. Velocity of hit in rock
R2 coefficient of determination (dimensionless) crushing. Engineering and Mining Journal 139, 43–46.
SI particle breakage probability or selection function Guigon, P., Thomas, A., Dodds, J., 1994. Experimental study of a jet of particles on a
plate. IFPRI Progress Report.
(dimensionless)
Harris, C.C., 1968. The application of size distribution equations to multi-event
t sequential time (ms) comminution process. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining,
V impact velocity (m/s) Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers 241, 343–358.
V50 median of impact velocity (m/s) Kalman, H., Rodnianski, V., Haim, M., 2009. A new method to implement
comminution functions into DEM simulation of a size reduction system due
r particle density (kg/m3) to particle-wall collisions. Granular Matter 11, 253–266.
Kalman, H., Hubert, M., Grant, E., Petukhov, Y., Haim, M., 2004. Fatigue behavior of
impact comminution and attrition units. Powder Technology 146, 1–9.
Subscripts Kapur, P.C., Pande, D., Fuerstenau, D.W., 1997. Analysis of single-particle breakage
by impact grinding. International Journal of Mineral Processing 49, 223–236.
calc/exp calculated or experimental value Lecoq, O., Guigon, P., Pons, M.N., 1999. A grindability test to study the influence of
material processing on impact behavior. Powder Technology 105, 21–29.
norm normalized value Piret, E.L., 1953. Fundamental aspects of grinding. Chemical Engineering Progress
49 (2), 56–63.
Petukhov, Y., Kalman, H., 2004. Empirical breakage ratio of particles due to impact.
Powder Technology 143–144, 160–169.
Peukert, W., Vogel, L., 2001. Comminution of polymers: an example of product
Acknowledgment
engineering. Chemical Engineering & Technology 24/9, 945–950.
Petukhov, Y., Kalman, H., 2003. A new apparatus for particle impcat tests. Particle
This research was supported by the German-Israeli Foundation & Particle Systems Characterization 20, 267–275.
Peukert, W., 2004. Material properties in fine grinding. International Journal of
for Scientific Research and Development (GIF). Mineral Processing 74, s3–s17.
Pocock, J., Veasey, T.J., Tavares, L.M., King, R.P., 1998. The effect and quenching on
References grinding characteristics of quartzite. Powder Technology 95, 137–142.
Rozenblat, Y., Portnikov, D., Levy, A., Kalman, H., Aman, S., Tomas, J., 2011. Strength
distribution of particles under compression. Powder Technology 208,
Andrews, E.W., Kim, K.S., 1999. Threshold conditions for dynamic fragmentation of 215–224.
glass particles. Mechanics of Materials 31, 689–703. Schubert, W., Khanal, M., Tomas, J., 2005. Impact crushing of particle  particle
Austin, L.G., 2002. A treatment of impact breakage of particles. Powder Technology compounds—experiment and simulation. International Journal of Mineral
126, 85–90. Processing 75 (1–2), 41–52.
Antonyuk, S., Khanal, M., Tomas, J., Heinrich, S., Morl, L., 2006. Impact breakage of Salman, A.D., Biggs, C.A., Fu, J., Angyal, I., Szabo, M., Hounslow, M.J., 2002. An
spherical granules: experimental study and DEM simulation. Chemical Engi- experimental investigation of particle fragmentation using single particle
neering and Processing 45/10, 838–856. impact studies. Powder Technology 128, 36–46.
Austin, L.G., Luckie, P.T., 1972. Estimation of non-normilized breakage distribution Schumann Jr., R., 1940. Principles of comminution, I. Size distribution and surface
parameters from batch grinding. Powder Technology 5, 267–277. calculations. AIME Technical Paper 1189, 1–11.
Brosh, T., Kalman, H., Levy, A. Impementation of comminution functions in DEM Tavares, L.M., 2004. Optimum routes for particle breakage by impact. Powder
simulation of dilute-phase pneumatic conveying. Grannular Matter, in press. Technology 142, 81–91.
Brosh, T., Kalman, H., Levy, A. DEM simulation of particle breakage in jet-mill, in Vogel, L., Peukert, W., 2002. Characterization of grinding-relevant particle proper-
preparation. ties by inverting a population balance model. Particle & Particles systems
Boerefijn, R., Ning, Z., Ghadiri, M., 1998. Disintegration of weak lactose agglom- Characterization 19, 149–157.
erates for inhalation applications. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 172, Weedon, D.M., Wilson, F., 2000. Modelling iron ore degradation using a twin
199–209. pendulum breakage device. International Journal of Mineral Processing 5,
Cheong, Y.S., Reynolds, G.K., Salman, A.D., Hounslow, M.J., 2004. Modelling 195–213.
fragment size distribution using two-parameter Weibull equation. Interna- Yashim, S., Saito, F., Horita, H., 1981. Single particle testing by double pendulum
tional Journal of Mineral Processing 74 S, s227–s237. type impact testing apparatus. Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 7/1, 83–89.