MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411027662 · doi:10.3390/min15060603

Prediction of Circulation Load of Side-Flanged High-Pressure Grinding Rolls Closed-Circuit Crushing

2025· article· en· W4411027662 on OpenAlexaff
Nan Li, Lixia Li, Jiaqi Wang, Zhe Liu, Quan Feng, Qiang Zhang, Hui Liu, Bern Klein, Bing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKey Research and Development Program of Liaoning ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGrindingCirculation (fluid dynamics)Materials scienceHigh pressureMetallurgyGeologyMechanical engineeringMechanicsStructural engineeringMarine engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To enhance the performance of the combined high-pressure grinding roller (HPGR) and tower mill (TM) process for −1 mm particle size, this study addresses the key technical challenges of insufficient material quantity (<100 kg) and complex experimental procedures in HPGR closed-circuit crushing tests by proposing a novel circulating load prediction method based on the principle of mass balance and first-order crushing kinetics. Using a side-flanged HPGR WGM 6020 installation, systematic −1 mm HPGR closed-circuit crushing tests were conducted on seven different ore samples under three specific pressing forces, with detailed characterization of the dynamic variations in product size distribution, specific energy consumption, and circulating load during each cycle. The results demonstrate that within the specific pressing force range of 3.5 N/mm2 to 4.5 N/mm2 when the crushing process reaches equilibrium, the circulating load stabilizes between 100% and 200%, while the specific energy consumption is maintained within 1–2.5 kWh/t. Notably, at the specific pressing force of 4.5 N/mm2, both the circulating load and specific energy consumption rapidly achieve stable states, with ore characteristics showing no significant influence on the number of cycles. To validate the model accuracy, additional samples were tested for comparative analysis, revealing that the deviations between the model-predicted −1 mm product content and circulating load and the experimental results were less than ±5%, confirming the reliability of the proposed method.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207