Kinematic analysis reveals effects of crank parameters on screening efficiency of sea buckthorn particles, implying optimization pathways.
Variable-amplitude vibrating screens are widely adopted for screening frozen sea buckthorn berry particles. Investigating their motion characteristics and particle behaviors on the screen surface is essential for optimizing the screening process and improving equipment performance and screening efficiency. In this work, a variable-amplitude vibrating screen is taken as the research subject. Its structural composition and working principle are elaborated, and kinematic simulations are conducted via RecurDyn. The results reveal that the vertical amplitude and velocity of the screen surface increase gradually from the feed end to the discharge end, which facilitates rapid particle penetration. Meanwhile, the horizontal velocity remains stable across all sections of the screen. Specifically, crank length governs the screen amplitude, while crank rotational speed determines the vibration frequency. A dynamic model of particles and the screen surface is established by combining EDEM 2024 and RecurDyn V9R4, and two-way coupling of the discrete element model is realized. Coupled simulation results indicate that the dynamic screening efficiency rises with increasing crank length and rotational speed, reaching the maximum at a crank length of 20 mm and a rotational speed of 208 r/min. Crank parameters exert remarkable effects on the thickness of the particle layer and the quantity of penetrated particles: a thicker particle layer leads to a longer residence time of materials on the screen. Field tests are carried out to verify the model accuracy. It turns out that the simulation results are basically consistent with experimental data. In conclusion, crank length and rotational speed are critical influencing factors for variable-amplitude vibrating screens. Research on the screen’s motion characteristics and particle behaviors can provide a theoretical reference for its efficient operation and optimal design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: