Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Investigation of particle dynamics and classification mechanism in a spiral jet mill through computational fluid dynamics and discrete element methods

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that in one-way CFD-DEM simulations, jet-mill classification locks onto the spin ratio, predicting a fixed cut size near 0.5–1.5 microns, so the missing powder feedback controls real product size.

desk verdict Honest scoping study; the hold-up conclusion is plausible but rides on an unvalidated k-epsilon near-wall flow field. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06965 v1 pith:F7CVRAGE submitted 2025-08-22 physics.comp-ph physics.app-phphysics.flu-dyn

Simone Bnà , Raffaele Ponzini , Mirko Cestari , Carlo Cavazzoni , Ciro Cottini , Andrea Benassi This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phphysics.app-phphysics.flu-dyn
keywords jetmillingmicronizationCFD-DEMparticleclassificationcutsizespinratiohold-upone-waycoupling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that, in a one-way CFD-DEM simulation of a spiral jet mill, the cut size (the largest particle that can escape through the classifier) stays pinned near 0.5–1.5 microns no matter how the grinding pressure, outlet pressure, nozzle angle, or classifier diameter are changed. This prediction contradicts experimental evidence, where higher grinding pressure does reduce product size. The authors conclude that particle classification and final product size are governed mainly by the slowdown of the milling fluid caused by the powder hold-up, the one effect a one-way coupling cannot capture. If correct, the result means single-phase or one-way simulations cannot quantitatively predict jet-mill product size, and progress requires two-way coupling with a faithful treatment of the hold-up.

What carries the argument

The cut-size equation derived by balancing the radial drag force against the centrifugal force of an orbiting particle, with the slip velocity approximated by the fluid's radial velocity and the particle tangential velocity taken equal to the fluid tangential velocity. This reduces the prediction to the spin ratio, the ratio of tangential to radial fluid velocity, and the classifier diameter. The argument also rests on the finding that the fluid's radial velocity points inward only in a narrow halo near the classifier rim and along the chamber walls, so fine particles reach the outlet by hugging the walls. A fake-diameter trick, in which particle density is rescaled so that the product of di

What would settle it

Measure the radial gas velocity just above the classifier rim with a non-intrusive optical technique, or run the same mill with a two-way coupled simulation that includes realistic hold-up; if the cut size shifts with grinding pressure or feed rate in either case, the claim that classification is fixed by the single-phase spin ratio is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cut size, computed from a balance between radial drag and centrifugal force, is determined entirely by the fluid's spin ratio (tangential divided by radial velocity) at the classifier rim. The authors solve the cut-size equation using their CFD fields and find values of roughly 0.5–0.6 microns, at most 1.5 microns even a few tenths of a millimeter above the rim, and this remains almost unchanged when grinding pressure, outlet pressure, nozzle angle, or classifier diameter are varied. Direct one-way DEM injections confirm that only 1-micron particles leave the chamber under most conditions. Because higher grinding pressure raises both velocity components linearly

Load-bearing premise

The flow field from a RANS k-epsilon model with wall functions, remapped onto a coarse DEM mesh, gives the correct sign and magnitude of the inward radial velocity near the classifier rim; if that near-wall radial pattern is an artifact of the turbulence model or the resampling, the cut-size value and the wall-hugging trajectory picture collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Grinding pressure changes will not change the classified product size in any model that neglects powder feedback, so one-way coupling cannot reproduce the experimentally observed pressure dependence of cut size.
  • Nozzle angle and classifier geometry have only weak effects on the cut size in the single-phase flow, implying that reported geometry-dependent changes in product size are also mediated by the hold-up.
  • Fine particles escape the milling chamber by orbiting close to the horizontal walls and the classifier rim, which explains the weak experimental dependence of cut size on chamber height.
  • A quantitative predictive jet-mill simulation must include two-way (or four-way) coupling with a coarse-graining strategy that reproduces collision statistics, not just particle trajectories.
  • Lift and torque terms are negligible for particles below about 50 microns, so drag alone can describe trajectories, simplifying the design of coarse-grained simulations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If hold-up slowdown is the dominant control, then powder feed rate becomes a primary knob for product size: higher feed rate should raise the hold-up, lower the tangential velocity, and increase the cut size, a direct prediction that a two-way coupled simulation could test.
  • The near-wall radial velocity pattern that carries the whole argument comes from a RANS turbulence model with wall functions; resolving the boundary layer or using a scale-resolving turbulence model could change the sign and magnitude of the inward radial component near the rim, and with it the cut-size prediction.
  • The fake-diameter trick preserves trajectories but distorts collision energies and wall crowding; any coarse-graining built on it should be validated against true-diameter collision statistics before being used for breakage modelling.
  • A practical plant-side test of the paper's thesis would be to measure the hold-up mass in the mill and check whether the cut size tracks the estimated fluid slowdown rather than the inlet pressure conditions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a compressible RANS k–ε CFD model of a 100-mm spiral jet mill with six grinding nozzles, remaps the steady-state fields onto a coarser DEM mesh, and performs one-way unresolved CFD–DEM simulations with drag, lift, torque, and Hertz–Mindlin collisions. Using both the analytical cut-size equation (8) and polydisperse DEM particle injections, it reports a cut size of roughly 0.5–1.5 μm that is nearly independent of grinding/outlet pressure and of nozzle angle, classifier diameter, and classifier penetration. Because this invariance is said to contradict experimental evidence, the paper concludes that particle classification and product size are mainly driven by the milling-fluid slowdown caused by powder hold-up, and it calls for four-way coupling and coarse-graining. The paper also examines collision statistics as a function of particle number and discusses the main bottlenecks toward predictive jet-mill simulation.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper is significant for the jet-milling community: it would redirect modeling effort from single-phase CFD and one-way coupling toward two-way/ four-way coupled simulations with hold-up feedback. The manuscript is unusually transparent: it checks pilot-plant mass-flow rates and nozzle energy (Fig. 2), provides CFD mesh sensitivity (App. A), DEM mesh and wall-mesh sensitivity (App. B), and explicitly lists limitations. The strength of the paper is its qualitative mechanism analysis and its careful inventory of missing physics rather than quantitative prediction. The main weakness is that the load-bearing classification result rests on an unvalidated near-wall radial velocity field and on an internal consistency check between Eq. (8) and DEM using the same CFD input, so the headline conclusion is model-conditional rather than directly demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, §5, Figs. 9–10 and 14–15] The DEM injection tests are presented as confirmation that Eq. (8) predicts the correct cut size, but both approaches use the same CFD steady-state velocity, density, and temperature fields. The agreement therefore checks the internal consistency of two reductions of the same input, not the predictive validity of the cut-size model. No independent measurement of classifier-region radial velocity or of product size distribution is given. The conclusion in §8 that Eq. (8) 'works nicely in predicting the correct maximum size' overstates the evidence; the claims should be reframed as consistency within the model, or an external comparison should be added.
  2. [§2.2, §4, §5, App. B, Figs. B.1–B.2] The robustness of δ_cut is conditional on the sign and magnitude of the near-wall radial velocity from k–ε RANS with wall functions, after remapping to a 1-mm DEM mesh. Section 2.2 admits that k–ε is not optimal for swirls and vortices, and App. B shows that increasing the DEM mesh from 1 to 5 mm qualitatively changes classification because the inward-radial-velocity region across the classifier rim is artificially enlarged. No 0.5-mm DEM mesh check and no comparison with a swirl-sensitive turbulence model (RSM or LES) are reported. Since δ_cut is governed by (v_r^f/v_t^f)^2 at the rim, the pressure/geometry invariance could be an artifact of using the same biased near-wall flow in every case. At minimum, the paper should report a finer DEM remapping or a turbulence-model comparison, or explicitly restrict the claim to the present k–ε, 1-mm-resampled flow model.
  3. [§2.3, Table 3, Figs. 3, 10, 15] The central classification tests use the fake-diameter method with δ_fake = 200 μm and adjusted density. Table 3 shows that for 1 μm particles the particle-wall collision probability is 0.17 (fake) vs 0.73 (true), and Fig. 3 shows collision-velocity differences. Because small-particle classification is controlled by wall-adjacent trajectories and residence time, the simulated escape behavior ('only 1 μm particles leave') may be biased by the larger fake particles' excluded volume near walls. The method is validated for drag-only trajectories, but not for classification statistics in wall-dominated regions. A demonstration that classification is insensitive to δ_fake, or a direct simulation of true 1–2 μm particles in the classifier region, is needed.
  4. [§4, §7, §8] The headline conclusion that hold-up slowdown is the dominant missing physics is not directly tested: the simulations are one-way, so the fluid cannot be slowed by the powder, and no two-way case or measured fluid velocity in the loaded mill is presented. The pressure-invariance of δ_cut is consistent with the hold-up hypothesis, but alternative explanations (e.g., the biased near-wall flow discussed above, or size-dependent breakage/classification coupling) are not excluded. The paper should either soften the causal claim or test it with a two-way/four-way simulation at finite hold-up.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (12)] The term '+ (v_p - v_f) · r_hat r_hat / |r_p|' is ambiguous; it should presumably read '[(v_p - v_f) · r_hat] r_hat / |r_p|' to project the slip velocity onto the radial direction.
  2. [§3, Fig. 6, Fig. 8] The text defines the spin ratio as v_t^f/v_r^f, but several panels are labeled 'inverse of spin ratio.' Please make the notation and panel labels consistent.
  3. [§5, Fig. 14] Fig. 14(b) is cited for both the effect of classifier penetration ℓ and the effect of classifier diameter d; the panel labels/legend should separate these two cases to avoid confusion.
  4. [References] Ref. [13] has a typo ('Cheical Eng.'), and the spelling 'Rondniansky' appears in §5 while the bibliography uses 'Rodnianski.' Please standardize.
  5. [§2.3, Fig. 3] In Fig. 3(c)-(d), the fake-diameter rotational-energy curve for δ=1 μm is omitted; state this explicitly in the caption, as is done in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CFD-DEM analysis is self-contained and the central conclusion is grounded in independent experimental evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (i) steady RANS k-ε CFD fields are computed from first-principles conservation equations with measured inlet mass-flow boundary conditions; (ii) the cut-size equation (8) is derived analytically from a force balance and evaluated using those CFD fields; (iii) one-way CFD-DEM simulations integrate the same drag law on the same CFD field and produce consistent classification. No parameter is fitted to the target outcome (the 0.5–1.5 µm cut size); the DEM result is a cross-check of the approximations in eq. (8), not a separate prediction of the experimental cut size. The headline conclusion—that hold-up slowdown is the dominant missing physics—is based on the mismatch between the model's pressure-invariant cut size and the experimentally observed decrease of cut size with increasing grinding pressure, i.e. on external data, not on a self-citation or on an equation that defines its own output. The paper explicitly acknowledges limitations (k-ε for swirling flows, wall functions, DEM mesh coarsening, one-way coupling), and Appendix B documents the DEM mesh sensitivity. These are correctness/robustness risks, not circularity: the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no uniqueness claims imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central classification result rests on modeled fluid fields and DEM contact choices, not on measured particle data. The most important ledger entries are the one-way coupling and dilute drag premise, the k-epsilon radial velocity assumption, and the deliberately softened contact parameters. All are acknowledged by the authors but remain unvalidated for the jet-mill regime.

free parameters (6)
  • DEM particle normal stiffness (Young's modulus) = 5 MPa particle-particle, 100 MPa particle-wall
    Reduced orders of magnitude below lactose and steel to allow larger timesteps; the paper says it is a standard DEM trick but it changes particle deformation, and is only justified for dilute uncompressed powders.
  • DEM restitution coefficient = 0.2 for both particle-particle and particle-wall
    Chosen from experience modeling lactose, calibrated in static and dynamic applications far from jet-mill energies, as stated in Appendix B.
  • DEM sliding friction coefficient = 0.5
    Same calibration caveat as restitution; not measured at jet-mill impact energies.
  • DEM rolling friction coefficient = 0.3 particle-particle, 0.1 particle-wall
    Chosen by experience; not validated for the milling regime.
  • DEM coupling mesh size = 1 mm
    Selected after sensitivity analysis; changing to 5 mm changes whether 1 micron particles are classified, so this discretization choice partially determines the central result.
  • Cut-size evaluation height above classifier rim = 0.5 mm
    Equation (8) is evaluated along the classifier circumference at this height; moving a few fractions of a millimeter can change the cut size up to about 1 micron.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The milling gas can be described as a steady compressible ideal gas with RANS k-epsilon turbulence and wall functions.
    Section 2.2; the authors explicitly note eddy-viscosity models are insensitive to swirl and curvature, so this is a load-bearing modeling premise.
  • domain assumption One-way coupling is sufficient at the simulated low hold-up: particles do not alter the fluid.
    Section 2.3; real hold-up volume fraction is estimated at 0.02 to 0.1 in Section 1.2, well above the dilute limit, so this premise fails for the real mill and is used mainly to diagnose the missing feedback.
  • domain assumption The cut-size equation assumptions hold at the classifier: particle tangential velocity equals fluid tangential velocity and particle radial velocity is negligible.
    Section 1.2; assumption 2 requires small hold-up, which the authors themselves identify as not met in real mills.
  • domain assumption Dilute Schiller-Naumann drag applies without Di Felice wake corrections.
    Section 2.3; valid only for solid volume fraction below about 1e-3, while real hold-up gives 0.02 to 0.1; the paper notes this and plans corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper Reduced Young's modulus does not affect collision statistics because the powder is dilute and uncompressed.
    Appendix B; cited as standard, but not verified for jet-mill impact energies.
  • domain assumption Lift and Stokes torque are negligible for particles up to tens of microns in this geometry.
    Section 6; tested by turning terms on in DEM for specific cases, but not across all geometries and powder fractions.
invented entities (1)
  • Fake diameter and fake density particles
    purpose: Allow simultaneous simulation of particles spanning 1 to 50 microns by keeping the product of diameter and density equal to the real particle value, so drag-only trajectories match.
    This is a computational surrogate, not a physical entity. It preserves drag trajectories but not collision energies, frequencies, or volume fractions, as the paper demonstrates in Table 3 and Figure 3. No independent evidence is possible by construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigation of particle dynamics and classification mechanism in a spiral jet mill through computational fluid dynamics and discrete element methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7CVRAGE

@misc{pith2026250906965,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigation of particle dynamics and classification mechanism in a spiral jet mill through computational fluid dynamics and discrete element methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7CVRAGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06965}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting the outcome of jet-milling based on the knowledge of process parameters and starting material properties is a task still far from being accomplished. Given the technical difficulties in measuring thermodynamics, flow properties and particle statistics directly in the mills, modelling and simulations constitute alternative tools to gain insight in the process physics and many papers have been recently published on the subject. An ideal predictive simulation tool should combine the correct description of non-isothermal, compressible, high Mach number fluid flow, the correct particle-fluid and particle-particle interactions and the correct fracture mechanics of particle upon collisions but it is not currently available. In this paper we present our coupled CFD-DEM simulation results; while comparing them with the recent modelling and experimental works we will review the current understating of the jet-mill physics and particle classification. Subsequently we analyze the missing elements and the bottlenecks currently limiting the simulation technique as well as the possible ways to circumvent them towards a quantitative, predictive simulation of jet-milling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06965 by the authors.

Figure 17
Figure 17. This is due to the shortening of the mean free path and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Sketch of the model milling chamber geometry highlighting inlets, outlet and classifier. (b) velocity components in the Eulerian description of the milling fluid motion. (c) velocity components and trajectory in the Lagrangian description of the particle motion. (d) Principal geometric parameters characterizing the milling chamber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Poly-disperse particle injection for the case 𝑝0 = 7 𝑏𝑎𝑟, 𝛼 = 26°, 𝑑 = 35 𝑚𝑚, ℓ = 9.5 𝑚𝑚 and 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 1 𝑎𝑡𝑚. (a) incoming mass flow rate from the feed inlet (blue) and outgoing mass flow rate from the classifier (orange) during the DEM simulation. (b) particle positions few moments after the injection started. (c) top and side view of particle positions at 0.08 s, i.e. once a steady state is fully developed, all the p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Poly-disperse particle injection for the case 𝑝0 = 8 𝑏𝑎𝑟, 𝑝𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 = 9 𝑏𝑎𝑟, 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 1 𝑎𝑡𝑚 and with geometric parameters 𝛼 = 50°, 𝑑 = 50 𝑚𝑚, ℓ = 12.75 𝑚𝑚 . (a) incoming mass flow rate from the feed inlet (blue) and outgoing mass flow rate from the classifier (orange and gr…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Mono-disperse 20 µm diameter particle injections for the case 𝑝0 = 8 𝑏𝑎𝑟, 𝑝𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 = 9 𝑏𝑎𝑟, 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 1 𝑎𝑡𝑚 and with geometric parameters 𝛼 = 50°, 𝑑 = 50 𝑚𝑚, ℓ = 12.75 𝑚𝑚 . (a) total number of collisions as a function of the number of injected particles (green line with rig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Djokić, J

    M. Djokić, J. Djuriš, L. Solomun, K. Kachrimanis, Z. Djurić, S. Ibrić, The influence of spiral jet-milling on the physicochemical properties of carbamazepine form III crystals: Quality by design approach, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 92 (2014) 500–508. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2013.09.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2013.09.011 2014

  2. [2]

    Djokić, K

    M. Djokić, K. Kachrimanis, L. Solomun, J. Djuriš, D. Vasiljević, S. Ibrić, A study of jet-milling and spray- drying process for the physicochemical and aerodynamic dispersion properties of amiloride HCl, Powder Technol. 262 (2014) 170–176. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2014.04.066

    doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2014.04.066 2014

  3. [3]

    H. Sun, B. Hohl, Y. Cao, C. Handwerker, T.S. Rushing, T.K. Cummins, J. Weiss, Jet mill grinding of portland cement, limestone, and fly ash: Impact on particle size, hydration rate, and strength, Cem. Concr. Compos. 44 (2013) 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.03.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.03.023 2013

  4. [4]

    S. Naik, B. Chaudhuri, Quantifying Dry Milling in Pharmaceutical Processing: A Review on Experimental and Modeling Approaches, J. Pharm. Sci. 104 (2015) 2401–2413. doi:10.1002/jps.24512

    work page doi:10.1002/jps.24512 2015

  5. [5]

    Cengel, J

    Y. Cengel, J. Cimbala, Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, McGraw Hill Education, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Finlay, The mechanics of inhaled pharmaceutical aerosols, Academic Press, 2001

    W.H. Finlay, The mechanics of inhaled pharmaceutical aerosols, Academic Press, 2001

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Müller, R

    F. Müller, R. Polke, G. Schädel, Spiral jet mills: hold up and scale up, Int. J. Miner. Process. 44–45 (1996) 315–326. doi:10.1016/0301-7516(95)00042-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0301-7516(95)00042-9 1996

  8. [8]

    Norouzi, R

    H.R. Norouzi, R. Zarghami, R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh, N. Mostoufi, Coupled CFD-DEM Modeling, John Wiley & Sons, 2016

    2016

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    MacDonald, D

    R. MacDonald, D. Rowe, E. Martin, L. Gorringe, The spiral jet mill cut size equation, Powder Technol. 299 (2016) 26–40. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2016.05.016

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    MacDonald, Optimisation and Modelling of the Spiral Jet Mill, 2017

    R. MacDonald, Optimisation and Modelling of the Spiral Jet Mill, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Rodnianski, N

    V. Rodnianski, N. Krakauer, K. Darwesh, A. Levy, H. Kalman, I. Peyron, F. Ricard, Aerodynamic classification in a spiral jet mill, Powder Technol. 243 (2013) 110–119. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2013.03.018

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Salman, G.K

    A.D. Salman, G.K. Reynolds, J.S. Fu, Y.S. Cheong, C.A. Biggs, M.J. Adams, D.A. Gorham, J. Lukenics, M.J. Hounslow, Descriptive classification of the impact failure modes of spherical particles, Powder Technol. 144 (2004) 19–30. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2004.04.005

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    Rozenblat, E

    Y. Rozenblat, E. Grant, A. Levy, H. Kalman, Selection and breakage functions of particles under impact loads, Cheical Eng. Sci. 71 (2012) 56–66. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2011.12.012

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Meier, E

    M. Meier, E. John, D. Wieckhusen, W. Wirth, W. Peukert, Influence of mechanical properties on impact fracture: Prediction of the milling behaviour of pharmaceutical powders by nanoindentation, Powder Technol. 188 (2009) 301–313. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2008.05.009

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    Vogel, W

    L. Vogel, W. Peukert, Breakage behaviour of different materials - construction of a mastercurve for the breakage probability, Powder Technol. 129 (2003) 101–110

    2003

  8. [16]

    Taylor, D.G

    L.J. Taylor, D.G. Papadopoulos, P.J. Dunn, A.C. Bentham, Mechanical characterisation of powders using nanoindentation, Powder Technol. 144 (2004) 179–185. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2004.04.012

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    Perkins, S.J

    M. Perkins, S.J. Ebbens, S. Hayes, C.J. Roberts, C.E. Madden, S.Y. Luk, N. Patel, Elastic modulus measurements from individual lactose particles using atomic force microscopy, Int. J. Pharm. 332 (2007) 168–175. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2006.09.032. 64

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    Passeri, A

    D. Passeri, A. Bettucci, A. Biagioni, M. Rossi, A. Alippi, M. Lucci, I. Davoli, S. Berezina, Quantitative measurement of indentation hardness and modulus of compliant materials by atomic force microscopy, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 79 (2008). doi:10.1063/1.2949387

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    X. Cao, M. Morganti, B.C. Hancock, V.M. Masterson, Correlating Particle Hardness With Powder Compaction Performance, J. Pharm. Sci. 99 (2010) 4307–4316. doi:10.1002/jps.22130

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    Broitman, Indentation Hardness Measurements at Macro-, Micro-, and Nanoscale: A Critical Overview, Tribol

    E. Broitman, Indentation Hardness Measurements at Macro-, Micro-, and Nanoscale: A Critical Overview, Tribol. Lett. 65 (2017) 1–18. doi:10.1007/s11249-016-0805-5

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    De Vegt, Jet milling from a particle perspective, RijksuniversiteitGroningen, 2007

    M. De Vegt, Jet milling from a particle perspective, RijksuniversiteitGroningen, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Sonnergaard, A Critical Evaluation of the Heckel Equation, Int

    J.M. Sonnergaard, A Critical Evaluation of the Heckel Equation, Int. J. Pharm. 193 (1999) 63–71. doi:10.1016/S0378-5173(99)00319-1

    1999 doi

  15. [23]

    G.F. Foad Mahmoodi, Ingvild Klevan, Josefina Nordström, Göran Alderborn, A comparison between two powder compaction parameters of plasticity; The effective medium A parameter and The Heckel 1/K parameter, Int. J. Pharm. 453 (2013) 295–299

    2013

  16. [24]

    a Kubavat, The Influence of crystallisation on the mechanical and interfacial properties of active pharmaceutical ingredients, University of Bath, 2011

    H. a Kubavat, The Influence of crystallisation on the mechanical and interfacial properties of active pharmaceutical ingredients, University of Bath, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Kubavat, J

    H.A. Kubavat, J. Shur, G. Ruecroft, D. Hipkiss, R. Price, Influence of primary crystallisation conditions on the mechanical and interfacial properties of micronised budesonide for dry powder inhalation, Int. J. Pharm. 430 (2012) 26–33. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2012.03.020

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    De Vegt, H

    O. De Vegt, H. Vromans, J. Den Toonder, K. Van Der Voort, In fluence of flaws and crystal properties on particle fracture in a jet mill, Powder Technol. 191 (2009) 72–77. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2008.09.014

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    Depasquale, Mechanical Activation of Secondary Processed Orally Inhaled Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, University of Bath, 2014

    R. Depasquale, Mechanical Activation of Secondary Processed Orally Inhaled Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, University of Bath, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Depasquale, S.L

    R. Depasquale, S.L. Lee, B. Saluja, J. Shur, R. Price, The Influence of Secondary Processing on the Structural Relaxation Dynamics of Fluticasone Propionate, AAPS Pharm.Sci.Tech. 16 (2015). doi:10.1208/s12249-014-0222-8

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Byard, C

    S.J. Byard, C. Tappertzhofen, D. Andert, C. Petzoldt, M.P. Feth, O. Bley, B. Baumgartner, N. Nagel, An example of how to handle amorphous fractions in API during early pharmaceutical development: SAR114137 – A successful approach, Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 86 (2013) 337–350. do...

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    W.S. Choi, H. Il Kim, S.S. Kwak, H.Y. Chung, H.Y. Chung, K. Yamamoto, T. Oguchi, Y. Tozuka, E. Yonemochi, K. Terada, Amorphous ultrafine particle preparation for improvement of bioavailability of insoluble drugs: Grinding characteristics of fine grinding mills, Int. J. Miner. ...

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    Midoux, P

    N. Midoux, P. Hošek, L. Pailleres, J.R. Authelin, Micronization of pharmaceutical substances in a spiral jet mill, Powder Technol. 104 (1999) 113–120. doi:10.1016/S0032-5910(99)00052-2

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    S. Aman, J. Tomas, H. Kalman, Breakage probability of irregularly shaped particles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (2010) 1503–1512. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2009.10.016

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    Nakach, J.-R

    M. Nakach, J.-R. Authelin, C. Corsini, G. Gianola, Jet milling industrialization of sticky active pharmaceutical ingredient using quality-by-design approach, Pharm. Dev. Technol. 24 (2019) 849–

    2019

  26. [34]

    Rodnianski, A

    V. Rodnianski, A. Levy, H. Kalman, A new method for simulation of comminution process in jet mills, Powder Technol. 343 (2019) 867–879. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2018.11.021. 65

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    T. Han, H. Kalman, A. Levy, DEM simulation of particle comminution in jet milling, Part. Sci. Technol. 20 (2002) 325–340. doi:10.1080/02726350216184

    2002 doi

  28. [36]

    A. Levy, H. Kalman, Numerical study of particle motion in jet milling, Part. Sci. Technol. 25 (2007) 197–204. doi:10.1080/02726350701257618

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    S. Teng, P. Wang, L. Zhu, M.W. Young, C.G. Gogos, Experimental and numerical analysis of a lab- scale fluid energy mill, Powder Technol. 195 (2009) 31–39. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2009.05.013

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    Kozawa, T

    K. Kozawa, T. Seto, Y. Otani, Development of a spiral-flow jet mill with improved classification performance, Adv. Powder Technol. 23 (2012) 601–606. doi:10.1016/j.apt.2011.06.008

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Brosh, H

    T. Brosh, H. Kalman, A. Levy, I. Peyron, F. Ricard, DEM-CFD simulation of particle comminution in jet- mill, Powder Technol. 257 (2014) 104–112. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2014.02.043

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Dogbe, M

    S. Dogbe, M. Ghadiri, A. Hassanpour, C. Hare, D. Wilson, R. Storey, I. Crosley, Fluid-particle energy transfer in spiral jet milling, EPJ Web Conf. 140 (2017) 7–10. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201714009040

    2017

  33. [41]

    S. Teng, P. Wang, Q. Zhang, C. Gogos, Analysis of Fluid Energy Mill by gas-solid two-phase flow simulation, Powder Technol. 208 (2011) 684–693. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2010.12.033

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    Kalman, V

    H. Kalman, V. Rodnianski, M. Haim, A new method to implement comminution functions into DEM simulation of a size reduction system due to particle-wall collisions, Granul. Matter. 11 (2009) 253–

    2009

  35. [43]

    Brosh, H

    T. Brosh, H. Kalman, A. Levy, Accelerating CFD-DEM simulation of processes with wide particle size distributions, Particuology. 12 (2014) 113–121. doi:10.1016/j.partic.2013.04.008

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Luczak, R

    B. Luczak, R. Müller, M. Ulbricht, H.J. Schultz, Experimental analysis of the flow conditions in spiral jet mills via non-invasive optical methods, Powder Technol. 325 (2018) 161–166. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2017.10.048

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Luczak, R

    B. Luczak, R. Müller, C. Kessel, M. Ulbricht, H.J. Schultz, Visualization of flow conditions inside spiral jet mills with different nozzle numbers– Analysis of unloaded and loaded mills and correlation with grinding performance, Powder Technol. 342 (2019) 108–117. doi:10.1016/...

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Luczak, Flow conditions inside spiral jet mills and impact on grinding performance, 2018

    B. Luczak, Flow conditions inside spiral jet mills and impact on grinding performance, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    https://openfoam.org/

    The OpenFOAM Foundation, (n.d.). https://openfoam.org/

  40. [48]

    Weller, G

    H.G. Weller, G. Tabor, H. Jasak, C. Fureby, A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques, Comput. Phys. 12 (1998) 620–631

    1998

  41. [49]

    Patankar, D.B

    S.V. Patankar, D.B. Spalding, A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 15 (1972) 1787–1806

    1972

  42. [50]

    Versteeg, W

    H.K. Versteeg, W. Malalasekera, An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method, PEARSON Prentice Hall, 1995

    1995

  43. [51]

    143 (2017) 2027

    Fürst, Jir\’\i, On the implicit density based OpenFOAM solver for turbulent compressible flows, EPJ Web Conf. 143 (2017) 2027. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201714302027

    2017

  44. [52]

    Stephens, C

    D.W. Stephens, C. Sideroff, A. Jemcov, Simulation and validation of turbulent gas flow in a cyclone using caelus, 11th Int. Conf. CFD Miner. Process Ind. (2015) 1–7

    2015

  45. [53]

    Gimbun, T.G

    J. Gimbun, T.G. Chuah, T.S.Y. Choong, A. Fakhru’l-Razi, A CFD Study on the Prediction of Cyclone Collection Efficiency, Int. J. Comput. Methods Eng. Sci. Mech. 6 (2005) 161–168. doi:10.1080/15502280590923649

    2005 doi

  46. [54]

    Russo, N.T

    F. Russo, N.T. Basse, Scaling of turbulence intensity for low-speed flow in smooth pipes, Flow Meas. 66 Instrum. 52 (2016) 101–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2016.09.012

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Kloss, C

    C. Kloss, C. Goniva, A. Hager, S. Amberger, S. Pirker, Models, algorithms and validation for opensource DEM and CFD-DEM, Prog. Comput. Fluid Dyn. An Int. J. 12 (2012) 140. doi:10.1504/PCFD.2012.047457

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Di Renzo, F.P

    A. Di Renzo, F.P. Di Maio, Comparison of contact-force models for the simulation of collisions in DEM-based granular flow codes, Chem. Eng. Sci. 59 (2004) 525–541. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2003.09.037

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    Ai, J.-F

    J. Ai, J.-F. Chen, J.M. Rotter, J.Y. Ooi, Assessment of rolling resistance models in discrete element simulations, Powder Technol. 206 (2011) 269–282. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2010.09.030

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    Schiller L., A drag coefficient correlation, Zeitschrift Des Vereins Dtsch

    N.A. Schiller L., A drag coefficient correlation, Zeitschrift Des Vereins Dtsch. Ingenieure. 77 (1935) 318–320

    1935

  51. [59]

    Rubinow S. I., K.J. B., The transverse force on a spinning sphere moving in a viscous liquid", J. Fluid Mech. 11 (1961) 447–459

    1961

  52. [60]

    Boyce, D.J

    C.M. Boyce, D.J. Holland, S.A. Scott, J.S. Dennis, Limitations on Fluid Grid Sizing for Using Volume- Averaged Fluid Equations in Discrete Element Models of Fluidized Beds, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54 (2015) 10684–10697. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03186

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Fulga, E

    I. Fulga, E. Strajescu, Contributions to Fluid Dynamics in jetmills by a new aerodynamic model of supersonic flow, UPB Sci. Bull. Ser. D Mech. Eng. 71 (2009) 191–206

    2009

  54. [62]

    A. Katz, H. Kalman, Preliminary experimental analysis of a spiral jet mill performance, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 24 (2007) 332–338. doi:10.1002/ppsc.200601114

    2007 doi

  55. [63]

    Tuunila, L

    R. Tuunila, L. Nyström, Effects of grinding parameters on product fineness in jet mill grinding, Miner. Eng. 11 (1998) 1089–1094. doi:10.1016/S0892-6875(98)00095-8

    1998 doi

  56. [64]

    Kurten, H

    H. Kurten, H. Rumpf, Zerkleinerungsuntersuchungen mit triboluminesziereden Stoffen, Chemie Ing. Tech. 38 (1966) 331

    1966

  57. [65]

    Nguyen, J

    D. Nguyen, J. Remmelgas, I.N. Björn, B. van Wachem, K. Thalberg, Towards quantitative prediction of the performance of dry powder inhalers by multi-scale simulations and experiments, Int. J. Pharm. 547 (2018) 31–43. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.05.047

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Sommerfeld, Y

    M. Sommerfeld, Y. Cui, S. Schmalfuß, Potential and constraints for the application of CFD combined with Lagrangian particle tracking to dry powder inhalers, Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 128 (2019) 299–324. doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2018.12.008

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    Ruzycki, E

    C.A. Ruzycki, E. Javaheri, W.H. Finlay, The use of computational fluid dynamics in inhaler design, Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 10 (2013) 307–323. doi:10.1517/17425247.2013.753053

    2013

  60. [68]

    J. Tu, K. Inthavong, A. Goodarz, Computational Fluid and Particle Dynamics in the Human Respiratory System, Springer Netherlands, 2013

    2013

  61. [69]

    Dehbi, Turbulent particle dispersion in arbitrary wall-bounded geometries: A coupled CFD- Langevin-equation based approach, Int

    A. Dehbi, Turbulent particle dispersion in arbitrary wall-bounded geometries: A coupled CFD- Langevin-equation based approach, Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 34 (2008) 819–828. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2008.03.001

    2008 doi

  62. [70]

    Paulick, M

    M. Paulick, M. Morgeneyer, A. Kwade, Review on the influence of elastic particle properties on DEM simulation results, Powder Technol. 283 (2015) 66–76. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2015.03.040

    2015 doi

  63. [266]

    doi:10.1007/s10035-009-0140-8

    doi

  64. [863]

    doi:10.1080/10837450.2019.1608449

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.